3 ms·

> When all evidence points in the opposite direction? Hmmm, can't let that go. Look, everything done in that situation was a dickish thing, but Adria got dumpe

by sago 12y ago

> When all evidence points in the opposite direction? Hmmm, can't let that go. Look, everything done in that situation was a dickish thing, but Adria got dumped on in every exchange. 1. Guys enjoy a bit of innuendo without having the common sense to figure that it is inappropriate in the middle of a hall (quiet or not) at a professional conference. That's not cool. 2. Adria takes a photo and calls out the guys doing it to her followers on Twitter. That's not cool either. 3. A bunch of self-righteous twitter folks decide to make "Hank" pay, and tweet his boss demanding his job. Ugh. 4. His employers then fire him. WTF? 5. Internet shitstorm of epic proportion lands on Adria, rape and death threats, doxing, a DDoS attack on her employer, who is blackmailed to fire her. WTactualF? I don't think anyone comes out of that smelling of roses. But "Hank" and Adria's misdemenours were pretty minor "could have done that better" or "could have been more considerate" stuff. There's no reason to assume any malice aforethought in either of them. And more to the point, whatever "Hank" suffered, Adria was dumped on tenfold. So unsympathetic or not, we should all be really angry at the way Adria was treated. To suggest it her is attitude that hurts equality in tech is pretty low, I think. And, those of us who haven't been professionally assaulted, and personally threatened and hounded, should probably cut her a break before accusing her of doing it for profit.

MichaelGG 12y ago
Continue on in the story: > Adria: "Maybe he’s to blame for complaining that he got fired. Maybe he secretly seeded the hate groups. Right?" Um, no? With zero evidence, it's rather a big thing to accuse someone of. She goes on: > Adria replied that she was happy to hear that Hank “wasn’t active in driving their interests to mount the raid attack”, but that she held him responsible for it anyway. So she accuses him. Then is told he didn't do anything. She persists in blaming him anyways. Apparently he's just guilty, full stop, no matter what he did? Giving her a profit motive was actually intended as a compliment. As in, there's no way anyone can actually think it's fair or two same to blame someone for someone else's actions when there's no evidence it was their fault. Therefore, instead of just becoming another Lindsay Stone and painting over a past mistake, why not go all out, admit no fault, and gain followers that way? At least that makes sense. The alternative is to actually believe she thinks it's fair to blame you if someone else acts on their own accord, but in your "favor". That's pretty horrific. And I say that this incident, hurts equality, because the initiating episode isn't something that anyone should take seriously. Then, after all this abuse is piled on her, the same guy who made a joke is held responsible for an Internet mob. That distracts from the real problem, doesn't it? (And as a "disclaimer", no one is excusing /b/, and it's stupid (and just weird) to 'shop porn pics and death threats. It draws attention away from the individual suffering. But like groups that riot over cartoons, I don't think anyone expects to be talking to or convincing people taking part in the riot, right? What's an actual, useful, response, to the abuse Adria got? Does anyone support it? Does anyone think it's effective? Suppose I wanted to teach trolls a lesson or stand against them, how would I do that?)
- sago 12y ago
  You didn't get round to the point where all the evidence points in the other direction. There's a lot in there about how and why you think Adria is unreasonable in her reaction to "Hank" and what happened. But that's not the same thing. You're coming across as someone who feels they have a grievance against her. Particularly doubling down on the "profit motive" accusation. One that was, incidentally, used to incite against her in the initial onslaught. > Does anyone support it? Does anyone think it's effective? Would anyone rather talk about what Adria did and is doing wrong instead?
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    > You didn't get round to the point where all the evidence points in the other direction. Wait, what? Where? I quoted from near the end of the section on Adria/Hank. After that it just mentions that he is a bit more careful, and Adria doesn't have a job. Where's the evidence? Maybe I'm reading another story, because this one paints a very bad picture of Adria, basically having her throw accusations at this guy of inciting hate towards her, saying the guy was innocent, then saying he's to blame regardless. Could you tell me how I am misreading it, for real?
    - sago 12y ago
      Sorry, I read your original comment about "the evidence points in the other direction" as being about the original incident, that's why I was expecting you to justify the point you didn't, in fact, make. My apologies for deriding a made up argument.
  - Scramblejams 12y ago
    Both were treated deplorably. "Hank" appears to have learned from it. Adria? If she's still beating up on the dude with three kids who got fired, I'm not sure she did.
    - sago 12y ago
      I wonder if it is easier to 'learn from it' when a) it is clear what you did wrong was in breach of the rules of the conference you were in, b) you get a job pretty shortly afterwards, and c) you aren't threatened with death, rape and doxed out of your home and city. I can imagine it is pretty hard to learn from it, in that case. So my natural default is to give her a huge amount of empathy in the situation. Especially given that I have no real likelihood of ever having to go through that myself.

by sago 12y ago

MichaelGG 12y ago

Continue on in the story: > Adria: "Maybe he’s to blame for complaining that he got fired. Maybe he secretly seeded the hate groups. Right?" Um, no? With zero evidence, it's rather a big thing to accuse someone of. She goes on: > Adria replied that she was happy to hear that Hank “wasn’t active in driving their interests to mount the raid attack”, but that she held him responsible for it anyway. So she accuses him. Then is told he didn't do anything. She persists in blaming him anyways. Apparently he's just guilty, full stop, no matter what he did? Giving her a profit motive was actually intended as a compliment. As in, there's no way anyone can actually think it's fair or two same to blame someone for someone else's actions when there's no evidence it was their fault. Therefore, instead of just becoming another Lindsay Stone and painting over a past mistake, why not go all out, admit no fault, and gain followers that way? At least that makes sense. The alternative is to actually believe she thinks it's fair to blame you if someone else acts on their own accord, but in your "favor". That's pretty horrific. And I say that this incident, hurts equality, because the initiating episode isn't something that anyone should take seriously. Then, after all this abuse is piled on her, the same guy who made a joke is held responsible for an Internet mob. That distracts from the real problem, doesn't it? (And as a "disclaimer", no one is excusing /b/, and it's stupid (and just weird) to 'shop porn pics and death threats. It draws attention away from the individual suffering. But like groups that riot over cartoons, I don't think anyone expects to be talking to or convincing people taking part in the riot, right? What's an actual, useful, response, to the abuse Adria got? Does anyone support it? Does anyone think it's effective? Suppose I wanted to teach trolls a lesson or stand against them, how would I do that?)

sago 12y ago
You didn't get round to the point where all the evidence points in the other direction. There's a lot in there about how and why you think Adria is unreasonable in her reaction to "Hank" and what happened. But that's not the same thing. You're coming across as someone who feels they have a grievance against her. Particularly doubling down on the "profit motive" accusation. One that was, incidentally, used to incite against her in the initial onslaught. > Does anyone support it? Does anyone think it's effective? Would anyone rather talk about what Adria did and is doing wrong instead?
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  > You didn't get round to the point where all the evidence points in the other direction. Wait, what? Where? I quoted from near the end of the section on Adria/Hank. After that it just mentions that he is a bit more careful, and Adria doesn't have a job. Where's the evidence? Maybe I'm reading another story, because this one paints a very bad picture of Adria, basically having her throw accusations at this guy of inciting hate towards her, saying the guy was innocent, then saying he's to blame regardless. Could you tell me how I am misreading it, for real?
  - sago 12y ago
    Sorry, I read your original comment about "the evidence points in the other direction" as being about the original incident, that's why I was expecting you to justify the point you didn't, in fact, make. My apologies for deriding a made up argument.
- Scramblejams 12y ago
  Both were treated deplorably. "Hank" appears to have learned from it. Adria? If she's still beating up on the dude with three kids who got fired, I'm not sure she did.
  - sago 12y ago
    I wonder if it is easier to 'learn from it' when a) it is clear what you did wrong was in breach of the rules of the conference you were in, b) you get a job pretty shortly afterwards, and c) you aren't threatened with death, rape and doxed out of your home and city. I can imagine it is pretty hard to learn from it, in that case. So my natural default is to give her a huge amount of empathy in the situation. Especially given that I have no real likelihood of ever having to go through that myself.