Hacker News Reader

Comment by ctide | Hacker News Reader

Posts like these remind me how many socially maladjusted misogynists exist on this site just waiting for stuff like this so they can throw their 2c in.

It says right there that IAC confirmed he sent the messages. The rest of this honestly does not matter at all, it's just kindling on the fire. Those alone are enough to prove that he sexually harassed her. If you're honestly trying to argue that we 'don't know all that facts' and that 'we shouldn't jump to conclusions' then I feel bad for any women who have to interact with you because you're probably a fucking scumbag too.

View on HN

You might work on your delivery of the whole "If you don't agree with me, then you're a fucking scumbag" thing. People more sensitive than I might construe that as inappropriate - perhaps as harassment.

He didn't say that if you didn't agree with him, you're a fucking scumbag. He said that if you're still claiming we should reserve judgement after it's been confirmed that the messages were sent, you're a fucking scumbag. In my opinion, that's a non-controversial statement and likely to be true.

Edit: Here are the messages: http://www.buzzfeed.com/sapna/tinder-sued-for-sexual-harassm...

And yet, where's the harm in waiting for the full story to be revealed?

As an apologist mechanism, I'll concede that it's lacking, but even in the face of evidence, we should be wary of indicting anything for which we don't have personal, inside involvement, but even for cases, like this, for which there appears to be evidence, predisposing ourselves to a cause makes it less likely that we'll adjust our opinions in the event that counter-evidence is provided, or the existing evidence is placed into a context which might make it otherwise reasonable.

Note, I'm not suggesting that any of the above applies here, but as a general practice, avoiding prejudgement in the absence of all the facts is a bad way to approach gossip.

> Note, I'm not suggesting that any of the above applies here, but as a general practice, avoiding prejudgement in the absence of all the facts is a bad way to approach gossip.

This isn't gossip. The text messages in the complaint have been confirmed and condemned by Tinder. She was clearly sexually harassed by Mateen, who has been suspended. Tinder is disputing the allegations with respect to its management.

Call me old fashioned, but allegations with legal implications are, to me at least, gossip, until ruled on by the courts and juries.

> It says right there that IAC confirmed he sent the messages.

I would call it CYA. All they submitted to the court was screen captures of iMessage, so presumably the company saw the same thing. They felt compelled to comment on that, that's fine. But to me, sorry, screen captures of iMessage aren't good enough. That can easily be faked with you and a friend sending over-the-top messages to each other. I would want to see phone company records.

Just curious, does anyone want to argue the point about the texts being relatively flimsy evidence or just downvote? I guess that's what passes for debate these days.

Why would a large holding company like IAC do something as stupid as fake messages in a legal deposition? What you're suggesting is highly unlikely, and would have absolutely no potential payoff for IAC. Your comment comes off as completely off-topic.

Where did I say the company faked the messages? They were clearly sent to her.

Do you have any evidence that Ms. Wolfe has committed a felony or is making an unsubstantiated accusation of perjury what you consider "debate"?

By signing the pleading, Ms. Wolfe's attorneys are certifying that they have made "an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances" and believe "the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery." [1]

While it's certainly possible that the evidence included in the pleading is manufactured, her lawyers have staked their own reputation and careers on the evidence not being obviously fake.

[1] California Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7

Reply on news.ycombinator.com