4 ms·

> It doesn't invalidate the issue or the grievance. It most certainly does. In fact, I would argue that the public's opinion of the validity of these grievanc

> It doesn't invalidate the issue or the grievance. It most certainly does. In fact, I would argue that the public's opinion of the validity of these grievances hinges on the outcome of these high-profile cases. It's never a good idea to cry wolf. edit: I'm not saying she was lying. Hell, I have no idea. What I am saying is that if people view this as a frivolous case or think she is lying, that most certainly does harm to the underlying cause.

anaximander 12y ago
I think what they're trying to say is: Grievance - Racial minorities (specifically, black people) are unfairly discriminated against by law enforcement. Just because, in this case, this tragic situation was deemed a legally acceptable use of force, doesn't mean that racial minorities are not generally discriminated against by law enforcement. Similarly, just because this case wasn't a clear-cut case of gender discrimination, doesn't mean it isn't still a valid problem in this industry.
- bequanna 12y ago
  Ok, so let's talk about that case. Michael Brown supporters/witnesses made claims about that situation that were later shown to be false. I am arguing that the public ties the validity of that case to the underlying grievance. Same here: If people think Pao was lying or view her negatively, that causes quite a bit of harm to her cause.
  - dethstar 12y ago
    >Michael Brown supporters/witnesses made claims about that situation that were later shown to be false. "made a reference to a woman’s testimony who claimed she had seen the shooting of the black teenager by the white officer, but she “clearly wasn’t present” at the scene. McCulloch reportedly said that the woman “recounted a story right out of the newspaper" that backed Wilson’s version of events surrounding the fatal shooting that occurred Aug. 9."[1] "Most of the dozens of witnesses who testified likely did their best to describe what they saw, but a review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents shows that untrustworthy testimony came from some witnesses on both sides." [2] "Key Witness In Michael Brown Case May Not Have Actually Seen Him Die, Report Says" [3] [1] http://www.ibtimes.com/mike-brown-shooting-witnesses-gave-false-testimony-under-oath-ferguson-grand-jury-1763908 http://www.ibtimes.com/mike-brown-shooting-witnesses-gave-fa... [2] http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/14/justice/ferguson-witnesses-credibility/ http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/14/justice/ferguson-witnesses... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/16/sandra-mcelroy-ferguson-witness_n_6334714.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/16/sandra-mcelroy-ferg...
  - gnoway 12y ago
    Your point may be valid, but it doesn't address the argument or actually add anything to the discussion. You're basically saying people stereotype, which is not news. The point/original statement is that people should not do this; whatever did or did not happen with Michael Brown and Ellen Pao in their specific cases does not actually have any bearing on whether there are general issues with race or gender discrimination in this country. Which IMO at least there clearly are.
  - anaximander 12y ago
    I think I get your point, but unfortunately we can't let the value of "public perception" influence how we handle individual cases with individual circumstances. To imagine that a judge/jury would make decisions on this basis is actually a bit horrifying, if I may be frank. I would much rather that the media focuses on the trials of the underrepresented many who are facing real gender discrimination in the workplace.
michaelochurch 12y ago
She didn't cry wolf. She was unfairly treated by her employer. Gender was probably involved in some cases of maltreatment. But a jury ruled that her employer did not violate the Civil Rights Act. There's a difference between a company being shitty and it breaking the law.
- bequanna 12y ago
  Sorry, I should have been more clear. I don't know if she was lying. But, if people view her as dishonest, I think that most certainly does harm to the underlying claim (in the public's opinion) that women in Tech are mistreated. > There's a difference between a company being shitty and it breaking the law. I agree. Strip mining is pretty shitty. Fracking too. But what's your point? Our courts shouldn't be used to expose 'shitty' companies. They should be used to punish unlawful actions.
  - mbreese 12y ago
    But who decides if an action is unlawful? Oh, that's right... the courts.
    - bequanna 12y ago
      What? I think you're confused. It isn't the purpose of the US Judicial system to look at an action and say 'We don't like that asshole, so we're going to just say what he did was illegal and punish him'. You need to cite a specific infraction, charge them with it, and then prove that person/firm committed that crime. It sounds like you would rather start with an action that upsets you, make it illegal and retroactively punish people. This is pretty much the opposite of how our system is supposed to work.
    - forgottenpass 12y ago
      * But who decides if an action is unlawful? Oh, that's right... the courts.* Your comment can be massaged into something reasonable with a bit of after the fact recasting, but in the context of the parent post that's possibly the most misleading way to characterize trials and judicial review that I've ever seen.
TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
>> It doesn't invalidate the issue or the grievance. >It most certainly does. There's only a grievance if you assume that promotion at somewhere like KP is evidence of empowerment. If it's actually evidence of something else - like being recognised as a member of the nomenklatura on the VC scene - then perhaps it's more evidence of successful conformity than successful empowerment. IMO you don't win at empowerment by playing someone else's game and complaining you lost and that's not fair - you win by creating new games and making the other games irrelevant.

anaximander 12y ago

I think what they're trying to say is: Grievance - Racial minorities (specifically, black people) are unfairly discriminated against by law enforcement. Just because, in this case, this tragic situation was deemed a legally acceptable use of force, doesn't mean that racial minorities are not generally discriminated against by law enforcement. Similarly, just because this case wasn't a clear-cut case of gender discrimination, doesn't mean it isn't still a valid problem in this industry.

bequanna 12y ago
Ok, so let's talk about that case. Michael Brown supporters/witnesses made claims about that situation that were later shown to be false. I am arguing that the public ties the validity of that case to the underlying grievance. Same here: If people think Pao was lying or view her negatively, that causes quite a bit of harm to her cause.
- dethstar 12y ago
  >Michael Brown supporters/witnesses made claims about that situation that were later shown to be false. "made a reference to a woman’s testimony who claimed she had seen the shooting of the black teenager by the white officer, but she “clearly wasn’t present” at the scene. McCulloch reportedly said that the woman “recounted a story right out of the newspaper" that backed Wilson’s version of events surrounding the fatal shooting that occurred Aug. 9."[1] "Most of the dozens of witnesses who testified likely did their best to describe what they saw, but a review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents shows that untrustworthy testimony came from some witnesses on both sides." [2] "Key Witness In Michael Brown Case May Not Have Actually Seen Him Die, Report Says" [3] [1] http://www.ibtimes.com/mike-brown-shooting-witnesses-gave-false-testimony-under-oath-ferguson-grand-jury-1763908 http://www.ibtimes.com/mike-brown-shooting-witnesses-gave-fa... [2] http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/14/justice/ferguson-witnesses-credibility/ http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/14/justice/ferguson-witnesses... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/16/sandra-mcelroy-ferguson-witness_n_6334714.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/16/sandra-mcelroy-ferg...
- gnoway 12y ago
  Your point may be valid, but it doesn't address the argument or actually add anything to the discussion. You're basically saying people stereotype, which is not news. The point/original statement is that people should not do this; whatever did or did not happen with Michael Brown and Ellen Pao in their specific cases does not actually have any bearing on whether there are general issues with race or gender discrimination in this country. Which IMO at least there clearly are.
- anaximander 12y ago
  I think I get your point, but unfortunately we can't let the value of "public perception" influence how we handle individual cases with individual circumstances. To imagine that a judge/jury would make decisions on this basis is actually a bit horrifying, if I may be frank. I would much rather that the media focuses on the trials of the underrepresented many who are facing real gender discrimination in the workplace.

michaelochurch 12y ago

She didn't cry wolf. She was unfairly treated by her employer. Gender was probably involved in some cases of maltreatment. But a jury ruled that her employer did not violate the Civil Rights Act. There's a difference between a company being shitty and it breaking the law.

bequanna 12y ago
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I don't know if she was lying. But, if people view her as dishonest, I think that most certainly does harm to the underlying claim (in the public's opinion) that women in Tech are mistreated. > There's a difference between a company being shitty and it breaking the law. I agree. Strip mining is pretty shitty. Fracking too. But what's your point? Our courts shouldn't be used to expose 'shitty' companies. They should be used to punish unlawful actions.
- mbreese 12y ago
  But who decides if an action is unlawful? Oh, that's right... the courts.
  - bequanna 12y ago
    What? I think you're confused. It isn't the purpose of the US Judicial system to look at an action and say 'We don't like that asshole, so we're going to just say what he did was illegal and punish him'. You need to cite a specific infraction, charge them with it, and then prove that person/firm committed that crime. It sounds like you would rather start with an action that upsets you, make it illegal and retroactively punish people. This is pretty much the opposite of how our system is supposed to work.
  - forgottenpass 12y ago
    * But who decides if an action is unlawful? Oh, that's right... the courts.* Your comment can be massaged into something reasonable with a bit of after the fact recasting, but in the context of the parent post that's possibly the most misleading way to characterize trials and judicial review that I've ever seen.

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago

>> It doesn't invalidate the issue or the grievance. >It most certainly does. There's only a grievance if you assume that promotion at somewhere like KP is evidence of empowerment. If it's actually evidence of something else - like being recognised as a member of the nomenklatura on the VC scene - then perhaps it's more evidence of successful conformity than successful empowerment. IMO you don't win at empowerment by playing someone else's game and complaining you lost and that's not fair - you win by creating new games and making the other games irrelevant.