Hacker News Reader

Comment by estaseuropano | Hacker News Reader

Jane is famous already with two NYT bestsellers. Why should she make up lies for attention?

Really weird to immediately shoot/ad hominem the messenger

It’s pretty common in the United States for people to default to “is she lying / seeking attention / getting revenge” when women report mistreatment by others, especially when sexuality is involved (as it is here). It’s a rampant and unfortunate gender bias, that is not well understood by many US men or by anyone beyond our borders.

> not well understood by many US men or by anyone beyond our borders.

Is this satire, or did you actually mean to generalize _the entire world_ outside of the US with a statement that is still ostensibly politically controversial today (both in and out of the US)?

It’s a bit unclear, but I read it as that they thought not many people outside the US is aware of the bias inside the US.

Yep, this, sorry for poor phrasing!

Ahh, as the GP commenter I appreciate your clarification. Sorry for jumping to a less-than-ideal conclusion from your initial comment!

Or, you know, her story just makes absolutely no sense and is clearly non-factual. And if it were real she should be telling her story to a judge, not to Twitter.

The assumption that anything a(n attractive) woman says is true is the real "rampant and unfortunate gender bias", to be honest. And yet somehow they never seem to be penalized even when they admit filing false reports, defamation, etc.

Lots of people go into permanent irrelevance after a NYT bestseller.

lol. Because people aren't always rational. And what does the NYT or her fame have to do with it? Anyone can lie at any time. And accusing someone of lying isn't ad hominem.

believe the victim until there is proof they made it up.

victims making up stories in which they are the victim are exceedingly rare, in reality.

> victims making up stories in which they are the victim are exceedingly rare, in reality.

Not in my experience working retail/hospitality jobs. And lots of people crave attention. I see no reason to give either party more credence than the other absent evidence.

But consider how many people shop. It's pretty likely that the number of people running retail scams is a small percentage. Doesn't make them any less soul-sucking to deal with, but that's not really the same thing.

Why is it relevant how many people shop?

It seems to me the relevant metric is false positives and false negatives.

Eh, ok fair. I was thinking like, percentage of consumers with legitimate complaints vs those with scams. I think that's relevant to the overarching discussion of "believe victims", but I agree at the complaint department the common denominator doesn't matter.

Innocent until proven guilty. Never believe someone accusing another without ample evidence.

So I chose not to believe your implicit accusation that the author is defaming Google.

It's clear you have never heard of "innocent until proven guilty", so I'll explain it to you. You're actually supposed to believe the person accused until they've been proven guilty.

Victims making up stories in which they are the victim is INCREDIBLY COMMON.

>Really weird to immediately shoot/ad hominem the messenger

They said "If true, it's probably reason 1. If not true, here's a reasonable motivation." Hardly immediately shooting the messenger, more answering questions asked

Reply on news.ycombinator.com