Ellen Pao Drops Appeal of Gender Discrimination Suit

McGruber writes: Jeff Bezo's newspaper is reporting that Ellen Pao is dropping her appeal of the gender discrimination suit she lost against her former employer, venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Pao sued KPCB in 2012, claiming that women were not given fair consideration in the male-dominated workplace. She also said that a male colleague with whom she had an affair unfairly cut her out of e-mail correspondence and upper management did nothing about it. She was fired soon after filing her suit. After a bruising month-long trial in which her personal character and work performance were repeatedly brought into question, a jury of six men and six woman ruled that there was no evidence of gender discrimination.

Comments

At least I won't have to read about it in Wired

[NotDrWho]

I would say expect another 2-week long series from Wired on what a grave injustice this is and how incredibly brave and heroic Ellen Pao is, but she resigned from their sister company.

Re:At least I won't have to read about it in Wired

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Not to worry, other people are suing tech groups for discrimination quite successfully. Maybe they can write about that instead.

Re:At least I won't have to read about it in Wired

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how these SJWs, who are always complaining about wage disparity, only complain about it and do not offer any examples so that we might work to fix the problem.

But then I suppose it would be revealed that there is no problem.

Re:At least I won't have to read about it in Wired

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile the basement dwelling GG degenerates have never shut up.

Bring on the impotent frothing rage. Your tears are the butter for my popcorn.

Re:At least I won't have to read about it in Wired

[Znork]

Well, sounds like he's actually got a case as the businesses he's suing actually seem to discriminate on sex. Pao, on the other hand, seems like she got treated badly because she was behaving like a flaming SJW and made people want to leave when she was involved, which the later stint at reddit seemed to confirm fairly well.

Re:At least I won't have to read about it in Wired

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you read the CNN take and quote from VC at the end of the article? Apparently the law against discrimination based on sex is what needs to change and not their behaviour.

Re:At least I won't have to read about it in Wired

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Aww. Try a bit harder next time, little troll. I believe in you!

Re:At least I won't have to read about it in Wired

[serviscope_minor]

No, it appears that Davey Alba has written yet another slovenly love letter to Ellen Pao about this already.

What the hell? The linked article is pretty much a bald statement of facts, making the AC's asertion of a "slovenly love letter" a bald-faced lie. If you modded it up---shame on you.

Re:At least I won't have to read about it in Wired

[ilsaloving]

It's a shame that you used the term SJW to describe her. People who are Social Justice Warriors have done important things to help establish rights for people who have been otherwise unfairly marginalized in our society. Unfortunately the term seem to have been usurped by MRAs who use it to describe anyone who disagrees with their (very often bigoted) worldview.

She's NOT a SJW. She's just a self-entitled little bitch throwing a temper tantrum cause not enough people patted her on the head and told her what a special snowflake she is.

Re:At least I won't have to read about it in Wired

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people think it's not sexual discrimination if you're excluding men.

Just as some people think that ugly acts of racial prejudice are no longer "racism" if the person doesn't have enough melanin content in their skin.

Re:At least I won't have to read about it in Wired

[Anonymous Coward]

People who are Social Justice Warriors have done important things to help establish rights for people who have been otherwise unfairly marginalized in our society.

Just the opposite. SJWs are keyboard warriors who, going by actions, don't give a fig about any unfairly marginalized groups. They care more about themselves and starting shitstorms than they do about others and progress.

Re:At least I won't have to read about it in Wired

[ilsaloving]

Doing a little more googling, it turns out we're both right. :P Why can't anything in life be easy?

http://english.stackexchange.c...

But it looks like the pejorative version is winning by a landslide so...... I guess I'll drop my point. A shame, really.

Re:At least I won't have to read about it in Wired

[Anonymous Coward]

The six-week sex bias trial had captivated Silicon Valley and the larger tech industry, where women are still in the minority in spite of efforts to increase diversity. In the venture capital industry, the gender gap is even more prominent: in 2014, only 6 percent of partners at venture capital firms were women, according to a Babson College study. And though Pao ultimately lost the case, supporters lauded her efforts to draw attention to the ongoing battle to create a level playing field for women in tech.

If you think that sounds like a "bald statement of the facts" with no bias towards Pao, then you need to put down the SJW koolaid.

Re:At least I won't have to read about it in Wired

[Mashiki]

Unfortunately the term seem to have been usurped by MRAs who use it to describe anyone who disagrees with their (very often bigoted) worldview.

You mean average people are seeing what many of them are, whiny people who have first world problems, crying about stuff in the first world and not giving a shit about actual problems. Recent examples would include "is air conditioning sexist" and "white men are the cause of all ills in society."

Re:At least I won't have to read about it in Wired

[Znork]

People working for social justice are indeed people I have respect for. But the SJW term is mostly used for the (also often bigoted) temper tantrum special snowflakes, and frankly, the reason there's a need for a term like that is because there's an unfortunate tendency within many social justice movement to refuse to call out those who hide the fact that they're asses and bitches behind a social justice label.

I mean, hell, if people like you said that as far as you're concerned, Valerie Solanas was NOT a feminist, she was just a really fucked up head case we should at best feel sorry about, I'd still be calling myself feminist.

And say what you will about MRAs, but I've found that if you actually ask them who they consider good examples of MRAs they tend to come up with decent people like Warren Farrell, with many drawing the line at about Paul Elam, and pretty much nobody seems to consider the PUA/RP people MRAs.

Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dropping the suit is playing right in to the "it's too hard to fight" theme.
Surely if she wants to actively fight gender discrimination she should push it as long as she can.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe she's just acknowledging what everyone who isn't a die-hard SJW has known all along--that her suit was a joke and so is she.

Re:Why now?

[khallow]

Surely if she wants to actively fight gender discrimination she should push it as long as she can.

Odds are good she's way past that point by now.

Re:Why now?

[sinij]

Dropping the suit is playing right in to the "it's too hard to fight" theme. Surely if she wants to actively fight gender discrimination she should push it as long as she can.

The jury disagreed with your premise that there ever was gender discrimination in this specific case. Just like you can't cure cancer if there is no cancer, you can't fight gender discrimination when incompetent employee was fired for a cause.

Re:Why now?

[bev_tech_rob]

Dropping the suit is playing right in to the "it's too hard to fight" theme. Surely if she wants to actively fight gender discrimination she should push it as long as she can.

She tried, but her pockets were not as deep as theirs. She even had to pay THEIR legal fees.

Re:Why now?

[Stewie241]

Her claim is that "I saw how hard it was going to be to win when every potential juror who expressed a belief that sexism exists in tech — a belief that is widely recognized and documented — was not allowed to serve on the jury,"

I don't think I'm somebody who knee-jerk jumps to discrimination. However, if they were filtering out jurors who believe that sexism exists in tech, that certainly seems to be unfair, IMO. Most people certainly would not consider it fair if a gay person was filing a discrimination suit and jurors who believe that discrimination against gay people exists were excluded from sitting on the jury.

I'm not necessarily saying that was the case here, and I haven't read enough to have a strong opinion on whether the case had merit or not. But if those allegations are true then that certainly stands in the way of a fair trial and should be fixed.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever someone makes a claim of wage disparity, ask them to point out an example so that it may be corrected.

If they can, then we correct it and ask for another, fixing injustice one step at a time.

If they cannot, then there is no injustice to fix.

It's win/win.

Re:Why now?

[nitehawk214]

It is more lucrative to sit back and play the victim rather than actually fight things in court.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

There was no gender discrimination, no reason to continue to fight.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that is what happens when you bring a frivolous suit. There was no gender discrimination.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the Jury simply refused to see it, or the Jury simply didn't see it was proven, or they were all bought off by the Mob.

Just like some people who have cancer aren't treated for it, despite the evidence being there, or just like some people who don't have cancer, are (mis)treated for it, despite not being sick, or any number of other perturbations.

Take a look at anybody who labels her or anyone else, under the term "SJW" or its variants thereof. You can be sure, despite their protests to being the truly rational and reasonable ones, that they're much of the problem, for example.

The greatest irony being that they'd most likely fit their own complaints as applied to their apparent position.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

In a lawsuit, both sides get to filter out some jurors. I'm sure her lawyers also filtered out plenty of conservative "discrimination NEVER exists" types as well. That's how fairness works.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought each lawyer got to pick to throw out jurors based on factors. I remember when my friend was dealing with his DWI case and he was pleading that he was racing/speeding vs driving intoxicated (don't ask me how he got out of the DWI based on a twist of words, I think the guy should have gone to jail). His lawyer worked hard to get car guys on the jury while the state tried to get mothers and sympathetic types on the jury. Sounds like this woman's lawyer didn't do a good job throwing out jurors that agree with her clients cause. Or perhaps people in general don't agree that sexism does exist in tech and it is just an over hyped idea that does not truly exist.

Re:Why now?

[Richard_at_work]

Her comment reads as if someone went through all candidates and rejected *all* those with opinions that agreed with Pao's, which is impossible - the jury is selected from a pool by both sides being able to dismiss a certain number of candidates until the pool fits the jury box. This means that while KP's lawyers could reject those with strong feelings about sexism existing in tech, Pao's lawyers similarly used her selections to load the jury with candidates that would be beneficial for her.

A jury is constructed from "peers", not from "people with beliefs that solely support my case".

She got a fair trial, she's just playing the "unfair" card because she lost.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having been to jury selection, the jurors chosen are from the set that both prosecution and defense believe are capable of making a fair decision based only on the evidence of the case before them.

Instead of crying about jury selection, sue your attorney for throwing the case. Except everyone knows that's not what happened, so she tries a lame appeal to popular ignorance.

Re:Why now?

[Richard_at_work]

She brought the court case, not KP - so people should cut the bitching about who had deep pockets...

Re:Why now?

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

AC wrote this (with my emphasis added):
"Surely if she wants to actively fight gender discrimination she should push it as long as she can."

I'm tempted to agree, and to conclude that it was not really her goal to actively fight gender discrimination.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the Jury simply refused to see it, or the Jury simply didn't see it was proven, or they were all bought off by the Mob.

Or the Jury could have been all secretly replaced by the snake people...
 
No, the simplest explanation that there was no discrimination, is the one logical and unbiased person would go with. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Re:Why now?

[ranton]

In a lawsuit, both sides get to filter out some jurors. I'm sure her lawyers also filtered out plenty of conservative "discrimination NEVER exists" types as well. That's how fairness works.

Both lawyers get unlimited "cause" challenges, where they must convince the judge that the juror cannot make an impartial decision. Ellen Pao is likely claiming every juror who thought sexism is rampant in the tech industry was the target of a successful challenge with cause. If the judge is sufficiently convinced by the defense attorneys, this could have happened.

None of these challenges would count against the defense attorneys' peremptory challenges, which both sides get a limited number of and do not require an explanation. Attorneys can claim their opponent made peremptory challenges based on discriminatory criteria, but I believe this is quite hard to prove.

Re:Why now?

[bev_tech_rob]

Yup...

Re:Why now?

[Triklyn]

i think that gp was suggesting that she lost so hard, the case was of such little merit, that she had to cover the other party's legal fees.

Re:Why now?

[bev_tech_rob]

She brought the court case, not KP - so people should cut the bitching about who had deep pockets...

Wasn't bitching.....just quoting her statements.... Someone had mentioned earlier that she should keep pushing, but her checkbook said 'No'. ;)

Re:Why now?

[sinij]

Lets assume that somehow jury got it 100% wrong and there was a clear case of gender discrimination. Then you have a point. Thing is, such premise should be questioned if you intend to ask the government to forcibly intervene via courts. I would go as far as saying that 12 jurors, who heard the case, deliberated and reached conclusion are a lot more likely to be right than wrong.

Thing is, the law and social justice mores diverge quite a bit. She might have a case if you use such imprecise and support-focused standard, and encouraged by the social media support she failed to check her expectations and misjudged the merits of the case when a much more objective approach was applied. That is, when facts were impartially evaluated instead of relying on her narrative and interpretation, the case was found without merit. This doesn't mean that she didn't felt discriminated, and should be denied all support. It does mean that such support should not include any coercion by the government entity.

Re:Why now?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Surely if she wants to actively fight gender discrimination she should push it as long as she can.

Push it good! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Why now?

[naasking]

However, if they were filtering out jurors who believe that sexism exists in tech, that certainly seems to be unfair, IMO.

In other words, they filtered out those who were biased? Sounds like a good idea to me. The jury is ideally supposed to be impartial.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, no, to the contrary, the simplest explanation is actually that the jury did not find proof of discrimination was demonstrated. That is much simpler than assuming there was no discrimination at all. The one is a lack of evidence, the other is saying something does not exist. A much higher standard, a more complex one, as it were.

So you're wrong on that concept, and on a couple of others, a logical and unbiased opinion would be that a jury is not always right, that they bring their own biases and limitations into the jury room, and sometimes this means justice is not done.

But no, the simplest explanation is not used as a default, Occam's Razor is often the coward's way out of facing some hard facts, a chance to see nothing, hear nothing, and know nothing. Why look for anything else, it must be the SIMPLEST thing. Oh wait, we don't even agree what was simplest, do we?

You are, of course, able to remain blind and ignorant, either willfully or through indifference, despite the possibility of a greater awareness, but that doesn't mean anybody else has to be fooled. Other reasoning exists. Some of it quite contradictory to yours, and banal platitudes will not be very effective in advancing your position, as they are far from persuasive.

Re:Why now?

[dlleigh]

I haven't followed Pao's case so I have no informed opinion on it.

However, I do believe that jury selection processes are so tainted that it's tough to get a fair trial. The process is supposed to be about finding jurors without biases that would affect their decision, but it's actually about putting people on the jury that can be swayed by the prosecution and defense.

I had jury duty a few months ago and, during the selection process, the prosecutor asked who all the scientists and engineers were. It turned out to be about a third of the jury pool, and none of us was selected except a single one who worked for a government lab. Did the case involve any scientific or engineering matters? Not really. It was a drunk driving/hit and run/leaving the scene of an accident thing. My hypothesis is that the police botched the investigation and there was no real physical evidence of guilt, and that the case was based on he said/she said.

The prosecutor deliberately removed people from the jury pool because they could think critically and would not blindly swallow assertions. And it worked: I checked the court records and the defendant was convicted.

Re:Why now?

[Stewie241]

On the other hand, you could say they filtered out those who were not biased.

I would think it would be reasonable to have some jurors who can acknowledge that sexism exists in tech, and then decide whether sexism was at play in this particular case.

In the same way, if the decision to be made was whether or not a slashdot poster had a normal social life, it would not be fair to only consider the opinions of people who believed that all posters on slashdot were basement dwellers. Then you have to prove two things: one, that it is possible that slashdot posters can have normal social lives, and two that the poster in question had a normal social life.

On the other hand, you are right in saying that you also don't want only people who believe that all slashdot posters have normal social lives and have to prove the contrary point that not only do not all slashdot posters have normal social lives, but in this particular case as well, the slashdot user did not have a normal social life.

Instead, I think ideally, you want jurors who are open to the idea that it is possible that some slashdot users have active social lives and also possible that some slashdot users are basement dwellers and actively avoid face to face interaction with others. Then you are left to look at the facts and decide what was reality in that particular case.

Again, I'm not saying this did or did not happen in Pao's case. I haven't really read enough to make an informed decision. She does seem a bit narcissistic when she claims that "Pao also said she believes it would be nearly impossible for lawyers to find jurors who weren't familiar with her high-profile case in the Internet age". Maybe her circles are different and she is very isolated, but I would suspect that there are large numbers of people who haven't the faintest clue who she is, let alone are familiar with her case.

Re:Why now?

[naasking]

I would think it would be reasonable to have some jurors who can acknowledge that sexism exists in tech, and then decide whether sexism was at play in this particular case.

You're only describing one side of this. Yes, jurors who are already convinced sexism is happening were filtered out, but so were those that are convinced that sexism isn't happening. The point is to have a set of people that have little to no information or opinion on the topic, to provide them the facts of this case, define sexism as enshrined in law, and to let them reach an unbiased verdict whether the facts entail that the law was violated.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

She lost, get over it.
She was fired for being shitty at her job, then she lost her "case" because she's a shitty excuse for a human being.

Or just keep sucking the Pao SJWs off, you seem to enjoy doing it so much.

Re:Why now?

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

Yes, and also there is a point of diminishing returns, even if her goal was to just "fight the good fight", or something. She lost in court, and it often makes less and less sense to continue as the losses pile up.

On a side question: what support would she deserve, if the case is without merit? You gave a good explanation of why "government" support is now excluded. What other support do you mean?

"This doesn't mean that she didn't felt discriminated, and should be denied all support."

If it's without merit, then it's without merit, right?

Re: Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, we have the Republican party focused on lambasting Obama for a wage gap in the Whitehouse that turns out to be just their shrill whining over nothing, the same way they go on about his birth certificate.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

So only people who believe in God should be allowed to judge whether creationism should be taught in schools?

If your problem here is that you don't want people with a preconception that there is no sexism judging a case claiming sexual discrimination, then you ALSO don't want people with a preconception that there IS sexism judging the case either.

You DON'T want a jury who all believe "She done it" any more than you want a jury who all believe "He's innocent" BEFORE the trial commences who won't change their mind based on the evidence in court.

Re: Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the person obsessed with your SJWs. I've no concern for them, my real position is a distaste for the continued harping on about them by those who perceive of their enemy in that way.

But if a case was lost because of the "shitty character" of the plaintiff as you assert, then that weighs against justice being accomplished. It is a perilous path to consider a person in that way, and often distracts people from making a fair decision.

So if you actually knew that to be the case and could show it, you would be grounds for Pao's appeal. But unless you were on the jury, that is merely your speculation and a very worthless one at that.

Re: Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I'm sorry, Social Justice Warrior is a bit of a misnomer isn't it?

Is Social Justice Bully more appropriate, or how about SJS? Social Justice Sociopath?

She had no case worth pursuing.
Her character is related to why she lost, but not in the way you hope so much.
It's the reason why she brought suit in the first place. See the fable of the frog and the scorpion.

Re: Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't really matter what terms you use, it is still your obsession and demonstrates your character, not anything about anybody else.

It makes me more inclined to believe you'd deny the existence of any harassment or misconduct at all, no matter what the circumstances or evidence.

To the point where I wonder if you are parroting lines from some Lifetime movie.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Her claim is that "I saw how hard it was going to be to win when every potential juror who expressed a belief that sexism exists in tech — a belief that is widely recognized and documented — was not allowed to serve on the jury,"

Either she's lying, or her attorney(s) are incompetent morons. There is a limit on the number of jurors that can be excused by either side. There's no way the defense would be able to exhaust a jury pool of only those jurors who don't believe sexism exists.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between believing sexism is "rampant" and that it exists. Reasonable people can argue that a juror coming to the table with an opinion burdened by qualifiers like "rampant" signifies a predisposition to believe one side or the other. Just as a juror who believes sexism in the tech industry is "minimal" would be prejudiced against Pao's claim, a juror who believed sexism in the tech industry is "rampant" would be prejudiced in favor of her claim.

If Pao is arguing that she didn't get a fair trial because she didn't have a jury stacked with people predisposed to believe her allegations, then she's an even bigger idiot than I thought.

Re: Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the people who use the term SJW, or your new revision do very much engage with strawmen.

You're chasing after a target, you want us to demonize those you oppose, and you want to pretend you care about some actual injustices being ignored.

But your complaints are about as legitimate as the various police union advocates who complain that Black Lives Matter is a terrorist organization or even that President Obama wants police officers to die.

Your own hyperbole and rhetoric is your enemy, as is the past history.

Maybe you don't want us to remember things like COINTELPRO or the American Party, but some of us can crack open a history book that hadn't been expurgated to suit your narrative. Your kind of complaints have been used against all kinds from the dawn of civilization.

Pharoah, Pharoah, why are you such a liar?

Re: Why now?

[erapert]

Unfortunately, we have the feminists and SJWs focused on lambasting everyone for a wage gap in the workplace that turns out to be just their shrill whining over nothing, the same way they go on about man-spreading and fart rape.

Fixed.

Re:Why now?

[sinij]

Humans are not rational beings, even if she was not in fact victimized/discriminated against, she still can experience negative feelings of being victimized. I can see other people's point of view that social support should be unconditional regardless of actual facts. Such support should be victim-focused, since it lacks actual perpetrator (or more accurately, it is self-inflicted).

Regardless, my primary concern is that we don't conflate social mores and actual laws. Similarly to how we try to adhere to separation of state and religion, we should adhere to separation of state and social-moral justice.

Re: Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that is the sort of thing that the anti-SJWs crusaders are always crying about too, but I wanted to give an example of their own facile responses in attacking others rather than demonstrate their already evident complaints.

Doesn't it just burn to realize somebody caught onto the mental gymnastics?

Re:Why now?

[Znork]

The jury is not supposed to be a debating club, and if you selected juries on the principle that they should contain people who believe both sides you'd have nothing but hung juries.

A jury must contain only people who do not already have opinions that are strongly prejudicial to the opinion they are supposed to form from the evidence presented to them. Anyone thinking sexism is rampant in tech should be as disqualified as anyone who thinks is isn't. Ie, you want jurors who have no opinion on the level of sexism in tech.

If you want people with opinions on the level of sexism in tech, call them as witnesses.

From what I've seen of Pao and the case, I think the preponderance of evidence suggests she's a narcissistic asshole. Which, I suspect, is why she didn't want to continue the case as, considering the reddit debacle further demonstrated her capabilities, she wouldn't have a chance of winning it without a jury of her closest friends.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Hmm - if they ask a question like that, are you obligated to answer?

Re: Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying you believe tech industry is discriminatory is prejudice. Jurors must evaluate the facts of this individual case on a blank slate basis.

Re:Why now?

[dlleigh]

This is a court of law and everyone in the jury pool is sworn in before answering questions. Lying is a crime.

I don't know what would happened if you refused to answer a question, but I'm sure the judge would jail you for contempt if he/she were sufficiently pissed off.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Ah, so you're sworn in before they do jury selection, got it. Thanks!

Re: Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have lost this argument. You can quit reading from your script now. Your post don't even look like you wrote them. They look straight out of a "SJW handbook". Think for yourself for Christ sakes.

Re: Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

She's questioning the jury, so your representation is mistaken, unless you believe a jury cannot be biased.

Which if you do, would make you a fool.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

> However, I do believe that jury selection processes are so tainted that it's tough to get a fair trial. The process is supposed to be about finding jurors without biases that would affect their decision, but it's actually about putting people on the jury that can be swayed by the prosecution and defense.

Actually, they remove anyone with observable leanings to either side. They have to be fair to both parties, so this is hardly unreasonable. I do dislike how it sometimes removes anyone with actual knowledge about the things they're testifying over, but I don't think they did anything unfair here.

If you can't convince neutral parties of your case, you don't have one. And it's not like they even let the jury hear all the rest of her questionable history of claims or her husband's schemes, so as you can see, most people believe justice was served here.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

> She even had to pay THEIR legal fees.

A) She can afford to appeal further, it's just not worth it because she has no case having lost twice. They're millionaires. The fact that this suit was meritless was apparent from the outset, but they were apparently hoping to embarrass KP into folding.
B) KP offered to forgive that debt if she'd leave them alone, but she didn't want to take them up on the offer.
C) The media does a terrible job of reporting on lawsuits. The reporting makes it appear that they have zero clue as to how the legal system works.

Re:Why now?

[david_thornley]

This can backfire. I was once empaneled on a jury (the phase where they have too many jurors so the attorneys can each reject some to leave the right number), sworn to answer relevant questions truthfully, for a paternity case.

The defense attorney went around asking jurors if they knew anything about probability or statistics, and I answered truthfully (I'm not a statistician, but I know quite a bit). I was a peremptory strike. There was no actual indication that the defense attorney made that strike, but it sure looked to the rest of the jurors that the defense attorney was trying to eliminate anybody who could see through a snow job (I got this from talking to one of the jurors later).

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

When an old white guy can't find work and claims an immigrant "took his jerb" will you also "see other people's point of view" or will you call him an evil racist? Seems like this kind of bending over backwards only happens when the "other point of view" is coincides nicely with what you already believe.

Re:Why now?

[dlleigh]

What happened in the anecdote I related had nothing to do with leanings to either side. Asking the scientists and engineers to identify themselves occured almost at the beginning of the jury selection process. This was all about removing people with critical thinking skills.

Re:Why now?

[david_thornley]

Suppose that there is some sexism in tech. In that case, filtering out people who claim there is some gets rid of the people who know what's going on, while filtering out those who claim there is none removes the truly oblivious ones.

I do think there is sexism in tech, but I also think it doesn't happen all the time. I'd have no trouble going through the legal definitions and doing my best to apply them.

Re:Why now?

[david_thornley]

Each side has a limited number of peremptory strikes. There is no limit on the number of people who can be removed for cause. In a drunken driving jury I was empaneled on, one juror had had a close relative killed by a drunk driver, and was rejected by the judge and another juror selected randomly from the pool.

Re:Why now?

[david_thornley]

This sounds like a civil suit, which is decided on the preponderance of the evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if there isn't really enough evidence for either side, there is no preponderance.

Re:Why now?

[naasking]

Suppose that there is some sexism in tech. In that case, filtering out people who claim there is some gets rid of the people who know what's going on

Do they know, or do they just think they know? The whole point of this jury selection process is to filter out such assumptions and establish an impartial jury, to let the each side present their case and let the facts speak for themselves.

Re: Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you so deluded that your are comparing yourself or Pao to Jesus? The Bible is just a book, I enjoy it as much as Dr Seuss.

Please show me in the Bible where Jesus has his affair with someone from his job, gets fired for being a disruptive Psychopath, then cries sexism and sues his former employer. Not for his own spiteful reasons mind you, but the good of all other Christians, because you know he's Jesus after all. Then looses and blames the Jews. That sounds like the analogy you just tried to sell us.

Maybe we would stop calling your plays if you had some new material, this washed up drivel from 5 years ago doesn't pass the smell test anymore, much like Pao.

Re:Why now?

[Lord Kano]

Drunk driving cases are a special breed.

In most states, a criminal defendant has an absolute right to have evidence evaluated in an independent laboratory to confirm the state/county crime lab's results but in many states, that doesn't apply to DUI defendants. The "official" results from the crime lab are the only ones that are permitted.

This is a recipe for abuse.

LK

Re:Why now?

[HornWumpus]

Ask any liberal arts major. We don't have critical thinking skills. We didn't even take the course.

Re: Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the one who brought up Jesus. You wanted things done for his sake. But you have forsaken Jesus, and it is not my fault you're unaware of the historical context of the man you see depicted on the Cross.

He was a rebel, he was treated just like you want to deride your SJW and you don't want to face it, which is no surprise. It'd be hard to read the Book of John, or the Book of Mark, or the rest of the New Testament and face the mirror it would show you.

But perhaps through faith, you can find the strength to master yourself.

Try also Augustine. Then go forth and sin no more.

Re:Why now?

[kuzb]

So because of your one limited experience it must happen in every case possible? When people like you stand up and make broad sweeping generalizations like this based on a single experience it really does make me think that you can't think critically.

Re:Why now?

[Shoten]

Her claim is that "I saw how hard it was going to be to win when every potential juror who expressed a belief that sexism exists in tech — a belief that is widely recognized and documented — was not allowed to serve on the jury,"

I don't think I'm somebody who knee-jerk jumps to discrimination. However, if they were filtering out jurors who believe that sexism exists in tech, that certainly seems to be unfair, IMO. Most people certainly would not consider it fair if a gay person was filing a discrimination suit and jurors who believe that discrimination against gay people exists were excluded from sitting on the jury.

I'm not necessarily saying that was the case here, and I haven't read enough to have a strong opinion on whether the case had merit or not. But if those allegations are true then that certainly stands in the way of a fair trial and should be fixed.

In other words,

"I saw how hard it was going to be to win when every potential juror I wanted to stack things in my favor was not allowed to serve on the jury."

What she doesn't state is whether or not the potential jurors that DID end up on the jury believed that sexism was impossible, or if they simply had a balanced view on the matter. I'm betting her legal team dismissed more than one or two people themselves, and that the balanced view prevailed.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have an affair with coworker, lose most of your credibility.
File a gender based discrimination suit as a female executive lose all remaining credibility. I can't imagine why anyone would ever hire her for any position ever again.

Re:Why now?

[sinij]

I am actually very anti-SJW, as I see it as mostly tribal virtue signaling and thrill-seeking brigading. You on other hand appear to be engaged in the tribal mentality and already categorized me as belonging to the 'other tribe'.

To answer your question directly - yes, definitely. As someone pointed out to me very recently, in absolute numbers there are a lot more poor disadvantaged white males than oppressed racial minorities. If you buy into that narrative.

Re:Why now?

[digsbo]

Ask any liberal arts major. We don't have critical thinking skills. We didn't even take the course.

Did you go to University of Chicago, then, or major in neo-Marxist horseshit somewhere else? ;-)

Re:Why now?

[beastofburdon]

If you think that prosecutors have such a tool and do not abuse it to get convictions you are a complete fool.

Re:Why now?

[david_thornley]

Are you claiming there is negligible sexism in tech, and that we should all know that? If there is a significant amount, even if it's far from universal, then the idea of rejecting people because they believe a true statement seems a bit odd. Jurors are not supposed to be complete blank slates, and it's possible to be impartial even if you have some prior knowledge.

Re:Why now?

[naasking]

Jurors are not supposed to be complete blank slates, and it's possible to be impartial even if you have some prior knowledge.

Complete bank slates is certainly the ideal, even if it's impossible even in principle. Most people form their opinions from things they've been told, or things they've experienced, neither of which are impartial sources of fact. Hence, "do they know something is true, or do they merely think something is true?".

Furthermore, establishing legal fact is a different process from establishing scientific fact. Even if they were a gender research scientist, that doesn't necessarily make them sufficiently unbiased to judge whether sexism happened in this case.

Re:Why now?

[Miguelito]

I've done jury duty a few times and even served on a murder trial back in 2000. It seems they tend to want to remove people who are critical thinkers in general. Both sides. They want people more easily swayed by emotions. At least it sure seemed like it. Though I did get on for the one trial, even though they knew I was titled an engineer and am technical (Unix Sysadmin). They excused a lot of other technically minded people and ran out of the limited excuses before I got into the top of the pool. At that point, at least one business owner and a couple of other people who were also at least somewhat technical got on as well.

Re:Why now?

[kuzb]

Another broad sweeping generalization. What a shock!

Re:Why now?

[beastofburdon]

A ./ troll denying something blatantly obvious. What a shock!

Re:Why now?

[kuzb]

"It's blatantly obvious because of my one experience - which is actually suspect to begin with - to which I have no other supporting evidence is the gold seal standard by which the entire system should be judged. Clearly one person makes the issue pandemic"

Your'e a moron.

as in Germany

[argStyopa]

Now, she should be liable for the costs of the suit.

Re:as in Germany

[NotDrWho]

Loser pays??? That's un-'merican!!!

Re:as in Germany

[Stewie241]

The article does say '"I am now moving on, paying Kleiner Perkins’ legal costs and dropping my appeal," Pao wrote. "My experience shows how difficult it is to address discrimination through the court system."'

Now, it is possible that she is paying the legal costs out of the goodness of her heart, but given the second statement indicating that she doesn't believe the decision to be just, I doubt it.

Re:as in Germany

[Fire_Wraith]

If I'm not mistaken, this may be part of why she's dropping it. I recall reading somewhere that Kleiner Perkins offered to not demand that she pay their attorney fees if she dropped the appeal.

Re:as in Germany

[Richard_at_work]

Pao is already on the hook for a Judge-determined amount of legal costs after the case was decided in KP's favour - the Judge did reduce the amount of costs awarded however, for various reasons. The amount awarded was about $276,000.

KP then offered to forgo recovering the costs if Pao didn't appeal. She made a counter offer of KP paying her $2.7Million to go away. KP rejected that offer, Pao appealed the case, then appealed against the costs, saying she shouldn't have to pay as it "sent a bad message".

Now she has decided to drop it all and pay KP the costs. The only interesting thing left in this case is if KP have taken the deal off the table, will they let Pao off the hook for the costs or not...?

Re:as in Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't quite wrap my head around half of her essay creating a David and Goliath analogy about how much Kleiner Perkins was able to spend on attorneys that she couldn't afford, which was preceeded by her announcing that she is going to pay their fees. So apparently she can afford it.

Re:as in Germany

[bev_tech_rob]

If I'm not mistaken, this may be part of why she's dropping it. I recall reading somewhere that Kleiner Perkins offered to not demand that she pay their attorney fees if she dropped the appeal.

She did offer to drop and they still made her pay anyway..... From New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09...

The court determined that Ms. Pao owed Kleiner $276,000 in court fees, and the firm offered to waive those if she did not appeal. But in her statement on Wednesday, Ms. Pao said that she was still ordered to pay those to resolve the lawsuit.

Couldn't read the Washington Post article due to them hating my ad blocker and prompting me to subscribe.....screw 'em...

Re:as in Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they offered to waive the legal fees if she didn't appeal.

She appealed anyways, putting her back on the hook for their legal fees.

Yesterday she dropped that appeal because she can't convince any well adjusted adults that the imaginary discrimination she suffered was real. And she owes the fees, but I bet they'll waive them anyways just to put this behind them.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a win for common sense everywhere.

Name

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Bezos, not "Bezo".
Also, "Jeff Bezo's newspaper": what, it doesn't have a name?

or go fight actual discrimination. Evidence says

[raymorris]

If she really wanted to fight discrimination, she might go find some discrimination and fight it. The people who heard all of the evidence say there was no gender discrimination at her workplace.

I've heard only a tiny bit of the evidence, only enough to know that she does some really foolish things.

Grumpycat: GOOD

[Anonymous Coward]

People like that with such flawed manipulative characters deserved to be tossed out on their rears for wasting everyone's time. She wasn't even a good worker to boot.

Re:Grumpycat: GOOD

[jazman_777]

She's a botched human who has a warped view of reality.

Re:Grumpycat: GOOD

[Anonymous Coward]

"to boot"

Actually, justice under the rule of law means not caring about whether you like someone, only whether the law was broken. So, even though she IS a manipulative cunt, all we care about here was whether she was fired for being a shit employee rather than for being penis-free. And the jury feels that she was.

Re:Grumpycat: GOOD

[Anonymous Coward]

She wasn't even a good worker to boot.

I love the fact that those SJW's at Reddit hired her because vagina or black skin = great employee, only to find out the hard way that KP was right about her all along.

Re:Grumpycat: GOOD

[hey!]

People like that with such flawed manipulative characters deserved to be tossed out on their rears for wasting everyone's time. She wasn't even a good worker to boot.

Well, you have to consider the position she had, which IIRC was CEO. You can't exactly hold manipulativeness and an inability to demonstrate real long-term value to the company against her.

Ellen Pao is trash

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at what happened to reddit, I wish Ellen Pao would fuck off already. The whole site is now a shithole.

Re:Ellen Pao is trash

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not convinced it was all her fault.

It may have been that she was an easy fall guy, and now that Reddit's expended its energy trying to expunge itself of Pao, it forgot that she couldn't have acted alone. It's not like she was running the site all by her lonesome.

Re:Ellen Pao is trash

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction.

That whole site has always been a shithole.

Re:Ellen Pao is trash

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I though Pao's suit against KP was frivolous (and that's what the evidence and testimony showed), what happened to reddit wasn't her fault. The implosion they had made it clear that all the boneheaded, one-sided changes, and disdain for half their userbase was coming from administrators working under her before she got there.

I actually think Pao was hired at reddit to take the fall for what they had been planning for some time.

Re:or go fight actual discrimination. Evidence say

[Mashiki]

If she really wanted to fight discrimination, she might go find some discrimination and fight it

I'd normally believe that but people like her and SJW's don't, they won't fight for people who are actually discriminated against, they won't fight or protest actual lack of rights for women in various african or middle eastern countries either. Ideologues are gonna ideologue.

Can't even mention Washington Post? Grow Up.

[bigdady92]

The snarky "Jeff Bezo's newspaper" is a crappy lil passive aggressive dig at the paper's owner. Grow a pair submitard.

Re:Can't even mention Washington Post? Grow Up.

[Anonymous Coward]

lol u mad, reddit bro?

Re:Can't even mention Washington Post? Grow Up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Would upmod if I had points.

Re:Can't even mention Washington Post? Grow Up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, just like the Chinese and Indians have destroyed Walmart too! No, actually when it comes to retailing Protestants do it best, not 3rd world freaks used to haggling over a bag of nuts in filthy market stalls. By the way, how's your Alibaba stock doing? Down 30% since the IPO? Nice! Definitely skewering Amazon, which is only up a paltry 60% over the same period. Loser.

Re:Can't even mention Washington Post? Grow Up.

[Anonymous Coward]

SJW alert

Re:Can't even mention Washington Post? Grow Up.

[McGruber]

The submitter is a long-time (20-year) reader of the Washington Post, who has watched it turn to shit.

Re:or go fight actual discrimination. Evidence say

[Anonymous Coward]

they won't fight or protest actual lack of rights for women in various african or middle eastern countries

That requires actual WORK. Much easier to sit on your lazy hippie ass and nitpick and whine about a bunch of stupid bullshit here.

Why management is hard

[phantomfive]

She also said that a male colleague with whom she had an affair unfairly cut her out of e-mail correspondence and upper management did nothing about it.

These sorts of petty fights aren't uncommon these days. Most project management books and classes talk about things like allocating resources, "managing up," agile vs waterfall, etc, but managers spend a surprising amount of time dealing with bizarre interpersonal issues and personal issues that don't really show up in the books. If I were teaching a management class, the first chapter would be "how to get your underlings to overcome weird personal issues."

The fight about the radio in Office Space feels sadly real.

Re:Why management is hard

[Penguinisto]

Actually, the first chapter (given inter-office romances and the all-too-often stupid results that come about from them) should be "How not to shit where you eat".

Re:Why management is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the first chapter (given inter-office romances and the all-too-often stupid results that come about from them) should be "How not to shit where you eat".

Or "Don't get your meat where you get your potatoes."

Re:Why management is hard

[Lehk228]

"Don't fish off the company dock"

Re:Why management is hard

[friesofdoom]

Any manager referring to me as an underling can go pleasure himself with a cucumber, and probably wont get any decent work from me. You might want to revise the title of your first chapter.

Re:Why management is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

managers spend a surprising amount of time dealing with bizarre interpersonal issues and personal issues that don't really show up in the books. If I were teaching a management class, the first chapter would be "how to get your underlings to overcome weird personal issues." The fight about the radio in Office Space feels sadly real.

This would be my required reading for anyone, management or not: The Gervais Principle, or, the office according to "The Office"

Re:Why management is hard

[phantomfive]

Eh, if you're having that kind of emotional/interpersonal issues, you deserve to be called an underling, because you're incapable of taking care of yourself.
I am not talking about you personally, of course, I think you probably don't have those kinds of issues.

So let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

She had an inter-office love affair with someone higher up in the foodchain and shit went south....and somehow this is a gender issue??

I've seen this play out just as horribly with male co-workers and its why I will never date anyone I have to work with on a daily basis.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Chrisq]

She had an inter-office love affair with someone higher up in the foodchain and shit went south....and somehow this is a gender issue??

Yes, the guy should have had the decency to have a gay affair with a bloke in the office afterwards and drop him from email lists too.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it's a gender issue. The boss man isn't fucking men in the office and then ignoring them after a breakup, now is he?

Brave move

[Anonymous Coward]

Brave move ... she had very little appeal to drop.

Still blows my mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

How butt ugly she is.

Such a smug pinched face.

Re:Still blows my mind...

[SpankiMonki]

Thanks for stopping by, Donald Trump.

Re:Still blows my mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's even more disturbing when you realize someone had sex with her.

On purpose.

Or shes a liar!

[Anonymous Coward]

"But in her statement on Wednesday, Ms. Pao said that she was still ordered to pay those to resolve the lawsuit."

She's playing the "I am a victim" card, to play that card she needs to portray herself as a victim. Most likely she is just lying here, like she did in the lawsuit itself.
She's not a victim, she's an aggressive attacker, attacking her employer for a failed affair with a co-worker. I have zero pity for her.

Re:or go fight actual discrimination. Evidence say

[ageoffri]

Which is why I prefer the term that I first heard from John Ringo, if I remember right. Social Justice Bully. These people aren't warriors in any sense and just want to throw their heft around and go after easy targets.

Yesterday's news

[tomhath]

I take that as a dig at all those who were outraged yesterday when National Geographic announced it was selling its media outlets to Murdoch. Pot, meet kettle.

Re:Yesterday's news

[Himmy32]

The difference there was the large change in a nonprofit being bought out by a for profit conglomerate with largely different goals. I am sure if it was bought out by a conglomerate Bezo or anyone else owned there would still be negative reactions. Being the scandal ridden Murdoch - News Corp, was just an added target for people to be upset at.

Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Some years ago we had a post from a lawyer who had experience with employment related law suits. He told us that his advice to clients was to give up and not file a lawsuit. He said that the reality was that the deck was stacked in favor of the employer and he estimated that maybe 10% of lawsuits against employers were won by the employee. I know that it's the Slashdot way to just assume her case was groundless simply because a jury ruled that way. All I can tell you is that while that may be true, we can't make that assumption. Juries are staffed with stupid people a lot of times who aren't fit to be judges on anything. I know because unlike many of you, I've actually served on juries twice. I hope I never get picked again because the whole process has made me permanently cynical about the law and so-called justice in the USA. My brother got fired more than 20 years ago from a low paying job and his employer lied about the reason he was fired in a hearing about whether my brother should get paid unemployment money or not. Whoever heard the case ruled against my brother because it was just his word against theirs and neither could prove their side. Ellen was facing long odds and I wasn't there to hear testimony so I can't judge the merits of her case, but it's idiotic to just assume the jury got it right. If you actually believe that juries almost always get it right you better pray you don't ever have to go to court and have your important case decided by 12 idiots. The last jury I served on had 3 guys in the jury room prior to the day's testimony trying to out argue the other 2 that they were stupider with technology than the other 2 were. These are the kinds of people who decide cases - morons who try to argue that they're the stupidest person in the room and take pride in winning that argument.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that it's the Slashdot way to just assume her case was groundless simply because a jury ruled that way

No, I think that most people assume her case was groundless because she has a long history of being an infamously shitty manager who gets fired from every company she works for, because she makes stupid fucking decisions like having affairs with married men at work, and because she's married to a skeevy guy with his own history of business failures and discrimination lawsuits.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

He said that the reality was that the deck was stacked in favor of the employer and he estimated that maybe 10% of lawsuits against employers were won by the employee.

That doesn't mean that the "deck is stacked against the employee", it means that a lot of lawsuits are groundless. It means that we should reconsider the entire idea of "sex discrimination lawsuits" since they are obviously being massively abused.

I know that it's the Slashdot way to just assume her case was groundless simply because a jury ruled that way.

Actually, I think, once she had an consensual affair with someone at work, she lost any credibility filing a sex discrimination lawsuits (the same is, of course, true for men).

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[Anonymous Coward]

it was just his word against theirs and neither could prove their side.

... uh, so there was no evidence... what did you expect would happen and how do you expect anyone else to judge a case like that? And why the hell did your brother try to bring a case all the way to trial WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE????

...and have your important case decided by 12 idiots...

Kinda like suing someone without any evidence to prove your case.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[Major Blud]

"10% of lawsuits against employers were won by the employee"

As one of the AC's replied, this could very well be because 90% of those cases are completely frivolous. Also, does that 10% include cases that were settled? The EEOC reported that 9% were settled in 2012. That would leave just 1% that were won in favor of the plantiff:
http://smallbusiness.chron.com...

"These are the kinds of people who decide cases - morons"

I've been on quite a few juries. My anecdotal experience has been the complete opposite.

"but it's idiotic to just assume the jury got it right"

It's also idiotic to assume that the jury consisted of idiots.

Re: Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't mean that the "deck is stacked against the employee", it means that a lot of lawsuits are groundless. It means that we should reconsider the entire idea of "sex discrimination lawsuits" since they are obviously being massively abused.

That requires us to assume the system is just, as the grandparent just mentioned. But they also noted their own experiences as to why they did not assume that to be true.

You can disagree with them on that, but it is almost like you completely failed to comprehend their comment.

Or did you miss how what the GP said was disputing reasoning such as yours as specious?

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[Anonymous Coward]

Unemployment hearings (which the Pao thing is NOT) actually largely go in favor of the terminated employee. They're heard by only a judge (no jury) and often are fairly obvious, common-sense rulings.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[Anonymous Coward]

one of the AC's replied, this could very well be because 90% of those cases are completely frivolous.

Having seen a few of these 'I am going to sue' go down. Many times they are fired because of cause.

The old saying "I hired you because your black/woman/whateverquota. I am firing you because you are incompetent". Is very true.

One I saw was seriously funny. "I am going to sue" "at this company?!" "Yeah I think I have a good case for discrimination" "at a company where 50% of the people are women and 40% are minorities?" "Yeah" "good luck with that". She took her 6 months of severance and tucked tail. They even took care of her on the way out. Her position was just simply eliminated because it was no longer needed. It was never filled back in because it was not needed...

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[edtice1559]

Most employees don't have her level of resources to bring such a case. Although what you say is probably true (I certainly have no evidence to refute it), this isn't a typical case. She has an obscene amount of resources to bring to the table on this and still couldn't convince a jury. One thing that certain is true is that she isn't a very sympathetic litigant. I've seen real cases of gender discrimination throughout my career. I've seen more cases of incompetent people taking advantage of being in protected classes in order to claim discrimination when their work just isn't good. There clearly are gender biases in our society but that doesn't mean it occurred here.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[Anonymous Coward]

Juries are staffed with stupid people a lot of times who aren't fit to be judges on anything.

The last jury I served on

These are the kinds of people who decide cases - morons

How did you get on a jury if smart people don't make it? Me and my coworkers never get on juries and are always tossed for having knowledge. You make a lots of stupid assumptions about Slashdot and these cases. I can see why you get on juries.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[Anonymous Coward]

How come if a black person is lazy and incompetent they get fired, but if an Indian is lazy and incompetent (which is most of them) they don't get fired? Seems racist to me, to be honest.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[AmiMoJo]

The lawyer is saying that the deck is stacked, hence the low success rate. You can't turn that around based on just reversing his professional opinion, you have to provide something to support your argument. Are you a lawyer that deals with employment issues? Do you have any data?

By the way, having a consensual relationship with someone is the opposite to sexual harassment and discrimination. You can have one and still be the victim of the other. Duh.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[Strudelkugel]

You must not be in California, where the labor laws are so stacked in favor of employees it is absurd. For example, if there is a wage and hour dispute, and employee can file a complaint with the DLSE. The first meeting is a settlement hearing, not one in which the facts are presented and discussed. IOW, the employer is guilty by default. If no settlement is reached, the employee can decide whether to go to a judgement hearing, or just sue. If the employee doesn't have a case, he or she will sue, paying their lawyer on a contingency basis. Because it costs so much to defend in court, employers are usually forced to settle for a 5 figure number. The employee doesn't incur much risk since we do not have "loser pays" in our legal system. I'm not saying that is always bad, but it does have an impact. Notice also that the NLRB just ruled franchise parents can be considered to be in the "dual employer" role. That means plaintiffs attorneys have deeper pockets to go after, so there will be a lot more of this litigation.

The cold result of this is that it becomes much more difficult for people with limited work skills or employment history to get a job. For an employer, it simply is not worth the risk. Of course the laws were put in place to protect employees against unscrupulous employers, but the reality is that the people who need jobs the most are the least likely to get them now. This is an unmentioned reason why we have a growing underclass of unemployed people. Ellen Pao has become one of these individuals since she is now known to be litigious and therefore an unacceptable risk. She might get a job at a non-profit, though, since non-profit directors have special immunities.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[serviscope_minor]

Actually, I think, once she had an consensual affair with someone at work, she lost any credibility filing a sex discrimination lawsuits

Why? Those are two completely orthogonal issues and are essentially unrelated.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[aardvarkjoe]

It's also idiotic to assume that the jury consisted of idiots.

Aardvark's Law: In any group of people, the majority are idiots.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[Ol Olsoc]

Some years ago we had a post from a lawyer who had experience with employment related law suits. He told us that his advice to clients was to give up and not file a lawsuit. He said that the reality was that the deck was stacked in favor of the employer and he estimated that maybe 10% of lawsuits against employers were won by the employee. I know that it's the Slashdot way to just assume her case was groundless simply because a jury ruled that way.

Actually, I personally decided that the case was groundless because of one thing. She was having an affair someone above her on the food chain. If she had any kind of proof that she was forced to have an affair with the guy, I'd say she was due every cent plus punitive damages. And if she was being forced to, it seems like a good time to start recording evidence.

But even in her court testimony, her reason for carrying on with the guy was because she heard he had left his wife.

The woman simply had zero credibility. As a victim, she just wasn't a very good one.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[Ol Olsoc]

Actually, I think, once she had an consensual affair with someone at work, she lost any credibility filing a sex discrimination lawsuits

Why? Those are two completely orthogonal issues and are essentially unrelated.

No, they are not unrelated. This is not some criminal trial, where evidence can be suppressed and become irrelevant.

The jury in the case had a lot of questions about Pao's affair

To most people, they want a victim to be a victim, not to use their sex as a way to possibly get ahead, which is sure as hell what it looked like.

After reading a lot of the testimony, I came to the conclusion that is exactly what she was doing. Her account of the "pressure" was unconvincing, and her account that the guy sexually assaulted her in 2006 after she was hit by a taxi ( she claimed she was unable to move in a daze, while he was innapropriately touching her) Something a little odd about that whole story, unless you buy into her having Stockholm syndrome. I mean innapropriate touching is sexuall assault, so why didn't she make criminal charges against the guy then?

She had vivid memories, except when she didn't. And her memories seemed to falter on matters that might not have made her look so good.

Serious credibility problem here.

Finally, after all these apparent insults, she offered for KP to pay her 10 million in exit money. They didn't, and she filed the suit.

You can believe whatever you want. I'll come to the conclusion that she rather liked her money, and was having a rather good time until things went south.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[HornWumpus]

Depends what state you are in.

CA as you say, always for the employee.

CO exact opposite.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Because having a consensual affair with a coworker ought to be, by itself, sufficient justification for firing someone.

In addition, it shows bad judgment and a propensity for mixing sex with work on her part.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Are you a lawyer that deals with employment issues? Do you have any data?

Yes I do have data. The data is that 90% of courts of law and juries determine that, after lawyers have made their case, they couldn't find sufficient evidence to convict.

See, what matter isn't what some poster on Slashdot has heard one lawyer say some time, what matters is actually what courts determine.

By the way, having a consensual relationship with someone is the opposite to sexual harassment and discrimination. You can have one and still be the victim of the other. Duh.

Having a consensual relationship with someone at work shows bad professional judgment and should be sufficient reason for termination. At that point, the question of sex discrimination becomes irrelevant.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[AmiMoJo]

Really, having a relationship with someone at work is grounds for termination? That's fucked up. I know lots of couples who work together, some of them even married. I doubt termination due to a consensual relationship would stand up in court in any jurisdiction with reasonable employment laws.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[serviscope_minor]

No, they are not unrelated.

Yes they are in that they are two completely different things. If someone can prove discrimination on the grounds of gender, then it doesn't matter that they've had an affair or not. Having an affair does not make one, as the OP claimed and so what you are implicitly defending, less or more credible. It's just one fact.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[serviscope_minor]

Because having a consensual affair with a coworker ought to be, by itself, sufficient justification for firing someone.

Sure if you work in a nutty workplace, but OK.

In addition, it shows bad judgment and a propensity for mixing sex with work on her part.

Yes, I'll agree with that.

However, merely fioring someone for doing something stupid is not sexual discrimination. It's just normal firing someone for doing something stupid. Likewise exhibiting poor judgement isn't something that'll put you on the receiving end of sexual discrimination. The discrimination has to be done to you by someone else.

In other words, an affair and sexual descrimination are two completely orthogonal things. Having an affair does not make anyone more or less credible when making claims. The credibility is in the evidence presented.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Having an affair does not make anyone more or less credible when making claims.

But having an affair with a superior and then filing a sex discrimination lawsuit when the promotion doesn't happen casts doubts on her motivations and allegations.

However, merely fioring someone for doing something stupid is not sexual discrimination.

Correct, which is why at that point, sexual discrimination becomes irrelevant to the firing.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Really, having a relationship with someone at work is grounds for termination?

No, having a bad relationship with one of your coworkers is: she had an affair with a married man and the affair ended badly and she ended up hating the man. At that point, the employer asks the question: which of these two employees is more valuable and works better with the rest of the team?

I know lots of couples who work together, some of them even married.

And as long as it doesn't affect their work and their ability to work together, it's fine. Sometimes it may even help. But if it affects their work negatively, it's reasonable for an employer to fire one or both.

I doubt termination due to a consensual relationship would stand up in court in any jurisdiction with reasonable employment laws.

Well, fortunately, the US doesn't have "reasonable employment laws" in your fucked up sense; the US, at least in principle, leaves it up to employers who they want to hire and fire.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[Ol Olsoc]

No, they are not unrelated.

Yes they are in that they are two completely different things. If someone can prove discrimination on the grounds of gender, then it doesn't matter that they've had an affair or not. Having an affair does not make one, as the OP claimed and so what you are implicitly defending, less or more credible. It's just one fact.

You are mixing up your opinion with facts. The preponderance of evidence, including her affair, her odd defense of the affair and accusation that the man she had an affair with sexually assaulted her when she had been struck by a taxi, and before they had the affair, and her subsequent asking for 10 million not to sue, just made her a bad example of a victim.

The affair speaks to her veracity, the affair provides a differential explanation of her possibly trying to gain upward mobility by engaging in sex with a superior where she worked. It is completely related to the case, and the lawyers and judge and jury all saw it that way. That you do not is irrelevant.

Or another outlook - what does it do to her veracity if she says she was approached by this guy, she refused his advances, and he was eventually fired for harassing another female employee. That sounds very relevant to her case, and a damning indictment of the group she was working for.

But according to you, that would have nothing to do with the case, right? It has everything to do with the case.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[serviscope_minor]

But having an affair with a superior and then filing a sex discrimination lawsuit when the promotion doesn't happen casts doubts on her motivations and allegations.

Sure. But that's not what the OP said and what I was arguing against. The OP appeared to state that in general merely having an affair was enough to lose all credibility.

Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. But that's not what the OP said and what I was arguing against.

That's because you're a nitpicking half-wit who is incapable of engaging in normal human conversation.

don't shit where you eat

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

She also said that a male colleague with whom she had an affair unfairly cut her out of e-mail correspondence and upper management did nothing about it.

If you're having an affair at work, don't complain when people eventually kick one of the two participants out; having squabbling ex lovers around is disruptive. That's why people don't shit where they eat.

Workplace affairs

[jdavidb]

She also said that a male colleague with whom she had an affair unfairly cut her out of e-mail correspondence and upper management did nothing about it.

What the hell? People who have workplace affairs should be fired - not have management support them by forcing the affair to continue.

Re:Workplace affairs

[jdavidb]

Having a workplace affair does not make you a champion of women's rights.

Re:Workplace affairs

[jdavidb]

Okay, hmm, having read some more, the affair was with a junior partner, so I'm assuming this person was her senior. In that case he should bear more of the liability for the affair and it is likely that in many states she'd be able to sue him and the company for it. Still not a women's rights issue. Maybe the women's rights issue is that he didn't get terminated or disciplined for seducing someone below him in the hierarchy?

Re:Workplace affairs

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think he seduced her? Check your sexism, SJW scum.

Re:Workplace affairs

[serviscope_minor]

What the hell? People who have workplace affairs should be fired - not have management support them by forcing the affair to continue.

Screw you. My best friend got married as the result of a workplace romance.

Re:Workplace affairs

[david_thornley]

In a superior-inferior relationship, it really doesn't matter who seduced whom. The junior partner should have known better than to get sexually involved with a subordinate in any case. That's risky no matter what, and opens the firm up to sex discrimination suits. (It isn't a woman's rights issue unless the superior pushed the subordinate into sex, and the subordinate was female.)

Re:Workplace affairs

[HornWumpus]

Does that apply to Bill Clinton too?

I know, I know. That was not a precedent, it was different...

Re:Workplace affairs

[jdavidb]

I'm not condemning workplace romances; I'm condemning workplace adultery.

Re:Workplace affairs

[david_thornley]

I hope you're not expecting me to defend Clinton's sexual practices. While the trial found no evidence of legal wrongdoing, I believe it did firmly establish that he's a real jerk.

Pao: "Trolls are winning battle for the Internet"

[McGruber]

When I submitted, I forgot to mention that Bezo's newspaper published a July 6 opinion piece written by Ellen Pao: Former Reddit CEO Ellen Pao: The trolls are winning the battle for the Internet

Pao's essay is bizzare -- she complained about "trolls" while she herself used the troll tactic of claiming to be swamped with private messages of support:

As the trolls on Reddit grew louder and more harassing in recent weeks, another group of users became more vocal. First a few sent positive messages. Then a few more. Soon, I was receiving hundreds of messages a day, and at one point thousands. These messages were thoughtful, well-written and heartfelt, in stark contrast to the trolling messages, which were usually made up of little more than four-letter words. Many shared their own stories of harassment and thanked us for our stance.

The writers of these messages often said they could not imagine the hate I was experiencing. Most apologized for the trolls’ behavior. And some apologized for standing on the sidelines. “I didn’t do anything, and that is why I am sorry,” one user wrote. “I stayed indifferent. I didn’t attack nor defend. I am sorry for my inaction. You are a human. And no one needs to be treated like you were.” Some apologized for their own trollish behavior and promised they had reformed.

As the threats became really violent, people ended their messages with “stay safe.” Eventually, users started responding on Reddit itself, using accurate information and supportive messages to fight back against the trolls.

If Pao had really received "hundreds of messages a day" from supporters, then she should have been easily able to use crowfunding to pay her legal bills.... IMHO.

Good riddence...

[Karmashock]

If there is real discrimination then I'm open to hearing about it. But if its just toxic sociopaths spinning tales to intimidate and extort then they can go fuck themselves with a rake.

Re: Good riddence...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, its nice that you say you're open to hearing it, but your following sentence shows a less than entirely neutral position of yours.

Yes, I know you want us to believe that you are rightfully concerned with justice and preventing abuse. But show us your true forthright approach, demonstrate that you will right wrongs. Prove to us your integrity.

If you want to feather the goose, you need to feather your gander.

Re: Good riddence...

[Anonymous Coward]

i read his post as less having to do with him taking action, and more his criticizing the quality of the submission

Re: Good riddence...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh if we worried about whether internet blowhards ever did anything, we'd never get anything done.

Re: Good riddence...

[Karmashock]

I'm open but I'm not neutral because these issues are not being addressed in a neutral fashion. They are being promoted and given undue credibility for largely political and ideological reasons.

And that then requires that I compensate for that. That is the PRICE paid for that sort of advocacy. Now, you might say that is unfair. However, it is all I can do from this vantage. If these cases stop being pushed and biased then I will stop taking such reports with an extra helping of salt.

As to gooses and ganders... and proving I'm one thing or another. I have no interest in proving anything to you. I have neither the responsibility nor the inclination. I also don't appreciate your presumption to believe that I or that the public in general is inclined to not take such matters seriously when the stories are promoted with such frequency absent any justification.

Naturally if you do that then the public is going to become jaded to such stories. And that is unavoidable and natural. If you don't want the public to respond that way... then like what I said above... stop biasing the matter by presuming that a given accusation is valid without evidence. You do that and we have the Duke rape case all over again. Promoting issues that you feel are political relevant is fine. It is your right. But actions have reactions and they're not necessarily going to be the ones you desire unless you're a master manipulator of the social construct.

And to my knowledge no such master exists in my era. We have people that try very hard to manipulate things... but success is quite limited.

Re: Good riddence...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm open but I'm not neutral because these issues are not being addressed in a neutral fashion.

This may indeed be true. Both parts, but we don't know it. No substantiation has been offered. And the latter could be true, in the opposite way, that these events are being discouraged and discredited for largely political and ideological reasons. It's not at all unknown that real and genuine complaints of all kinds are often dismissed out of hand, pushed that way because of the biases of those involved.

So maybe your compensation needs to work a bit harder, if you want people to believe you are open-minded. That is the price to be paid for your wanting to claim to being open, you have put the responsibility on yourself, by your own choice.

That's right, it was your own action, your own words, and if you have no interest in demonstrating that you mean what you say, well, that could be a problem.

See, the thing is, maybe other people are jaded as to all of the people claiming to be open-minded, claiming to just be waiting for something real to come along, while meaning no such thing, and presuming instead that all accusations are invalid on their face. Much like say, politicians who claim not to have seen any scientific evidence of various things are really not being honest, and unfortunately this has been true since before the Scopes Monkey trial, and continues to be true today. None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see. These are not new words, but rather old ones.

So you ought to be able to recognize that that kind of action has lead to a number of reactions, including yourself being doubted. As I said, what happens with the goose happens with the gander. This is natural and unavoidable.

You talk about the Duke Rape case? I offer you the US Military with the many claims against problems in its system. Cioca et al v. Rumsfeld et al was not decided on the facts, but on legal protocol. Whether or not you believe that was a proper judicial decision, and that they should avail themselves of other avenues, does not mean their claims were invalid. SAPRO has released many reports.

Go ahead and read them if you like. It is your choice, nobody is going to force you to do anything. Nobody actually expects anything of internet blowhards. You'll say what you say, maybe you'll mean it, maybe you won't, but nothing will lead to any action. You won't even send a chain e-mail to your political representatives or sign one of those whitehouse.gov petitions. You'll do nothing, and the world will go on.

And your goose will still be feathered with the gander.

Re: Good riddence...

[Karmashock]

As to substanciation, this isn't a court of law, gent. This is the court of public opinion and it has a very different standard of evidence.

The people that are pushing this shit have exploited that. And that's fine. Because the same thing that allowed them to do that has in it the solution to the problem itself.

What will be rejected is the attempt to have a double standard. if you push one thing through on ONE standard then get used to it being knocked over by anything else that wins through on the SAME standard.

if you want to do this all by the legal book... Fine. Abolish Title IX and make it clear that throughout on all these issues that its the court of law or nothing.

You won't and can't do that. Which means that standard is not applicable in matters of public opinion.

As to internet blowhard... That is all that sustained Poe's case in the first place. And that particular insult kill you as quickly as it kills me... thus granting your position no relative superiority.

You're basically arguing against your value as a person expressing his opinion here as a means to undermine me. It is self defeating.

We're done. Good day. You can have the last word. I'm gone.

Re: Good riddence...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, no, this isn't a court of public opinion, that's far too grandiose an aspiration, it's merely a internet discussion forum, with relatively limited impact and meaning. But sure, you do have to deal with other people, and yes, that includes you not having a double standard. But as you already said that you have no interest or inclination in establishing your own provenances, well, due to that, you will be having a double standard, since you're upset at one purported group whose behavior you consider suspect, and so require them to meet a certain standard since you consider them biased, but won't follow through with applying it to yourself in showing your own lack of bias.

Not sure why you want to get rid of Title IX, whatever you think of it, it's not meaningful here. I'm not aware of Slashdot operating under any federal assistance, not in such a way as to make a claim under that act applicable. It is not a controlling matter. If there is anything applicable here, it's the First Amendment, namely free speech. You certainly have your own right to speak, and nobody will really have any way to hold you accountable except by their own exercising of speech. Which can be done, people can and will speak against you as I have. You can take that as you will, but as I said already, you are just an Internet Blowhard, and there isn't any action to go with your words. So words can match yours.

Your words, nonetheless, are still how you established your own value. By your own words, you've refused to apply what you want from others to yourself.

Hypocrisy, I believe is the term for it.

But you need not be bound by that initial declaration, you can change, and you can undertake the effort to validate your own self. You can take up the path of virtue and be a shining beacon for others to see. You can show your forthrightness as a lesson for others. If you want. You have the freedom to do it. The power is yours.

Re: or go fight actual discrimination. Evidence sa

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience, it is the Self-proclaimed Right-wing Martyrs who go after the easy targets. The SPRMs atre always attacking their imaginary strawmen who keep offending them somehow.

It's much easier than dealing with real problems like who deserves to win the Hugo this year.

Re:Pao: "Trolls are winning battle for the Interne

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole SJW crowd of peeps don't ACTUALLY give any 'support' beyond words on a screen.

Effort? Money? Nooope.

Financially Prudent

[Anonymous Coward]

Her husband, Buddy Fletcher, was successful at racial discrimination lawsuits. Right up until someone called his bluff and now he's bankrupt and will probably spend a few years in jail for SEC fraud. Who knows what skeletons are hiding in Ellen's closet... but if her work at KP was like her work at reddit, she should have been fired for gross incompetence years ago.

Re:Financially Prudent

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing about that "racial discrimination" case was that later it was disclosed that he never received the full bonus not because he was black, but because he wouldn't disclose how he earned his profits. Now that we know his funds were all shabby ponzi schemes, it's likely his profits at Bear Sterns were not exactly legit either.

Re:or go fight actual discrimination. Evidence say

[sinij]

Barbarians at the gate are technically warriors, so the SJW label is appropriate.

Paying the cost of the lawsuit

[Etherwalk]

Now, she should be liable for the costs of the suit.

Not really. This is a social policy decision, but especially in discrimination cases there are very good reasons for *not* making an unsuccessful plaintiff pay for the costs of the suit.

First, it gives the defendant an incentive to hire a more expensive legal team to encourage settlement.

Second, while *most* discrimination claims brought to court are bullshit, a lot of legit discrimination claims are never brought to court. We allow the *most* bullshit claims because we think it's *important* to allow the non-bullshit claims. If the plaintiff has to pay costs if they lose, that makes plaintiffs who have actually been discriminated against a lot less willing and able to sue, because it will wreck their lives if they fail. And those plaintiffs are the ones least likely to sue.

What should happen in theory is that the companies that are found *to have discriminated* should have to pay a tax that covers at least a part of the legal expenses of every other company that gets sued over this, because it's the companies that actually discriminate which make all of that litigation necessary. In practice that's politically untenable, though, at least for a while.

Re:Paying the cost of the lawsuit

[david_thornley]

However, if the case turns out to be frivolous (as opposed to having insufficient evidence), it's reasonable to ask the plaintiff to pay legal fees. If there's some evidence, but not enough to convince, I agree with you.

Re:Paying the cost of the lawsuit

[gfxguy]

I agree with loser pays, but I also think it ought to be capped, like the cost of ONE lawyer and ONE legal assistant at an industry average cost per hour, plus maybe some reasonable miscellaneous expenses. I do think that, otherwise, large corporations (or the wealthy) would just hire 100 lawyers at top rates to scare away potential lawsuits.

Re:Pao: "Trolls are winning battle for the Interne

[neo-mkrey]

Trolls?


Fuck that worthless cunt!

Re: At least I won't have to read about it in Wire

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like how Republicans went off about the pay disparity in the Obama White House?

BTW, fewer police officers are being shot this year than before, and the size of the US Navy has little to offer in explaining the effectiveness of today's fleet versus that after World War I.

Also, act of terror is reasonably interpreted the same as a terrorist act and the Swiss keep their ammunition at the gun range or military base, not at home, and almost nobody has a CCP.

Keep playing that card buddy, it isn't going to win you a hand.

Re:Pao: "Trolls are winning battle for the Interne

[Anonymous Coward]

What's your deal against the Washington Post? Why do you call it "Bezo's paper" instead of the name everyone knows it by?

Re:Pao: "Trolls are winning battle for the Interne

[Anonymous Coward]

Good to know my reddit PM bot is still working....

I can see the headline

[goombah99]

Jury Pow Wow Kapows Pao says WaPo.

Re:Pao: "Trolls are winning battle for the Interne

[Type44Q]

“I stayed indifferent. I didn’t attack nor defend. I am sorry for my inaction. You are a human. And no one needs to be treated like you were.”

I don't suppose the sociopath who made up the above (*cough Ellen *cough*) had the foggiest idea of how transparent it actually sounds...

Re: At least I won't have to read about it in Wire

[Anonymous Coward]

at home is where the swiss keep all of their jew gold.

i like to think when each swiss citizen is born, they each get a real gold filling, pried out of a real dead jew's head.

Re:or go fight actual discrimination. Evidence say

[serviscope_minor]

I'd normally believe that, but people who whine all over the internet about SJWs and their various evils won't actually bother getting up of their arse, going out and fighting those supposed evils, they're just going wit at home and whine all over the internet. Ideologues are gonna ideologue.

Pot, meet kettle.

Re: At least I won't have to read about it in Wire

[Lord Kano]

My politics are as right wing as they come and there is hypocrisy all across the political spectrum.

While the left is ringing the #BlackLivesMatter bell, they dutifully ignore the black lives being snuffed out in abortion clinics.

In the center, you have people breaking their arms to pat themselves on the back about how tolerant they are on same sex marriage but they're not so tolerant when it comes to polygamy and consensual adult incest.

The right has embraced #ICanBreathe and #BreatheEasyDontBreakTheLaw when it comes to black people, they're cheering Kim Davis' flouting of a federal court order.

Hypocrisy isn't a left/right issue.

LK

Re: At least I won't have to read about it in Wir

[Anonymous Coward]

The left is actually the group that opposed the involuntary sterilization measures that were practiced, and the left doesn't support any extant programs to discourage particular races to reproduce that I know about.

If anything, the left gets blamed for supporting welfare that gets minority bwomen to

Is she a relative of Kung Pao?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please let me know.

Re: At least I won't have to read about it in Wir

[Anonymous Coward]

and the Swiss keep their ammunition at the gun range or military base, not at home

That's where issued ammunition is kept, but they can keep personal ammunition at home.

Re:Pao: "Trolls are winning battle for the Interne

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you refer to all publications by their owners names? Seems an odd convention.

Re: At least I won't have to read about it in Wir

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ok, we're not talking about their personal firearms.

Of which there are relatively few.

Re:or go fight actual discrimination. Evidence say

[Mashiki]

You seem pretty butthurt, funny that I can find the actual problems with SJW's like "safe spaces" and trying to shout people down, pulling fire alarms, or attacking people because it's something they don't want to hear. Strange you don't know about any of that, perhaps you should go spend some time traveling? After all, their first world problem whining says a lot, much like yours.

Re: At least I won't have to read about it in Wir

[Lord Kano]

The left is actually the group that opposed the involuntary sterilization measures that were practiced, and the left doesn't support any extant programs to discourage particular races to reproduce that I know about.

Not explicitly but there is a reason why 80% of Planned Parenthood facilities are in minority communities.

LK

Re: At least I won't have to read about it in Wir

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are the under-served communities that suffer from poverty and need the services that Planned Parenthood provides, most of which is not, in fact, abortion?

But no, it's the Left that gets blamed for the minority women having lots of children too, so either way, its the Left that gets blamed.

The Right is consistent in that, at least.

Re:or go fight actual discrimination. Evidence say

[serviscope_minor]

I can find the actual problems with SJW's like "safe spaces" and trying to shout people down, pulling fire alarms, or attacking people because it's something they don't want to hear

I too can find problems with a bunch of random stuff I just made up against evil internet boogeymen!

After all, their first world problem whining says a lot, much like yours.

Ah are you one of those people who don't believe first worlders can have problems?

Wait if you're always worried about the poor people in Africa or whatnot, that's pretty much worrying about *social* justice. Congratulations you're an SJW too! Welcome to the club, I'll pop your membership card in the post.

Re:or go fight actual discrimination. Evidence say

[Mashiki]

I too can find problems with a bunch of random stuff I just made up against evil internet boogeymen!

I don't have to look up a bunch of random stuff, I can easily find the big names like Jessica Valenti, Jonathan McIntosh or Laurie Penny, and see their ignorance and stupidity on display. No bogyman required.

Ah are you one of those people who don't believe first worlders can have problems?

You mean against imaginary stuff like "how A/C is sexist", or "why smiling at a women is rape?" Wow those sure are pressing problems.

Wait if you're always worried about the poor people in Africa or whatnot, that's pretty much worrying about *social* justice. Congratulations you're an SJW too! Welcome to the club, I'll pop your membership card in the post.

See here's the difference, they'll whine and complain or ignore it, because it might draw undue attention to themselves and they'll actually have to do something instead of spouting off on the net. On the other hand, I've actually gone out into the world and tried to make it a better place, got the t-shirt and all that.

Re:Pao: "Trolls are winning battle for the Interne

[Anonymous Coward]

"she should have been easily able to use crowfunding"

Mmmmm..

CrowFunding.

Re: At least I won't have to read about it in Wir

[Lord Kano]

It is the left that incentivized it.

The welfare queen is a real thing. I have seen it.

LK

Re: At least I won't have to read about it in Wir

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether the Welfare Queen thing is hyperbole or not, you're now blaming the left for abortions and baby making.

Thanks for the clear demonstration of my point in your own hands.

What SJW means

[eric_harris_76]

You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.

Re: At least I won't have to read about it in Wir

[Lord Kano]

I'm blaming the left for reproductive irresponsibility. Abortion and having a bunch of children that one can't support come along with it.

Re: At least I won't have to read about it in Wire

[ebvwfbw]

The left is always accusing the right of doing exactly what they're doing. They have the war on women. They think black lives don't matter. Wage discrimination for women has been illegal since the 1930s. Yes, 1930s, updated in the 1960s. Then they use blacks as useful idiots all the time. Look at Trayvon Martin to distract from all the other stuff they're doing. When they can't find that - bring up Bruce Jenner or a lion named Cecil, while ignoring what's happening in the rest of Zimbabwe, or here in America for that matter.

This is not to excuse the right. The Republicans are filled with idiots, as are the Democrats. The Reps have both houses and don't seem to realize it. They do whatever the Dems want. Even announcing it when they took power.

It'll be amazing if the US is still a country in 10 years.

Re: At least I won't have to read about it in Wire

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's it, blame the Left for exploiting women and blacks, this song was sung during the Civil War too. Frankly the only thing worse you could do would be to say "It was Democrats who caused the Civil War" which is a rather common meme from the Right. Yet it's the worst kind of lie, a half-truth that leaves out one important aspect of the facts. Bonus points if you can say it on your own. As for Trayvon Martin, he died for no real reason other than somebody wanted to play tough rather than go about his business. Meanwhile George Zimmerman is showing the extent of his true character, the police want us to believe they're in genuine danger from a group that is protesting because they feel threatened by police brutality, and the Right is playing up that whole affair in order to convince their White Middle Class base that the enemy is out there just like was done in the 1960s, and more recently, we've heard calls for how we need to build a wall around Fortress America to keep safe. Yes, even blocking of Canada, those nefarious Maple-drinkers. Useful idiots? You know that there are plenty to go around.

But LOL, Cecil the Lion? What, you think that's a major talking point for the Left or something? It's a media buzz, appealing to the public who actually gives a shit about Lions for various reasons while ignoring people and animals that are less cute. Same with other celebrities. Meanwhile more people suffer and nobody cares enough to file a police report. This isn't the Left's problem. It's a problem for everybody. We're all guilty of it.

But your understanding of politics seems to have been bought into the right-wing persecution complex, which thinks of itself as the victims of some vast left-wing conspiracy that leads to them being trapped by a nefarious and mysterious evil. Meanwhile it's actually Democrats who have danced to the Conservative tune for years, including that supposed hallmark of supreme socialism, the Affordable Care Act. Which in no way nationalized the health care system, in no way served as a government takeover, but was instead a payout to insurance companies. And that was done with a supposed-Democratic majority of evil Leftist Communist Marxists who hate America. Yet the next Presidential Candidate the Republicans nominated? Had the same plan in his own state, and despite half a decade of waiting, we've yet to see a real Republican counter-proposal.

Meanwhile, voting turnout is plummeting, the House is obviously gerrymandered and undersized, and nobody is doing anything about it. The tea-party nuts are forcing Boehner to walk on the edge of a crisis because they can't stand the thought of governing the country, and he's too afraid of them to work with anybody on
the other side to get things done. They even came up with a crazy political shenanigan for a treaty deal with Iran so they could pretend to argue against it, while doing nothing. Nobody could admit they had nothing better to offer, nobody could admit it needed to be done, but they have to sound tough while still letting it happen.

But no, the US isn't going anywhere. There's no real impetus to dissolution, things are running fine, and the government is not especially unstable. It would take a major act of corruption to even get that far, and nobody is stupid enough to try that.

Re: At least I won't have to read about it in Wir

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, this is not in question, you don't need to repeat yourself on that point, you are blaming them for both abortions and baby making, and I have already thanked you for clearly demonstrating it, since you identified yourself already as being "as right-wing as they come" with regard to your politics. I do appreciate it, it saves me the trouble of finding examples of that behavior, and means that there is no need for any argument between us over that point.

Re:or go fight actual discrimination. Evidence say

[serviscope_minor]

I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Fire alarms?

Rather than just making vague accusations and then posting unrelated lists of names how about you form a coherent argument.

On the other hand, I've actually gone out into the world and tried to make it a better place, got the t-shirt and all that.

So you have actually gone out and fought for social justice! A real warrior! Not just a fake internet one.

Re: At least I won't have to read about it in Wir

[Lord Kano]

You have already made up your mind. I didn't say it for you.
I restated the case for the benefit of any observers who may not have understood my position.

LK

Re: At least I won't have to read about it in Wir

[Anonymous Coward]

Misunderstood your position? Who did you think that would be? I don't think I'm confused, so why would you reply to me with what I already recognized? Did you not notice? I thought it was quite clearly stated.

That was what made me think you didn't note my thanking you for making such a demonstration, so I repeated it.

Have you noticed my thanking you yet? That isn't clear to me at all.

Re:or go fight actual discrimination. Evidence say

[Mashiki]

I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Fire alarms? Rather than just making vague accusations and then posting unrelated lists of names how about you form a coherent argument.

Oh you don't know about the SJW's pulling fire alarms, trying to drown people out so they can't speak, and so on? And those names? Very much related, so are their followers. That was a coherent argument after all. I'm sure you'd also support someone like sarah nyberg, you know the one that's being all buddy-buddy with their SJW friends, after it came out that they're a pedophile and actively perused their 8 year old cousin.

So you have actually gone out and fought for social justice! A real warrior! Not just a fake internet one.

Of course that's not social justice, or even justice.

Re:or go fight actual discrimination. Evidence say

[serviscope_minor]

Oh I see, random nutjob is automatically SJW. Right. Yet more evidence that the term has become meaningless. And therefore anyone using the term is either a fool our dishonest.

I've no idea who Sarah Nyberg is: I've never heard of her. It's funny how the social injustice warriors assume anyone they disagree with is part of a giant hive mind. Anyway, come back when you've got a link to something more credible than Bretbart (e.g. The daily mail, Fox news, the national inquirer, the flat earth society monthly newsletter or timecube.com). That website is utter drek and I'm not going to dignify it by visiting.

And yes what you're talking about is social justice, which is very different from criminal justice.

It's hilarious that you've warped your world view so much that you'll actually spew vitriol in the direction of things you support because you've got a bee in your bonnet about sine all pervading hive mind internet bogeyman. I've got a deep secret from the SJW world I'd like to share with you: it doesn't exist.

Re: At least I won't have to read about it in Wir

[beastofburdon]

If you are looking for welfare queens you need to look toward large businesses and the extremely rich. They take more in government welfare than all of the poor combined.

Re:or go fight actual discrimination. Evidence say

[Mashiki]

Oh but they're not a random nutjob, that's what's funny. Perhaps you should look into it, after all if you don't know who sarah nyberg is, you should spend a bit of time reading it. They're part of the large SJW clique online. I do like however that you ignored the evidence, would you like the logs? They're out there too. The fact that you dismiss something because it doesn't fit your world view while claiming that someone' world view is warped, is actually what's funny.

See here's what's interesting, I've provided proof. You've yet to provide anything other than your statements. You categorize them as "warped" because they don't fit into your particular viewpoint on something, that's called group think and confirmation bias, your statements make the argument that it doesn't exist. So I'm sure that's all fine with you, but perhaps you should spend a bit of time asking yourself, why you can't provide proofs to anything.

Ellen Pao's husband's bias suit dismissed

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bias-suit-against-dakota-co-op-is-dismissed-1442284972

Sept. 14, 2015 10:42 p.m. ET

A state judge has dismissed a racial-discrimination lawsuit filed by hedge-fund manager Alphonse Fletcher Jr. against the Dakota co-op on Central Park West.

Mr. Fletcher is the husband of Ellen Pao, who earlier this year lost a three-year sex discrimination battle against her former employer, venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

In 2011, Mr. Fletcher accused the co-op and board members of discrimination and defamation after the board refused to approve his purchase of a unit next to one he had already owned.

In a ruling Friday, New York Supreme Court Justice Eileen Rakower said the board had raised extensive questions about Mr. Fletcher’s finances, and Mr. Fletcher had failed to show that these reasons were a pretext for discrimination.