You seem very passionate about defending alleged harassers. I just wonder what fuels that. Perhaps you think these events are not that bad, or some degree of inappropriate behaviour is ok?
It seems to me that accusations of harassment can be as damaging as harassment itself, and that the presumption of innocence applies to both (or all) parties.
This comment is a microcosm of 'ddoolin's point. Step back and read it a few times, and think about what you're saying: you've presented an alternative view from my own, so sexual harassment must be acceptable to you.
I agree my reply was not helpful, but there was a point I was trying to make:
Sometimes people who are keen to defend harassers might do so because they exhibit similar behaviours themselves or hold similar beliefs and want to defend themselves.
Here is an example from this very story: Caldbeck tweeted in support of Uber: "Also mob mentality w @Uber right now. Guilty before proven innocent on everything".
I genuinely think it's worth self-examining one's motivations if someone's first instinct is to defend the man in such a case. I say this without trying to accuse anyone, sexism is subtle and affects everyone, and it's through self examination that we can grow and improve.
> I genuinely think it's worth self-examining one's motivations if someone's first instinct is to defend the man in such a case.
Why do you assume it was his (or her?) first instinct? This HN thread has already well-established that Caldbeck's behavior is repugnant. Do we need every single poster to +1, or can people propose questions for discussion without being accused of being part of the problem?
I'm aware of the point you were trying to make; it was what spawned my comment, because it is wrong. Adding words to it makes me agree less, not more. You're basically saying anybody who lobbies for not persecuting someone based on allegations must be sympathetic to the allegations, in every case, and you cite going through Twitter as if you're compiling oppo to make your point. If you don't see the danger in that line of thought, or how it makes you complicit in mob-style behavior when the incentives line up, I'm not sure how best to show you.
Ad hominem being acceptable on a few pet issues is a value system I've noticed that many people, including you, have. I would ask why. I've had this turned on me, too, hence why I'm not surprised; I'm reminded of defense lawyers who receive death threats and actual violence, as well.