Do we really need the “still don’t know 100% if we can trust her on that”? Where does Naomi Wu have a history of false allegations? And the main issue being that she wasn’t quiet about a situation that made her feel incredibly uncomfortable? I mean, the “receipts” were mostly that Linus said she misinterpreted what he was asking for. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t. Part of not being an asshole is not putting our colleagues into situations where they have to think “Is he trying to fuck me?”
Regardless: If you don’t think they are valid allegations, maybe just don’t mention them at all? Rather than throwing shade at an accuser? Because this shit is WHY victims of abuse don’t speak up.
And just as a learning opportunity for others. Asking someone to meet you at your hotel at a conference is not inherently a bad thing. It happens and we all have weird hours during the big events. But you NEVER invite someone to your room. Ever. You use one of the business conference centers the hotel provides. And you NEVER do a one on one meeting.
One of my mentors taught me this, god, back in grad school. I was in that weird state of “Technically still in school but I have a job lined up and am already doing it while I do paperwork to defend”. We were at one of the big events for our field and my mentor/future boss asked me if I could come to a meeting one evening. My job was literally to sit there and make the person he was meeting with feel comfortable since it was 1 am in a conference room with the blinds closed (because we had sensitive material to present). Was confused until she actually did a “Hey, by the way. Thanks. You didn’t need to drag the kid in because I know you are a good guy, but it means a lot that you would think to”.
Well. Good for Madison. Even the incels are rooting for her.
At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if Linus is a fucking creep. He demonstrably lied about so much, this week alone. However, Linus being at fault here doesn’t exonerate Naomi then either. Two toxic people still produce a toxic result, they don’t cancel each other out, it’s not arithmetic.
Exonerate her for WHAT? Claiming to have felt uncomfortable in a situation where even the receipts make it look like it was the kind of shit women put up with all the time? Seriously, you feel the need to make sure that some random ass woman (who has actually done a LOT of great work for women in STEM but…) is not “exonerated” by linus allegedly being a toxic dipshit?
Jesus fucking christ. If you hate someone because they don’t walk around in a burka then maybe don’t mention them? Rather than make it sound like linus has been dodging false accusations for ages? Or, you know, that is your point and you just don’t seem to realize that lemmy doesn’t have karma to farm.
Say it with me kids: If you feel the need to completely dismiss and trivialize someone’s experiences because… you don’t like how they look? Maybe just don’t mention them at all.
Jesus fucking christ… This is fucked even by reddit standards. This is like… 4chan levels of fucked.
It’s actually important to realize our society is insanely frustrating people sexually (but I’m guessing you know, given your ad hominem of choice), and that in those conditions, walking around half naked when you look any good, is absolutely irresponsible, and entirely disrespectful.
I was being intentionally inflammatory to hopefully make you realize the bullshit you are spewing but…
Holy forking shirtballs. The incels actually ARE out to support Madison. I… genuinely don’t know how to process that.
I’ve not followed much recently and have no idea who Naomi is or what the situation is so this conversation has been fascinating, I feel like the more it’s gone on the less I understand.
So your argument is that she is attractive and walks around half naked which causes sexual frustration in men therefore she has no right to feel uncomfortable when people (i.e. Linus) create situations that would be unacceptable with a more modestly dressed woman?
I can’t say I agree with this reasoning but I would like to understand what you’re saying, I assume you saying her vulva was excused is hyperbolic but could you explain in your view where the line is with dress, what sort of outfits are we taking about for women and men - if you’re wearing shorts what sort of level of sexual comments would I be allowed to make which I wouldn’t were you wearing trousers?
So your argument is that she is attractive and walks around half naked which causes sexual frustration in men
That’s simplifying. My argument is that she is causing harm to frustrated people (assuming that only men are attracted to women is factually wrong, assuming that only men are having difficulties getting their intimate needs fulfilled is equally wrong), and that she is doing so solely for the advantages it procures with regard to her influence.
therefore she has no right to feel uncomfortable
She has every right to feel uncomfortable. It’s not about that, and it has never been. She has no right to aim at harming others for her feelings.
when people (i.e. Linus) create situations that would be unacceptable with a more modestly dressed woman?
What we know for sure is that Linus asked her to come to his hotel in the late evening. Nothing else has ever been proven. From going to his room, to his intents of sexual assault, it is all pure speculation. I know mobs adore harming others based on speculation alone; but it is something we ought to get away from, if we ever want to call ourselves civilized.
I would be the first to want to put Linus’s ass in prison if we can get any proof that he committed, facilitated, and/or ignored sexual misconduct. Against anyone, not just women, not just (semi) public figures. But basing yourself on allegations only is comparable to SWATting: you’re causing harm, from assumptions. Irremediable actions (like loss of life, or trauma) should never be triggered from assumptions. We need actual, irrefutable facts. With, you know, chat logs, since Naomi has them.
could you explain in your view where the line is with dress, what sort of outfits are we taking about for women and men
Yes, absolutely. Basically, since you never know what triggers the random people around you in public spaces (and for online material, what triggers literally anyone), most “usual” attire is okay. As long as it does not highlight any part of your body that is associated with a physiological human need being denied to a large part of the population (men and women alike, that’s not an “incel” thing, no matter how much some people here want to say it), anything works. This is about “best effort”, and mutual respect. It also depends on context. It is totally acceptable to wear tight pants at the gym, because no one is forcing anyone to go to the gym. You can always find gyms that are “women only” or “men only”, etc. However, in the public space, such as a street, wearing tight pants has a totally different meaning. It’s always a question of context, always a question of introspection, and always a question of “am I doing this out of spite because of all the problems society is causing me, or is this this actually acceptable, considering the other problems people have to deal with?”.
And yes, that last question is something almost no-one ever asks themselves. That’s why we’re literally currently devolving. It’s a race to who is going to trigger the “other side” the hardest. It’s easy for algorithms to manage, so that’s what surfaced over the last decades, but it’s absolutely unhealthy. And it won’t end well.
We’re not in a court of law here. Even then, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, and that only applies to criminal matters. With civil matters the standard is “the preponderance of evidence.”
Outside of court proceedings, the standard is completely arbitrary and has been since, well, forever.
Yes but the same is true in all of it, innocent until proven guilty is a legal thing not a social thing because it rests on the fact that the case is being tried - if I called you a smelly snail then you went to your mom and said I called you a smelly snail you wouldn’t expect her to say ‘well we have to act like he didn’t until it’s been tried in a court of law…’
Thanks for making me laugh :) (I didn’t laugh at you, the snail example was pretty funny).
Yes, the innocent until proven guilty is a matter of legal affairs.
Yes, the public opinion isn’t bound to such limitations. But that is only because the public opinion isn’t supposed to have executive power.
Arguably, the Internet changed that. The public opinion now does have at least some executive power: before the internet, it was practically impossible for anyone to organize a coherent retaliation towards any entity; and that responsibility was entirely left to the official, governmental executive power.
Since social media enabled emergent social organization, coherent retaliation is absolutely possible, and is something the American “left” has been doing for a decade with the concept of “cancelling” people.
Now, as I posted elsewhere, the algorithms in place online are shaping the discourse, and aren’t shaping it in a way that aims at social improvement, but at engagement maximization. Which, you know, anger and hate are the easiest and fastest route to.
The consequence of this is that the American “right” has duly noted what the “left” has been doing, learned from their concept, learned the tools, and is now apparently preparing their own version of “cancelling” people, which presumably involves the second amendment.
It is probably too late to remind everyone that “innocent until proven guilty” shall apply to any and all parties with executive power, however emergent; but I still think it’s an important fact to highlight.
In case we can salvage anything from what our ancestors gave their blood and sweat for, and learn how to resolve conflict instead of giving in, having a major crisis; only after which we will begin pondering what need(ed) to be done.
I do think the Naomi Wu thing was mostly a misunderstanding taken to extremes due to fanbases toxicity (doubt she would’ve outright said Linus wanted her to suck his dick if the stans hadn’t started harassing her, she basically jumped to all out offensiveness out of spite). This, however? Even if she was also being toxic in the workplace, it just means management had been so horrible that toxic behaviors developed with ease and would just spin out of control. This all sounds like they could just not adapt to becoming more corporate oriented fast enough, and the fact that Linus just recently stepped down as CEO is clear proof of this. He should’ve done that years ago.
expired
Do we really need the “still don’t know 100% if we can trust her on that”? Where does Naomi Wu have a history of false allegations? And the main issue being that she wasn’t quiet about a situation that made her feel incredibly uncomfortable? I mean, the “receipts” were mostly that Linus said she misinterpreted what he was asking for. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t. Part of not being an asshole is not putting our colleagues into situations where they have to think “Is he trying to fuck me?”
Regardless: If you don’t think they are valid allegations, maybe just don’t mention them at all? Rather than throwing shade at an accuser? Because this shit is WHY victims of abuse don’t speak up.
And just as a learning opportunity for others. Asking someone to meet you at your hotel at a conference is not inherently a bad thing. It happens and we all have weird hours during the big events. But you NEVER invite someone to your room. Ever. You use one of the business conference centers the hotel provides. And you NEVER do a one on one meeting.
One of my mentors taught me this, god, back in grad school. I was in that weird state of “Technically still in school but I have a job lined up and am already doing it while I do paperwork to defend”. We were at one of the big events for our field and my mentor/future boss asked me if I could come to a meeting one evening. My job was literally to sit there and make the person he was meeting with feel comfortable since it was 1 am in a conference room with the blinds closed (because we had sensitive material to present). Was confused until she actually did a “Hey, by the way. Thanks. You didn’t need to drag the kid in because I know you are a good guy, but it means a lot that you would think to”.
That really was a nice and good thing to do. Good lesson.
expired
Well. Good for Madison. Even the incels are rooting for her.
Exonerate her for WHAT? Claiming to have felt uncomfortable in a situation where even the receipts make it look like it was the kind of shit women put up with all the time? Seriously, you feel the need to make sure that some random ass woman (who has actually done a LOT of great work for women in STEM but…) is not “exonerated” by linus allegedly being a toxic dipshit?
Jesus fucking christ. If you hate someone because they don’t walk around in a burka then maybe don’t mention them? Rather than make it sound like linus has been dodging false accusations for ages? Or, you know, that is your point and you just don’t seem to realize that lemmy doesn’t have karma to farm.
Say it with me kids: If you feel the need to completely dismiss and trivialize someone’s experiences because… you don’t like how they look? Maybe just don’t mention them at all.
Jesus fucking christ… This is fucked even by reddit standards. This is like… 4chan levels of fucked.
expired
I was being intentionally inflammatory to hopefully make you realize the bullshit you are spewing but…
Holy forking shirtballs. The incels actually ARE out to support Madison. I… genuinely don’t know how to process that.
expired
I’ve not followed much recently and have no idea who Naomi is or what the situation is so this conversation has been fascinating, I feel like the more it’s gone on the less I understand.
So your argument is that she is attractive and walks around half naked which causes sexual frustration in men therefore she has no right to feel uncomfortable when people (i.e. Linus) create situations that would be unacceptable with a more modestly dressed woman?
I can’t say I agree with this reasoning but I would like to understand what you’re saying, I assume you saying her vulva was excused is hyperbolic but could you explain in your view where the line is with dress, what sort of outfits are we taking about for women and men - if you’re wearing shorts what sort of level of sexual comments would I be allowed to make which I wouldn’t were you wearing trousers?
That’s simplifying. My argument is that she is causing harm to frustrated people (assuming that only men are attracted to women is factually wrong, assuming that only men are having difficulties getting their intimate needs fulfilled is equally wrong), and that she is doing so solely for the advantages it procures with regard to her influence.
She has every right to feel uncomfortable. It’s not about that, and it has never been. She has no right to aim at harming others for her feelings.
What we know for sure is that Linus asked her to come to his hotel in the late evening. Nothing else has ever been proven. From going to his room, to his intents of sexual assault, it is all pure speculation. I know mobs adore harming others based on speculation alone; but it is something we ought to get away from, if we ever want to call ourselves civilized.
I would be the first to want to put Linus’s ass in prison if we can get any proof that he committed, facilitated, and/or ignored sexual misconduct. Against anyone, not just women, not just (semi) public figures. But basing yourself on allegations only is comparable to SWATting: you’re causing harm, from assumptions. Irremediable actions (like loss of life, or trauma) should never be triggered from assumptions. We need actual, irrefutable facts. With, you know, chat logs, since Naomi has them.
Yes, absolutely. Basically, since you never know what triggers the random people around you in public spaces (and for online material, what triggers literally anyone), most “usual” attire is okay. As long as it does not highlight any part of your body that is associated with a physiological human need being denied to a large part of the population (men and women alike, that’s not an “incel” thing, no matter how much some people here want to say it), anything works. This is about “best effort”, and mutual respect. It also depends on context. It is totally acceptable to wear tight pants at the gym, because no one is forcing anyone to go to the gym. You can always find gyms that are “women only” or “men only”, etc. However, in the public space, such as a street, wearing tight pants has a totally different meaning. It’s always a question of context, always a question of introspection, and always a question of “am I doing this out of spite because of all the problems society is causing me, or is this this actually acceptable, considering the other problems people have to deal with?”.
And yes, that last question is something almost no-one ever asks themselves. That’s why we’re literally currently devolving. It’s a race to who is going to trigger the “other side” the hardest. It’s easy for algorithms to manage, so that’s what surfaced over the last decades, but it’s absolutely unhealthy. And it won’t end well.
| part of the law.
We’re not in a court of law here. Even then, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, and that only applies to criminal matters. With civil matters the standard is “the preponderance of evidence.”
Outside of court proceedings, the standard is completely arbitrary and has been since, well, forever.
expired
Yes but the same is true in all of it, innocent until proven guilty is a legal thing not a social thing because it rests on the fact that the case is being tried - if I called you a smelly snail then you went to your mom and said I called you a smelly snail you wouldn’t expect her to say ‘well we have to act like he didn’t until it’s been tried in a court of law…’
Thanks for making me laugh :) (I didn’t laugh at you, the snail example was pretty funny).
Yes, the innocent until proven guilty is a matter of legal affairs.
Yes, the public opinion isn’t bound to such limitations. But that is only because the public opinion isn’t supposed to have executive power.
Arguably, the Internet changed that. The public opinion now does have at least some executive power: before the internet, it was practically impossible for anyone to organize a coherent retaliation towards any entity; and that responsibility was entirely left to the official, governmental executive power.
Since social media enabled emergent social organization, coherent retaliation is absolutely possible, and is something the American “left” has been doing for a decade with the concept of “cancelling” people.
Now, as I posted elsewhere, the algorithms in place online are shaping the discourse, and aren’t shaping it in a way that aims at social improvement, but at engagement maximization. Which, you know, anger and hate are the easiest and fastest route to.
The consequence of this is that the American “right” has duly noted what the “left” has been doing, learned from their concept, learned the tools, and is now apparently preparing their own version of “cancelling” people, which presumably involves the second amendment.
It is probably too late to remind everyone that “innocent until proven guilty” shall apply to any and all parties with executive power, however emergent; but I still think it’s an important fact to highlight.
In case we can salvage anything from what our ancestors gave their blood and sweat for, and learn how to resolve conflict instead of giving in, having a major crisis; only after which we will begin pondering what need(ed) to be done.
I do think the Naomi Wu thing was mostly a misunderstanding taken to extremes due to fanbases toxicity (doubt she would’ve outright said Linus wanted her to suck his dick if the stans hadn’t started harassing her, she basically jumped to all out offensiveness out of spite). This, however? Even if she was also being toxic in the workplace, it just means management had been so horrible that toxic behaviors developed with ease and would just spin out of control. This all sounds like they could just not adapt to becoming more corporate oriented fast enough, and the fact that Linus just recently stepped down as CEO is clear proof of this. He should’ve done that years ago.
expired