Time Person of the Year 2017: The Silence Breakers
time.com
time.com
> In a CBS poll (which gives Moore a 6-point lead), 71 percent of likely Republican voters say the misconduct allegations against him are false. And of that group, 92 percent say the Democrats are behind the charges, and 88 percent say newspapers and the media are behind them.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/06/turnabout-why-tru...
Are you worried that innocent people will insist they're innocent, or what?
Note: I'm not saying that Moore is innocent, I honestly don't know pretty much anything about that case. But being worried that people who aren't convicted of anything will deny they did something wrong just sounds... weird, regardless of the topic.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/woman-shares-new-evi...
One thing that struck me after the James O'Keefe sting blew up in his face [0] was how hard it is to backfill the details of a fabricated life, especially details, public records, witnesses and relationships for your whereabouts and actions 30 years ago. The WP has found 7 women who not only face terrific abuse for speaking up, but whose claims have stood up to deep research.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approa...
You should read about the case.
The standard required in an actual legal court for anything other than a criminal conviction is much lower than what you demand, and even the criminal burden of proof is singificanrtly lower, as “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a far cry from “definitive proof that denials are wrong”.
Ironically, the standard you demand is exactly the standard many people apply in the court of public opinion for rejecting their priors, especially when those priors are tribal (e.g., political partisan) identity markers, like “the guy on my team is virtuous”.
At this time, the prosecution in the court of public opinion has offered reams of eyewitness testimony (even as unreliable as that category of evidence may be), and the defense has offered "nuh-uh, wazzenme" and a parade of character witnesses--that are strangely reticent to back up their assertions with their specific reasons for believing that it would be out of character for Roy Moore to have pursued and sexually molested children when he was younger. As I am a cynical anarchist atheist, "he votes Republican and regularly attends Christian churches" actually holds negative weight for me.
There is also the other thing, the thing that is undeniable fact, and a matter of public record. He has twice been evicted--dragged kicking and screaming--from public office, for flouting the law. He has twice proven himself to be incapable of upholding the parts of the U.S. constitution that he doesn't like, and it would have only taken once for me to consider him unfit to be a U.S. senator.
And besides all that, he gives me the same vibe as an Alabama politician that I got from Rod Blagojevich as a Chicago politician. It's as though all the bacteria in my intestines are screaming in unison: "That guy is a colossal piece of isht, and we know isht better than anyone! Do not allow him within 100m of your government, your bank accounts, or your children!"
As it stands now, there is evidence that Roy Moore is a liar.
On a side note, Man, you guys will go to some great lengths in your misinformation. I can understand some critical thought, but its like talking to defense attorneys.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/roy-moore-accuser-a...
And Roy Moore has eight independent accusers to date.
Look at the fake accuser plant and the WP, they sussed it out very quickly.
To each his own.
But let's try again. What's the least amount of evidence that you would find dispositive?
I have no idea who the guy is.
It's a bad situation all around.
I am, however, concerned that we'll see more people that choose to simply deny credible allegations in the face of solid evidence (and rally others to do the same).
This has recently started to change, because people recognize how unbelievable it is, and because accusers can have larger voices in today's media environment.
Roy Moore is using the old playbook. If it succeeds, in the face of all evidence, it will be a very bad thing.
If the offenders think they can keep secrets, or that no one will care, there is no disincentive to continuing the behaviour. Aside from the whole morality problem of being an awful person, which seems not to be a big factor for some people.
It's possible that the Moore situation, however it breaks, will only apply to political figures, or only in Alabama. But the idea is chilling.
For instance, whatever else happens, I don't think Moore will win another primary in Alabama.
I agree that this election in Alabama is difficult to generalize from though, there are many factors at play. Still, I'd prefer less ambiguity here.
So while it's concerning, and I'd like to see it fixed, it's kind of orthogonal to this particular issue, and affects e.g. climate change, the impacts of the tax bill, the healthcare discussion and so on.
I understand your point and am hopeful that at some point it goes the other way and the rightfully accused say "ugh...better to just admit it and try to move on with my life too."
It is disconcerting, OTOH it's a reminder that not everything is about merit. Most of the other famous people brought down recently faced allegations with less evidentiary support, but Moore survives because of politics. Even as much as the rest of the GOP despises him, he represents an important vote on matters (as far as the GOP is concerned) far bigger than his personal integrity and sexual morality. Think of how the bills on healthcare and taxes have come down to 1 or 2 votes in the Senate.
Had even a hint of these allegations came up during the primary, when it was between Moore and the incumbent, Lester Strange (who was backed by Trump and the rest of the GOP establishment), no doubt Moore would have been demolished in the primary.
I'm somewhat surprised that given the GOP's dominance in Alabama that they didn't make a bigger attempt at staging a write-in campaign. After all, one of Trump's biggest Republican opponents, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, won via write-in and her last name is a fuckton harder to remember and spell than "Strange": https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/murkowski-writein-campa...
Moore is an extreme example, but all humans are fallible. People's expectations are too high -- our representatives are nowhere near as consistently virtuous as the facades they present.
In the case of Moore, many of his implicit supporters may not love him. But if their priorities are a conservative and pro-life agenda, it will likely seem rational to them to de-prioritize taking a real look at the accusations against him. Nevermind that for Christians, it's practically tradition that the "work of God" is often carried out by the corrupt and the flawed (e.g. much of the Old Testament).
[0] https://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/an-open-letter-...
Simply put, some institutions have judged that the pros of keeping a sexual harasser around outweigh the cons. For example, the Uber harassers were swept under a rug by HR because they were "high performers."
And in that context, although I would never vote for Roy Moore, I can understand why many Republicans might.
To continue the Uber example, it may have been in Uber's best financial short-term interest to keep "high productivity" devs around, regardless of harassment issues. But it might not be in their best interest in the long-term because of issues of toxic company culture or fear public outcry. Some would also argue that there is a moral responsibility in play as well. These factors are all being weighed by institutions and the outcome seems to depend on the collective values of that group.
That said, the poll cited above shows that the majority of his supporters don't even believe in the allegations. The ability of people to choose to disbelieve things based on what benefits your institution is supremely disturbing. It's nothing new in the history of humanity. But I'm worried more people will be emboldened to use conspiracy defenses in the future, given how well it seems to be working for Moore.
But you cite that as a "problem" in your previous comment:
> Isn't this exactly the problem we're seeing in sexual harassment and sexual assault cases outside of politics, though?
Decision making based on tradeoffs and acknowledgment of human frailties is better than decision making based on unrealistic absolute categorizations.
(For instance, we'd all be better off if we acknowledged that humans tend to be prejudiced, because we're designed that way by evolution -- as opposed to the "racist/not-racist" dichotomy that drives current discussion. But it will be a long time before society ever arrives at a consensus on that...)
Much like tech development companies, actually...
And their pay is already pretty decent, considering the required skill set. Perhaps we should consider remote candidates or offshoring? I'm pretty sure that 80% of the Alabama legislature could be safely replaced by temps calling in from India, reading from scripts supplied by the party.~
Our expectations should be high. We really don't want to be ruled by a room filled with Georges Costanza, no matter how awesome that would make C-SPAN.
Honestly; it depends on the audience - are you willing to ignore the person being grossly abhorrent/immoral because they say something about some unrelated thing that you agree with? (Build a wall! Tax Cuts! No Baby Slaughter!).
Roy Moore is being framed to voters as, 'Would you rather a (potential) child molester in office or someone actively advocating for murdering Babies? When framed like that; it's much easier to bite your lip and vote for the molester because really - what are the chances he'll do it again now that he's in his 70s? The other guy will actively murder babies if he gets elected.
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/363990-fox-news-issues-cor...
The fact that Alabama voters don't care about sexual harassment allegations is not surprising.
Hillary was going to win 275 seats according to those polls.
I wouldn't pay any attention to those anymore.
There is nothing "fundamental" about these polls, throwing a web widget in front of a self selected group of audience is not scientific or fundamental.
Why do you continue to assert that these polls are "fundamental" when they are proven to be to be totally bogus time after time.
This is a poll done by a standard polling company. You seem to be mischaracterising how they are done and, two comments up the chain, you attack even professional polls based on their performance in the last presidential election, where they were very accurate in predicting the popular vote.
Ok thats fair. I might have dismissed them without good reason. I have a blocker for all news sites so i can't access them without going through like 20 steps.
>where they were very accurate in predicting the popular vote.
My comment was about their predictions about number of seats each candidate will win. What does that have to do with "predicting the popular vote." .
A couple of other people did say 99%, but they were clearly wrong even before the result came in and were called out by, for example, 538.
Then consider no longer commenting on news related articles, sources etc that you don't know anything about. Wild speculation isn't helpful.
Why are you using “seats” to refer to Electoral College delegates?
See the HN discussion on Fowler’s original article, one of the most upvoted submissions of all time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13682022
The important impact of Fowler’s post was the investigation that led to dozens of employee removals—the C.E.O. resignation wasn’t the primary effect.
Here is an example from Time magazine interview with Tina Brown[1].
You launched Talk Magazine with Harvey Weinstein. Do you regret going into business with Harvey Weinstein?
I certainly do. I regretted that long before the sexual harassment complaints.
I regretted it within about twenty-five minutes of signing the contract.
No, it was a very, shall we say, unwise career move on my part.
And when I learned about what had been happening, I had no idea that that was happening.
But the rest of his personality did not make me think, “What a surprise.”
Why am getting downvoted :\, can down voters pls let me know. I think this comment is on topic.
Maybe you're being downvoted for somewhat over-the-top criticism? It's easy to criticize successful, energetic people -- they're always making mistakes and often learning from them too. But it comes across as jealous and petty.
Whats "over the top" about my comment. Don't you think its fair to ask her why she continued to take money from him if she knew within 25 mins of meeting him.
I don't think Weinstein case was simple bad guy vs innocent women. There were many enablers, don't you think its fair to ask tough questions to people who got into business with him.
I think media like Time have gross "us vs them" biases, Tina is on their side so she gets asked no tough questions.
Those are two entirely different things and if you want to avoid criticism you would do well to maintain consistency across your posts.
Her regretting bad business deal is not relavent here. Again thats the kind of stuff I would've asked her if I was the one interviewing her.
I certainly do. I regretted that long before the sexual harassment complaints.
Let's be clear: she can regret that he was an asshole to work with and it in no way reflects on his habits as a sex offender.
"Mr. Weinstein’s final, failed round of manipulations shows how he operated for more than three decades: by trying to turn others into instruments or shields for his behavior, according to nearly 200 interviews, internal company records and previously undisclosed emails. Almost everyone had incentives to look the other way or reasons to stay silent. " [1]
Don't you think its media's job to ask tough questions to his business partners? Instead of letting them off the hook with "yea he was an asshole" type of non answers.
1. https://www.msn.com/g00/en-us/movies/news/weinstein%E2%80%99....
Weinstein’s Complicity Machine
https://www.msn.com/g00/en-us/movies/news/weinstein%E2%80%99...
Culturally, calling someone dishonest, particularly a journalist or publication is a very serious claim that requires serious evidence or argument. Now we have a president who throws it around carelessly. We don't have to allow this to become normal.
Why would Time give platform to Weinstein’s business partner Tina Brown to declare herself an innocent victim.
How do you explain it?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/weinstein%E2%80%99s-co...
1956: Hungarian Freedom Fighters
1960: US Scientists
1966: The Generation Twenty-Five and Under
1968: Apollo 8 Astronauts
1969: The Middle Americans
1975: American Women
1982: The Computer
1988: The Endangered Earth
1993: The Peacemakers
2002: The Whistle Blowers
2003: The American Soldier
2005: The Good Samaritans
2006: You
2011: The Protester
2013: The Ebola Fighters
2017: The Silence Breakers
Some of those were specific lists of people (US Scientists, American Women, Ebola Fighters, Peacemakers). There are also a few years where it went to 2 or 3 people but they weren't a named group.
This is just stupid.
I understand that other people feel otherwise, but I would rather read more deeply about a single person because I find that way more interesting.
The entire "silence breakers" is simply about creating medial rage against people who are not yet proven guilty which is in my opinion immensely stupid.
> The entire "silence breakers" is simply about creating medial rage against people who are not yet proven guilty which is in my opinion immensely stupid.
I suspect your disapproval of the choice is motivating you to discredit the article series as meaningless, which is a flawed argument to take. Not to mention that many people have made apologies and confessions. If you think this is about "medial rage", you are missing the point. This is about progress on a huge cultural problem that has pretty much been in existence since the days of early men. This selection is highlighting the people who have helped drive that progress recently.