[W0lf]

I don't know about you people, but this whole twitter thread pretty much sums up why I don't bother engaging too much in online communities whatsoever. I don't care what happened there and who feels offended or whoever should be excluded for whatever reasons. I feel if someone did something wrong we have an established system for this called court.

This whole public shaming and social justice warrior thingy feels to me just medieval wrong. This is also the reason why I like HN as here the focus is pretty much tech related which gives me somewhat peace of mind.

[becquerel]

Not all grievances are best suited for court, and courts are not always impartial. There are also legitimate reasons to exclude someone from a gathering without them breaking laws.

I'm sure it's nice to be able to put your feet up and ignore that whole messy social justice thing, but unfortunately a lot of people don't have that opportunity.

[erikpukinskis]

I respect your opinion but I disagree strongly with your claim that this is “medieval”.

Courts have the power to truly end people’s lives. Because of this power they must have the highest standard of proof: innocent until proven guilty.

However, many crimes are very difficult to prove, which means courts mostly can do nothing about things like rape, harassment, etc.

That’s a good thing on some level, we don’t want to put innocent people in jail.

But if we leave it at that, and simply disbelieve all stories not proven by courts, then the vast majority of victims of crime will be totally left without support.

That’s why personal policies like “believe women” exist… not because they are more true than “believe the courts” but because both policies are flawed and so together they provide better coverage of innocent people than either policy could alone. For the innocent victims who haven’t been protected by the law, the “believe women” community has their back. For innocent victims who have been falsely accused the “believe the courts” community has their back.

I believe this diversity of belief is essential.

And so, I support you being a “believe the courts” person. But I would like you to consider that this leaves you in a position where you can’t support a large number of victims of crime. And therefore that’s a job other people, with a different attitude to the courts, must step in and do.

[shrimp_emoji]

I don't think anyone has anyone's back. All it takes it one group of people to demonize you, and the damage is done.

When some terminally online lefties doxx you and try to get you fired, does some other group of people sweep in to your defense, in your experience?

Your characterization of “believe women” existing as a counterbalance to the flaws of the legal system is compelling, although it still doesn't seem like a good idea. One system is unchecked vigilante bullshit, while the other system is a transparent, evidence-based process. It's like "the medicine doesn't work; let's sacrifice goats and bloodlet instead".

Nitpick: it's not “believe women”; it's “believe ALL women”, which is more hilarious. (And frankly sexist, as it strips women of the agency to lie, which -- spoiler-- is a thing people do all the time.)

[46756e]

I agree with the idea that someone who was convicted twice of sex crimes in a leadership role is a bad idea and that by including them you may be excluding others.

Although I am curious about your opinion about other senarios. What is the person was found guilty in a US college Title IX court? Or what if it was just an accusation online? These are the questions we should get clear answers to now so when they (inevitably) happen, we know how to act, we don't have a twitter debate war to decide.

[erikpukinskis]

I don’t think there is any universal answer to your question. I think individual people should make individual judgements in individual scenarios about what to believe.

Sometimes I may believe an accusation and sometimes I may not. I don’t want to offload that responsibility to anyone else, in a court or anywhere.