Hacker News Reader

So many stories are going to come out over the next few weeks that it will get to a point where none of it sticks. If everyone's a pervert, then nobody is.

(And that will be how Roy Moore wins.)

But lots of people aren't...

and to your parent comment, this isn't limited to older men.

Unfortunately we’re already starting to see this.

Charlie Rose was fired, so it's clearly still sticking. And the fact Roy Moore might win doesn't matter so much. At this point he's literally running on "would you rather elect a pedophile or an abortionist?" That might fly in Alabama. Is it going to fly in board rooms in New York or San Francisco? That's the more relevant question to your typical HN reader.

>Is it going to fly in board rooms in New York or San Francisco?

Yes, because it was clearly known internally at CBS and PBS for years before becoming public. And yet Charlie Rose only gets fired--near instantly--after the Washington Post publishes a piece about him.

Right, but what about the next (would-be) Charlie Rose? Stuff is accepted until it isn't. There's lots of stuff that wouldn't cause people to bat an eye in the 1960s, that would be met with silent disapproval in the 1980s, and would get you straight up fired today.

No, Roy Moore will win (if he does) because of political tribalism; to the extent the flood of accusations against others is relevant, the “lots of allegations but who could know the underlying reality” thing will be part of how people voting for Moore rationalize their vote more than a key factor in the actual decision.

Makes me wonder where the next "shift" will be. A lot of things that are unambiguously bad today were not yesterday, and there is no guarantee that something you do today will not be seen as taboo tomorrow.

I've had conversations at work in the distant past that I'd probably get fired over today. What about 20 years from now? I've recently mentioned in co-worker chit chat that I like to go the the range every now and again to shoot clays and targets. How do I know at some point in the future I won't be forced to resign for a "history of discussing weapons in the workplace," after those cultural norms shift again?

Maybe it's because I'm not in the US, but I find this concern overblown.

For the most part, we're not talking about perfectly innocent things suddenly shifting into unacceptable. We're talking about behavior that was merely tolerated from people in positions of power. And 20 years ago most of these were probably already covered in sexual harassment advisories. As far as I'm concerned, the change took too long, not the other way.

Who do you see having been fired for stuff done 20 years ago and that was completely acceptable back then?

> We are witnessing cultural norms shift right before our eyes.

I wonder how long until we see folks like Mick Jagger getting forced to resign their jobs due to using their status as rockstars to pick up women. Especially since most rockstars are also producers or executive producers, i.e. the same job that Harvey Weinstein or VCs have.

There's a critical difference between using your status as a public celebrity to pick up partners (which is fairly noncontroversial) and using your power as someone who can open and shut career doors to pressure people to accede to or keep quiet about your sexual advances.

Someone like Jagger or Weinstein may have both kinds of status, but there is still a difference.

You're eliding the critical issue of consent. There are plenty of people who want to have sex with rockstars. There's no issue with that.

> You're eliding the critical issue of consent.

There are plenty of types of relationships that are consensual, but that are still either illegal or else forbidden by the ethics standards for various industries. Just because something is widely accepted today, doesn't mean that it will be acceptable in the future as long as there is consent.

Ethical standards are shaped by the conflict between the world as it exists currently and the type of society we'd like to have. They're not immutable, nor are they guaranteed to move in any particular direction. E.g. if the human population outstrips the supply of cheap natural resources, liberal western values may go out the window very quickly around the world, just like they did in Iran.

As far as I know the only person in the current wave of scandals who is being raked over the coals for consensual behavior is Bill Clinton. Every single other case involved men forcing themselves on women sexually.

So are you making some kind of slippery slope argument then? The common thread with all of the housecleaning that's currently going on is that it's been harassment/assault/rape, i.e. non-consensual. I don't really understand what you're worried about? Is your argument that by allowing people to face punishment for non-consensual sexual behavior (i.e. harassment/assault/rape), we're opening the door in the future for people to be punished for consensual sexual behavior?

History has also been going the opposite direction of what you're claiming anyway. Promiscuous consensual sexual behavior was much more heavily penalized in the past than in the present. It's going the other way. Many people were calling for rock music to be banned back in the day because of this kind of behavior they said that it idolized. Now, if anything, it's celebrated.

"A little butt slap here or innuendo laced comment there was tolerated and sometimes even expected, but those days suddenly ended when even the powerful and influential Harvey Weinstein could fall."

That's the thing - 'what is it'?

A 'slap on the butt' is point blank harassment and never really accepted in any culture. You could 'get away with it' but it was not ever considered perfectly ok.

'Sexual innuendo' - that is normal in many places in the world,

'Commenting on a woman's appearance' is a positive trait in many places in the world.

'Showing up at your door in a bathrobe' - is not unethical behaviour. There has to be a lot added onto that to make it inappropriate.

And there are huge levels of inappropriate.

What if you are out drinking with a co-worker, then back at your place drinking, you're both flirting - and then you go in for the kiss?

A sales lady jumped in the pool naked at a hotel where we were staying. Nobody cared, we were drinking, it was funny. But if it's a dude - it's wrong?

Putting drugs in a girls drink and then raping her ... well that's beyond immoral and very illegal.

The problem I think - is that a lot of this stuff is getting lumped together.

A lot of this behaviour is really only 'no acceptable' wherein there are very high bars for behaviour.

You don't put your hand on a woman's knee at the office. You can put your hand on a woman's knee if you're out on a date with her.

What if you are co-workers? What if one works for the other.

...

This is all complex and nuanced stuff, I don't think we can just lump it all together.

FYI - it was 'progressives' in the 1960's pushing for sexual liberation - and 'consent' is in the vast majority of even positive cases, not exactly given verbally.

So there is a 'new set of norms' but a lot of it is based in fear.

Have you seen the 3 second video of Gigi Hadid who received a 'buddha doll' (possibly not buddha, just a fat man), it's really cute. She makes a face, puts the doll next to her, and smiles like the doll. It's just fun, I don't think racist at all - and yet the Chinese government got involved.

The smallest mis-step - one person - in one place - can say something - and it blows up.

The 'new order' will not be a 'moral order' - it will be a 'sanitized order' - wherein every word - every action - every thought - will be scrutinized so intensely that I'm weary we're giving up a lot for this.

So yes - the 'new norm' of 'don't harass your interns and grab their asses' is really good - but I fear it won't just create a 'safe place' for people, it may ultimately create a hostile place where we can't just be human.

I stayed at a friends house in SF recently, she came out of the kitchen naked, and went into her bedroom - just as I was falling asleep on the couch. She was giggling. She was not flirting with me - just kidding. And I laughed because it was funny. We work in the same industry. Should I charge her with sexual assault?

Anyhow - it's complicated. A few steps forward a few steps back.

A friend is an extremely high achiever and has been promoted rapidly in a ~1000 person company based on their work and reputation alone. Recently, as they have had to begin participating in more and more high level functions with directors/executives, unwanted touching has occurred more than once. Despite every effort to physically move away from the situation and send clear signals it continues.

You can bet they are in a position where not only are they uncomfortable saying anything, they are also is absolutely looking to jump ship to a company where this does not occur. I can guarantee you that allowing these people to continue these actions without punishment will certainly hurt the long term success of these organizations.

Anyone with half a brain knows these actions are unacceptable, the problem is those with more than half a brain realized they were able to get away with it previously and chose to continue acting in a way that provides them a sense of power and satisfaction as up to this point they simply could. This is no longer the case and a lot of people who aren't all bad and simply thought they could get away with it will (and should) lose everything for this.

I didn't imply that people doing inappropriate things should be able to get away with it. Just saying it can be complicated in some cases, though obviously not in others.

Actually, it's very rarely complicated. 90% of those cases could be eliminated by simply asking the person before you go in to touch them.

Even less complicated -- Simply never touch people like this in work settings, period. Don't even ask, just don't do it.

The line between acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior at work is obvious.

"They"?

it's happening right before our eyes. your comment gets downvoted because it openly reveals the shift as a double-edged sword. anything but leftist groupthink consensus is punished. it's the same behavior you see on any subreddit.

binary values of up and down ought to be taken to the slaughterhouse and replaced. society has become a public-shaming gladiator ring. i'm sick of it.

I completely disagree with the public shaming aspect, it's unnecessary. This should be handled behind within the organization and employees should be aware but the public doesn't need to know.

However, if the insinuations we are hearing is true about unwanted kissing in the workplace to the point women have to turn their head when they pass him that goes beyond a double standard. That would be unnaceptable if a woman did it.

Speaking of which, Janet Nepolitano is a clear example of abusing power wrt gender who needs to be fired.

What has Janet Napolitano done? This is the first I've heard of anything having to do with her.

Also not trying to imply you think they should get away with it. I had a really touchy situation with the person and 2 others, one of which knew what was going on and one who did not, discussing what is and isn't acceptable anymore. Unfortunately it ended with everyone thinking I'm crazy and the actions will continue towards them and they have no recourse to change it. I really hope for all of their sake that they soon realize they do have the power and if they fired everyone who had been treated that way for speaking up there would be no one left based on what I heard from them.