Hacker News Reader

> Only "the 1%" can do what she did and keep their careers and finances (after legal bills) intact.

Such a good point to keep in mind. I have such mixed emotions on that too. Is it good that some people have to opportunity to fight for chance for the other 99%? Or does having these things decided by that 1% miss the problems of the other 99%?

"Without fanning class war and just to state a fact, Ellen Pao was able to afford top-notch lawyers, which you'd need to go against KPCB given what they'll do to your career. Only "the 1%" can do what she did and keep their careers and finances (after legal bills) intact."

You are making a possibly incorrect assumption that this case wasn't handled on contingency. Pao's side could have potentially gotten over $100 million if she won punitive damages.

she was tainted enough to not be the right person to win this type of case. hopefully it does not dissuade those who experienced discrimination of the sort she claimed from coming forward in firms that need corrective action.

however the ny times article does a disservice to this case and other potential victims of what she accuded KPCB of. This is likely because the result is not acceptable based on the current tone in the media where discrimination is rampant and unchecked. It is the explanation the latch onto reflexively because they cannot accept and failure of character or action by the minority actor.

To put it in simpler terms, this is similar how Michael Brown could never be the martyr for police brutality and how it overshadowed a far stronger case in Eric Garner. The media only expects one outcome and overplays their hand and their stories are slanted.

I didn't downvote you, but the reason why you were downvoted is as follows:

1. This is an extremely sensational (aka emotional) topic

2. No one here or in the link has the full, true, story, but we definitely have our own opinions on this issue.

You want to have a fair and balanced discussion on this topic? Then go through the entire article and replace the following sensational trigger words with words that carry no emotional response to any one:

woman -> sigma class

discriminate -> operated on by a classifying function

harass -> operated on by a utility decreasing function

retaliate -> operated by a 2nd order markov function

sexism -> subset of classifying functions

By the way, re: "women are buzz kills", the more sensational articles like this we get that go about and draw a huge gulf between men and women - that, in modern social media parlance, seeks to "raise awareness" of the problems in sexism - the more women will become buzz-kills and men will become oppressors.

Is there a sexism in tech? Yes. But it wasn't a problem for any of us until we got "red-pilled" by social media (be it the tumblr SJW or 4chan's /pol/) and firmly convinced it was by cherrypicked statistics and carefully crafted words. And it has become far worse today thanks to sensationalism in the media and interested parties hyping it up. What used to be flirting, joking, and laughter around the office water cooler has now become tension and political correctness masking intrigue and malicious snarls of "she's a bitch" or "he's a pig". As a society, we need to figure out that just because Ellen Pao is a woman doesn't mean she, her case, or her situation has any significance for us individually as a person.

By the way, if anyone is interested in seeing what "sexism" looked like before social-media made it a toxic minefield, go get a job as a plumber or as a child-educator. If you can keep your chin up, be patient, and stop blaming society for your own problems, you can... As a girl plumber, be pleasantly surprised at how, despite the fact the guys all smell like sewage will wolf-whistle at you and hit on you, they'll be unblushingly fond of you and enjoy your company. And as a male child educator, despite the fact literally everyone will suspect you're a pedophile, the women will come around and stick up for you.

> It doesn't invalidate the issue or the grievance.

It most certainly does.

In fact, I would argue that the public's opinion of the validity of these grievances hinges on the outcome of these high-profile cases.

It's never a good idea to cry wolf.

edit: I'm not saying she was lying. Hell, I have no idea. What I am saying is that if people view this as a frivolous case or think she is lying, that most certainly does harm to the underlying cause.

I think what they're trying to say is:

Grievance - Racial minorities (specifically, black people) are unfairly discriminated against by law enforcement.

Just because, in this case, this tragic situation was deemed a legally acceptable use of force, doesn't mean that racial minorities are not generally discriminated against by law enforcement.

Similarly, just because this case wasn't a clear-cut case of gender discrimination, doesn't mean it isn't still a valid problem in this industry.

Ok, so let's talk about that case.

Michael Brown supporters/witnesses made claims about that situation that were later shown to be false.

I am arguing that the public ties the validity of that case to the underlying grievance.

Same here: If people think Pao was lying or view her negatively, that causes quite a bit of harm to her cause.

>Michael Brown supporters/witnesses made claims about that situation that were later shown to be false.

"made a reference to a woman’s testimony who claimed she had seen the shooting of the black teenager by the white officer, but she “clearly wasn’t present” at the scene. McCulloch reportedly said that the woman “recounted a story right out of the newspaper" that backed Wilson’s version of events surrounding the fatal shooting that occurred Aug. 9."[1]

"Most of the dozens of witnesses who testified likely did their best to describe what they saw, but a review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents shows that untrustworthy testimony came from some witnesses on both sides." [2]

"Key Witness In Michael Brown Case May Not Have Actually Seen Him Die, Report Says" [3]

[1] http://www.ibtimes.com/mike-brown-shooting-witnesses-gave-fa...

[2] http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/14/justice/ferguson-witnesses...

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/16/sandra-mcelroy-ferg...

Your point may be valid, but it doesn't address the argument or actually add anything to the discussion. You're basically saying people stereotype, which is not news.

The point/original statement is that people should not do this; whatever did or did not happen with Michael Brown and Ellen Pao in their specific cases does not actually have any bearing on whether there are general issues with race or gender discrimination in this country. Which IMO at least there clearly are.

I think I get your point, but unfortunately we can't let the value of "public perception" influence how we handle individual cases with individual circumstances. To imagine that a judge/jury would make decisions on this basis is actually a bit horrifying, if I may be frank.

I would much rather that the media focuses on the trials of the underrepresented many who are facing real gender discrimination in the workplace.

>> It doesn't invalidate the issue or the grievance.

>It most certainly does.

There's only a grievance if you assume that promotion at somewhere like KP is evidence of empowerment.

If it's actually evidence of something else - like being recognised as a member of the nomenklatura on the VC scene - then perhaps it's more evidence of successful conformity than successful empowerment.

IMO you don't win at empowerment by playing someone else's game and complaining you lost and that's not fair - you win by creating new games and making the other games irrelevant.

She didn't cry wolf. She was unfairly treated by her employer. Gender was probably involved in some cases of maltreatment. But a jury ruled that her employer did not violate the Civil Rights Act. There's a difference between a company being shitty and it breaking the law.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I don't know if she was lying. But, if people view her as dishonest, I think that most certainly does harm to the underlying claim (in the public's opinion) that women in Tech are mistreated.

> There's a difference between a company being shitty and it breaking the law.

I agree. Strip mining is pretty shitty. Fracking too. But what's your point? Our courts shouldn't be used to expose 'shitty' companies. They should be used to punish unlawful actions.

But who decides if an action is unlawful? Oh, that's right... the courts.

What? I think you're confused.

It isn't the purpose of the US Judicial system to look at an action and say 'We don't like that asshole, so we're going to just say what he did was illegal and punish him'.

You need to cite a specific infraction, charge them with it, and then prove that person/firm committed that crime.

It sounds like you would rather start with an action that upsets you, make it illegal and retroactively punish people. This is pretty much the opposite of how our system is supposed to work.

* But who decides if an action is unlawful? Oh, that's right... the courts.*

Your comment can be massaged into something reasonable with a bit of after the fact recasting, but in the context of the parent post that's possibly the most misleading way to characterize trials and judicial review that I've ever seen.

This is an excellent analysis and I'm shocked you were down-voted. The selection problem here is very real.

There are a few people with intense biases on any controversial topic, and they often vote first. Over the years I've gotten used to seeing a sudden negative dip followed by a slower positive trend when I make comments on some contentious issues. I agree the gp is well worth people's time.

I think he was downvoted because some people can't see further than his Michael Brown analogy.

I hope HN voters are not down voting for that reason. The Brown incident is a very strong point for michaelochurch's argument and a good, current example.

The DoJ report was specific and full of examples. Brown was in the wrong (hand up was a media creation), but the Police were systematically oppressive (the tickets for the monetary example). I have several issues with the current DoJ, but the investigation and documentation looks pretty well done. They prove there is a real, systematic local problem, but the focus of the investigation is not an example of it.

They were probably downvoted because they say bluntly that they wish KP would have been found guilty, but then go on to say that it isn't clear if they violated CPA and they probably didn't discriminate. Their bias is clearly outlined in their comment, and they certainly aren't being objective/logical. Why find someone guilty if they aren't, by your own words, "probably not guilty"?

This case was about justice, not advancing causes.

> They were probably downvoted because they say bluntly that they wish KP would have been found guilty, but then go on to say that it isn't clear if they violated CPA and they probably didn't discriminate.

If they were downvoted for that reason (rather than the more likely, but also inappropriate, reasons also offered in other comments of either the post author's identity or people not reacting to the Michael Brown reference) then people seriously need to read.

He didn't say he still wishes KP was found guilty, he said he wanted that coming into it, but even with that initial desire couldn't see a basis for finding anything worse than negligence. E.g., he said even coming into the case biased against KP, he couldn't view the evidence as strongly supporting wrongdoing.

Please don't skip over the parent comment just because of how heavily it's been downvoted (which is mysterious). Very reasoned analysis.

Might be because of the last para "Is Silicon Valley corrupt as hell and a bit sexist? Sure." This is quite offensive statement which does not add much value to the argumentation here.

However, I'm in general very happy with comments I read here. Different POIs presented in a civilized, respectable way.

>"Is Silicon Valley corrupt as hell and a bit sexist? Sure." This is quite offensive statement

???? What? Who would find this "quite offensive"? I'm offended anyone could be offended at such a claim.

Honestly, I'm surprised to find myself agreeing with michaelochurch, as him and I have different opinions on many things. In this case, though, I feel he's spot-on. Shame he's down so far.

This is a great example of how I hate that HN tries to make downvoted comments hard to read.

I'm glad I went to the effort of reading this comment and have upvoted it because I see absolutely nothing inappropriate about it.

You don't see anything wrong someone "hoping they were found guilty" even though they admit themselves that the company "probably didn't discriminate"?

If they're guilty, find them guilty. If they're not guilty, find them not guilty. Don't find someone guilty just to prove a point or advance your cause. That's not justice.

I see something wrong with presenting someone's clearly-stated presentation of the bias they came into the matter with before reviewing the evidence as if it were a characterization of their position after reviewing the evidence.

I also see something wrong with inventing quotes in order to support the above mischaracterization (and find that particular form of dishonest especially silly in a comment in a threaded medium where the original isn't far away, so that the falsity of the quotes are obvious to anyone who spends even a second looking.)

That's a really weird reading of michaelochurch's comment. Note the past tense -- he "wanted to find KP guilty". I'm pretty sure he was simply illustrating his initial reaction to the case, that he feels KP isn't completely innocent, but (more irrationally, perhaps) also that SV clearly has some problems with sexism.

But the case is about whether or not Pao was mistreated by KP on the basis of her gender, and to that, as the jury has (likely?) decided, michaelochurch's opinion is "probably not".

I don't think that's what the comment was saying at all. The things you quoted don't appear in the comment.

To echo the others, I'm not sure why this has been so heavily downvoted.

I think there is an algorithm that automatically downvotes michaelochurch.

There are now 12 comments (and counting) complaining about this is being downvoted and the only ones actually discussing what they said (or being critical of it) are being downvoted... Hackernews is turning into reddit.

If you're referring to yourself, you are being downvoted because you have a reading comprehension issue, you're not discussing what he said but what you think he said and that's a huge difference.

No, I wasn't referring to myself. I was answering his question. I myself went on to discuss what he said. I even quoted him verbatim. I didn't have to speculate or "think".

Sad to see this downvoted.

I don't understand why this was downvoted. This is a pretty well-written and balanced perspective, to those scrolling through the comments, I highly suggest copying and pasting this comment into a text editor and giving it a fair read.

I suspect he may be getting downvoted for suggesting that the plaintiff had a weak case, and as one of "the 1%" was not likely to garner much sympathy with a jury. There are many better examples out there of women struggling to break through the very glass ceiling that she's spent her career strolling around on top of.

The fact that this is so downvoted that I had to cut and paste to read it reflects poorly on HN.

Could someone who downvoted this explain why?