Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Uber Ex-engineer Who Alleged Sexism Retains Lawyer (usatoday.com)

Posted by msmash on from the come-at-me-bro dept.

Marco della Cava and Jessica Guynn, writing for USA Today: The former Uber engineer whose critical blog post has stirred a storm of controversy for the ride-hailing giant has retained an attorney, charging that her former employer is blaming her for a rash of app deletions. Susan Fowler, whose Feb. 19 essay detailed myriad examples of sexism, tweeted Thursday that "Uber names/blames me for account deletes, and has a different law firm - not Holders (sic) - investigating me."

62 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Breaking news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Man puts shoes on feet. Man proceeds to tie shoes. News at 11:00.

    1. Re:Breaking news by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      ... and we have some breaking news, a man in a Guy Fawkes mask has been spotted stumbling through rush hour traffic with no pants, and his shoe laces tied together...

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
  2. Victim Blaming? by Archeopteryx · · Score: 2

    Worked so well for Cosby, after all...

    --
    Dog is my co-pilot.
    1. Re: Victim Blaming? by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Victim blaming happens far less than false claims

      I don't know, I feel like it happens every single time one of these stories comes up. It's important to figure out the truth in these situations, but the rest of us who are not involved can calm down, step back, and wait until the truth actually comes out instead of trying to blame.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re: Victim Blaming? by Tailhook · · Score: 2

      It's important to figure out the truth in these situations

      Is it? I'm told insisting on evidence is "dick waving."

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    3. Re: Victim Blaming? by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It depends on how you phrase it. If you say, "She might be lying, I won't believe her until evidence comes up" then yeah, that's bad. If you say something like, "What an awful situation. I feel so sorry for her, and everyone involved. I will wait until the evidence comes out before judging" then you're good.

      If you lead with sympathy, you're good. If you lead with accusations, then you're bad.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re: Victim Blaming? by lactose99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >Victim blaming happens far less than false claims.

      This is the most demonstrably false statement I've read in quite a while.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    5. Re: Victim Blaming? by lactose99 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You want proof? Go read any slashdot post relating to sexual harassment. Every single one has plenty of victim blaming to go around meanwhile only a relatively small percentage were later proven as false.

      Read any sexual harassment case on foxnews.com or Yahoo.

      Victim blaming happens all the time, its a usual method to try and silence someone.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    6. Re: Victim Blaming? by phantomfive · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Scepticism is not an accusation.

      Way to miss the point AC, way to miss the point.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re: Victim Blaming? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      It depends on how you phrase it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re: Victim Blaming? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You're such a pleasant, nice, kind, gentle person.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re: Victim Blaming? by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      If you lead with sympathy, you're good. If you lead with accusations, then you're bad.

      A problem, I think, is that too many people assume the presumption of innocence we must extend to an accused, involves a corollary presumption of guilt against the veracity of the accuser. That is not so. Someone making a complaint is entitled to the rebuttable presumption that their accusation is made in good faith, just as the person against whom the complaint is raised is entitled to a presumption of innocence.

      The "process" --and this clearly applies to a curial process, but arguably it ought also apply to an investigative one --might be understood as a process of resolving the contradiction, by reference to the available evidence, between the two presumptions reason (or law) requires us to make.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    10. Re: Victim Blaming? by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      It depends on how you phrase it.

      Doesn't it depend more on actually "wait[ing] until the evidence comes out before judging," rather then merely phrasing it so? (Depending on what 'it' is, of course).

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    11. Re: Victim Blaming? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      A problem, I think, is that too many people assume the presumption of innocence we must extend to an accused, involves a corollary presumption of guilt against the veracity of the accuser.

      This problem can be met by being compassionate all around. Don't say false things, but when you speak the truth, be compassionate towards the people around it. With compassion, you can even say hard things to people and get away with it.

      Now if you'll excuse me, I have some people to insult in the midst of a flame war.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re: Victim Blaming? by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      You're an enigma, phatom. :)

      But look, I'll withdraw my second post. You're right. Correct expression is (nearly) as important as working from the correct presumptions.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    13. Re: Victim Blaming? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how judgemental you can be when you phrase it kindly :)
      Of course you are right, being a good person is better than talking nicely. Why not do both?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re: Victim Blaming? by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. --Prov 15:1

      It's amazing how judgemental you can be when you phrase it kindly :)

      Yes, I was left with an uneasy feeling that this might be going on here .. but as I said above, I withdraw. Looking at the totality of your contributions I find nothing to persuade me from the presumption ;) that you have anything but the best intentions in mind.

      Your basic point, if I understand you, is the all too common to rush to blame the victim, even where blame is clothed in the mantle of "scepticism," (e.g. "I'm not saying you're lying, but I won't believe you until you prove you are not lying") is a wrong and we should guard against expressing our doubt in that way. It would certainly be intolerable where the accusations are well founded (which we cannot know until the evidence is examined), and as against OP assertion that "[v}ictim blaming happens far less than false claims," one rather suspects the exact opposite to be the case.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    15. Re: Victim Blaming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Go read any slashdot post relating to sexual harassment. Every single one has plenty of victim blaming to go around meanwhile only a relatively small percentage were later proven as false.

      Emphasis added.
      I agree with you, but do you see how you changed the assertion?? "small percentage is false" and "small percentage was proven false" are not equivalent statements.
      Sexual harassment cases are such that proving them right OR wrong is difficult.

    16. Re: Victim Blaming? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You can have sympathy for liars, too. They must have miserable lives after all.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    17. Re: Victim Blaming? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Good points.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re: Victim Blaming? by piojo · · Score: 1

      So what do you propose instead? Keep in mind that blaming the accused (before evidence or judgement is given) is basically as wrong as blaming the accuser. How do you express skepticism or withhold judgement in a way you see as correct?

      It's not good enough to just say keep your mouth shut. What's the right thing to say when one of your friends states that either the accuser or the accused has done Horrible Things?

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    19. Re: Victim Blaming? by ranton · · Score: 2

      I'm sure you'll be more than happy to provide some data to that effect, right?

      It is so obvious no rational person would need data for this, similar to needing data proving things fall when dropped. But here you go anyway.

      It is nearly impossible to find out how many sexual harassment cases are unfounded, but you can get a rough idea of how many by comparing them to forcible rape statistics where there has been more investigation into false claims. According to the FBI about 8% of forcible rape cases are deemed to be unfounded. Other studies put the number closer to 2%. But even though false claims are very rare, only about half of rape cases end up in a conviction. For sexual harrassment, the plaintiff wins about 40% of the time (both this and the above 50% statistic for rape are only for ones which make it to trial).

      So considering the conviction rates are similar for both sexual harassment and rape claims, it is unreasonable to assume to rates of false claims are drastically different. Whatever the rate of false sexual discrimination claims are, they are probably somewhere around 5-10%.

      Compare that to the near certainty that someone blames the victims in cases of sexual misconduct or rape.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    20. Re: Victim Blaming? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I focused on the phrasing here because that's what Tailhook (above) was asking about.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re: Victim Blaming? by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      So what do you propose instead? Keep in mind that blaming the accused (before evidence or judgement is given) is basically as wrong as blaming the accuser. How do you express skepticism or withhold judgement in a way you see as correct?

      As you say it's "basically as wrong" to go one way or the other. I already answered this above, but to recap: What I propose is nothing more radical than adhering to the ordinary presumptions a court is required to make, for example, in a criminal process. That is to say that a) the accused is entitled to the (rebuttable) presumption of innocence and b) the accuser(s) (and indeed all witnesses) are entitled to the (rebuttable) presumption of honest testimony. As I wrote above, the process can be thought of as a resolution of the contradiction thus set up.

      If there is relevant evidence tending to speak to a client's guilt, one seeks to exclude it on the basis that it is unlawfully obtained; hearsay; tendency or coincidence evidence; &c. Bearing in mind the restrictions due to the credibility rule, one seeks to impugn the reliability or character of the witness; to show the testimony is self-serving; &c. And of course, where possible, to show that the evidence led is demonstrably false. However, the mere fact that evidence that tends to show the guilt of an accused is not a reason to presume that evidence is false (and then have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, its veracity). The point of the presumption of innocence, after all, is that the state lead evidence to rebut it.

      Now as private citizens reaching mere opinions, we need not, of course, be anywhere near as punctilious as a court, much less need we work to a criminal standard of proof (my opinions are held on the 'balance of probabilities'). However bearing in mind the proper presumptions as we consider the limited evidence available should stop us jumping to hasty conclusions either than an accused is guilty or an accuser a liar.

      What's the right thing to say when one of your friends states that either the accuser or the accused has done Horrible Things?

      How about: "You know I really envy your confidence in coming to quick conclusions with very little direct evidence." ;) Being the contrary bastard that I am, I often begin arguing the opposite of any position put to me. TBH, I'm a bit self-centred, probably you'd get on better with people if you just go along with the tribal prejudices of your friends.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    22. Re: Victim Blaming? by piojo · · Score: 1

      Just contradict whichever opinion is being stated? That's reasonable. Though it's a strategy rather than a universal response, so it's vulnerable to being taken out of context by dicks. Not that that matters, unless you write for a large audience or using your real name.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
  3. which car company? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    I'm having trouble keeping track of all the sexual harassment claims at car companies.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:which car company? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 4, Funny

      They're releasing an app for that.

    2. Re:which car company? by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Dude, it's right there in the title and the third word in the summary.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  4. Re:... uh by quantaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Right... if she's just retaining a lawyer now after posting that shows some lack of planning on her part. Regardless of the truth of her claims, she had to figure that she would be charged with defamation based on the heavy claims she's made against a aggressive company.

    Why? She wasn't suing them and her claims were verifiable, the logical response from Uber was ignore or apologize. A smear campaign, if that is what's happening, would be a really stupid response on their part.

    It should be noted from the article that it's not even clear that someone is going after her, or if Uber is that someone. I wouldn't be surprised if some MRAs weren't taking it upon themselves to make an example of her.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  5. Wait a min... by bobbied · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, now after her Blog post might have caused a PR nightmare for Uber, they are apparently strong arming her by hiring a law firm to "investigate" her? This is NOT good for either party here. Lady, it's time to fie suit or apologize.

    Now I have no first hand knowledge of either party, but it sure seems like Uber is convinced that she cannot substantiate her story about what happens inside Uber so they are going to legally muzzle her to stem the PR damage she's doing. My guess is Uber has determined that just letting this go and weathering the PR storm is not in their best interest, that they need to take some kind of legal action to stop this woman from making her claims. They didn't choose to settle with her, pay her to be quiet or even sue her (yet) and are willing to keep the story alive. They apparently believe they can make this stop by taking action faster than letting the news cycle run it's course.

    Uber is either being uber stupid or this lady is making stuff up. I'm thinking that's it is more likely this lady is making stuff up and Uber is making legal moves to stop her from lying about them. Uber may not be totally ethical at times, but I don't think they are stupid...

    One thing is sure, now that lawyers are involved on both sides, nothing good is going to happen.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:Wait a min... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What if you spontaneously combusted?

    2. Re: Wait a min... by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      100% of made up statistics like the one above are bullshit.

    3. Re:Wait a min... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      this is uber.

      dollars to donuts, THEY are lying.

      occam would also agree...

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:Wait a min... by barc0001 · · Score: 5, Informative

      If this was out of the blue, that might be a reasonable question.

      However, Uber being a sexist and shit place to work is well known gossip in the vallet tech scene, and add to that the fact that you've got the SVP of engineering resigning last week for not disclosing his sexual harassment problems at his former employer - Google, AND there was the dashcam video of Uber's shithead CEO badgering one of his drivers. So with all of that in hand, it's not hard to see Uber as a company with a systemic problem of harassment. Plus, she states in her post that she does in fact have documentation:

      " I pointed out that everything I had reported came with extensive documentation and I clearly wasn't the instigator (or even a main character) in the majority of them - she countered by saying that there was absolutely no record in HR of any of the incidents I was claiming I had reported (which, of course, was a lie, and I reminded her I had email and chat records to prove it was a lie)."

      If she actually has copies of the documentation, chat logs and emails, then Uber doesn't have a pot to piss in, metaphorically speaking.

    5. Re:Wait a min... by hey! · · Score: 2

      what if she's a lying sack of shit and none of the stories she tells were true?

      Simple, Then everyone involved ends up in the shit hole.

      Nobody will believe Uber, because most people have concluded by now they're bastards anyway and their childish CEO doesn't help. But then anybody who actually needs to know whether they can trust her (e.g., future employers) wouldn't be quite sure about her after all the conflicting stories come out.

      And they'd have to. Given the sheer magnitude of the culture of dickishness she describes (sexism is one of the many forms of dickishness she describes) if it were all a fabrication people would be standing up saying it's not like that at all. I'm surprised it hasn't happened anyway, given the number of them who must have stock as part of their compensation.

      So it boils down to this: does she seem like the kind of person willing to blow up her own future in order to get some dirt on them.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Wait a min... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      We going to say the same thing. Given everything we know about Uber, it's not surprising that they would do something so pretty and try to bully their way out of this.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Wait a min... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Libel is NOT a crime, it's a civil matter. The government isn't going to put her on trial for libel, but the entity she lied about can take her to civil court for damages. The only really part the government might play here is (apart from supplying the court) is to assist somebody in collecting a judgment.

      My point here is that if she's lying, her best out now is to plead for mercy from those she harmed and try to get a settlement that doesn't ruin her professional and financial prospects further. Even if she's not lying but doesn't have a provable claim she can file on Uber, she'd be well advised to "man up" and let this go, sooner rather than later. However, if she thinks there is enough evidence, then she needs to file suit NOW....

      It's put up or shut up time.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:Wait a min... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Didn't Uber previously hire private investigators to dig up dirt about the sex lives of tech reporters that criticized them? I have no idea if this woman's report is true. But I have a much easier time believing that a shit bag corporation would continue to be a shit bag corporation than this woman would choose to paint an enormous target on herself so that every jackass on every tech blog can call her a liar. And that's not even getting into harassment from the crazy MRA fringe.

    9. Re:Wait a min... by bobbied · · Score: 2

      what if she's a lying sack of shit and none of the stories she tells were true?

      Then she's about to get legally reamed by Uber, and she deserves it. Which is why I'm thinking the smart play here is to beg for mercy, unless she has a good case on Uber, in which case she needs to file suit ASAP. Remember, Uber knows the truth here or they have a pretty good idea how this would play in court (and the lowly ex-employee vrs the Big Bad Rich Company NEVER plays well in court). It sure looks like she's got nothing, but who of us knows?

      For her It's put up or shut up time. Given Uber's behavior, I think it's most likely time to beg for mercy, but Uber could be doing something extremely stupid, in which case she needs to file suit for lots of money now. If Uber is truly being stupid, she's going to have them by the short hairs in court so she needs to pull and twist as hard as she can, if not for the money, for the next ex-employee who wants to vent about their bad experiences at Uber. But if she's "stretching the truth" they will have their way with her (legally speaking) in court and she could end up in a really bad financial place so she needs to end this soon.

      If she's bluffing they are setting up to call her hand, she better have the cards to beat them, because they don't seem to be backing down and they can afford to keep betting.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    10. Re:Wait a min... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      She could very well be telling the truth, but you really are hilarious:

      "well known gossip"

      thanks for citing authoritative source.

      "she states in her post"

      more incontrovertible proof for sure.

      your other words about how other execs at the place are douchebags isn't really relevant, all big companies have them.

    11. Re:Wait a min... by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      Sure, but the story about the CEO and the SVP re well documented in the news, the former even on a separate /, post. As for me mentioning "in her post" I took that to mean that she'd damn well better have the mentioned backups of email and chat logs or she is very far out on a limb - as in I doubt any sane person would commit such actionable libel unless it wasn't in fact libel and can be proven. I think the fact that Uber hasn't yet sued her means there's some merit to that speculation.

    12. Re:Wait a min... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      what if she's a lying sack of shit and none of the stories she tells were true?

      There is a whole shitload of workers at Uber, men and women alike, who are saying her claims are true. Unless every motherfucker involved in this is collectivelly lying (and someone shows me proof of it), then I will assume she is not.

      The nature of Uber as a company is now in the open, the CEO has just admitted it. The only way for her to lie is to be lying about *her* own harassment which would no longer contradict everything else that has come up to the open. The cat is out.

    13. Re:Wait a min... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Libel is NOT a crime, it's a civil matter. The government isn't going to put her on trial for libel, but the entity she lied about can take her to civil court for damages. The only really part the government might play here is (apart from supplying the court) is to assist somebody in collecting a judgment.

      My point here is that if she's lying, her best out now is to plead for mercy from those she harmed and try to get a settlement that doesn't ruin her professional and financial prospects further. Even if she's not lying but doesn't have a provable claim she can file on Uber, she'd be well advised to "man up" and let this go, sooner rather than later. However, if she thinks there is enough evidence, then she needs to file suit NOW....

      It's put up or shut up time.

      By her claims, she has documentation, emails and chat logs, plus there is a whole bunch of other engineers testifying of similar harassment situations, with male employees also backing their female coworkers in their complaints.

      So, Occam's Razor unless there is solid proof that 1) she is lying, and 2) her lies debunk the accusations brought forward by all those other engineers.

    14. Re: Wait a min... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      I wish there were a betting site that could put money on this, because I know I wouldn't put a dime on uber and it could make me a rich rich man. I'd bet the house.

      Indeed. People act as if this lady is/was the only person bringing accusations of harassment, and all other accusations are just a fabrication, a collective conspiracy against... I dunno... man rights or something.

    15. Re:Wait a min... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The "amount of evidence" is not an indicator of what it shows, but if she has what she claims, she needs to file suit.

      I'm sure Uber already knows what the truth here is and they generally are going to act in their own best interest based on this knowledge. If they already know she's going to prevail, then they have two choices... Let the story die by ignoring it and hope she goes away or go on the attack and get her to shut up using legal means. You don't try the courts unless you have nothing to lose, know you will prevail or are plain stupid. Uber isn't stupid and has lots to lose, which means they are pretty confident they will prevail.

      Like I said, I don't know either party here, so who really knows? I'm just giving you what my analysis leads me to conclude is the most likely. You are free to disagree..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    16. Re:Wait a min... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      what if she's a lying sack of shit and none of the stories she tells were true?

      Then anyone who publishes her claims will be sued for large amounts of money by Uber, I assume.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    17. Re:Wait a min... by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      It is not up to her to file a suit about anything. If Uber want to sue her for libel, then she gets the chance to defend herself in court on the basis that what she says is true.

      It's Uber who have to prove she has libelled them, not she who has to prove anything.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    18. Re:Wait a min... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      She claims she was harassed in the workplace, mistreated and otherwise had to endure their crap while employed at Uber. IF her claims are true, she has standing to sue, especially in the liberal mecca she lives. Remember that the Big Rich Uber vrs the lowly female ex-employee already slants to her favor in civil court.

      But hey, I ask you, why is Uber making legal moves by retaining a law firm to investigate her? You hire a private investigator for that kind of thing, not a law firm, unless you intend to file. They are thinking seriously about filing suit and the law firm is wisely getting its ducks in a row before running down to the courts and pay the filing fee. None of Uber's actions make sense if this isn't the path they are on... Doing this keeps her in the spotlight longer which keeps her claims swirling around doing damage to the company and keeping the PR department busy trying to cope. Why keep all this in play if they are not going to file? Just let it naturally die in the news cycle, but here they are helping keep the plate spinning for awhile longer. Stupid move if you are not on the path to a lawsuit.

      So, seems to me she's getting sued. The question is the tactics she chooses to defend this. If she's sure they cannot get her for liable and her story is true, I recommend a pre-emptive harassment claim and make them counter with the liable claim. It will look better for her in court than just waiting and making the harassment counter claim. Now if she's making this stuff up, they are going to call her bluff so she needs to be looking for a way to fold, sooner rather than later. She won't be able to afford the lawyers much less the settlement if she keeps bluffing all the way to court.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  6. Re:Women are dangerous by hey! · · Score: 1

    Lucky for you, then.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  7. Re:... uh by lactose99 · · Score: 2

    This is a reasonable response and got modded as flamebait? Christ

    --
    Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
  8. Re:... uh by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    She's retaining a lawyer because Uber is trying to smear her.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  9. Re:Women are dangerous by Grog6 · · Score: 2

    Yes, and unfortunately, the more dangerous, the more Fun. :)

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  10. Re: ... uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're only upset with women because the only lady who'll fuck you is Palmela Handerson.

  11. Re:... uh by argumentsockpuppet · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Makes you wonder exactly who has mod points today.

  12. Re: ... uh by Lordpidey · · Score: 2

    You're only upset with women because the only lady who'll fuck you is Palmela Handerson.

    Look at this guy! He can't get laid! His opinion must be invalid!

    --
    Some people encrypt by using rot-13 twice. I prefer the more secure method of using rot-1 a total of twenty six times.
  13. Re:... uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Replace MRA with feminist. Your idiotic reply carries no weight.

  14. Re:Women are dangerous by hambone142 · · Score: 1

    Given enough money, everything can be made better.

  15. Re:... uh by quantaman · · Score: 1

    Probably for the last sentence, which shoe-horns in MRAs and accuses them of doing...something?

    I probably jumped the gun, but I think it is a legitimate concern. There's a real history of women standing up against sexism in the computer industry and becoming the target of online harassment, and with the current political situation those groups are emboldened. If I were a woman I'd be very hesitant to make myself visible, I'm certain there are already people searching the Internet for personal information to discredit her.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  16. One thing's certain by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    One thing's certain. S/he's got balls!

  17. Re:... uh by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    It's not that. It's Slashdot's utterly broken moderation system.

    For example, if I were granted mod points today, I could not mod quantaman's comment up, because I'm making this comment here and stupid Slashdot won't allow me to mod and post in the same article. I've been complaining about this for many years now, but it never changes, and probably never will because the site maintainers are stubborn and stupid, and always have been (even when they change).

    Because of this stupid rule, I simply never mod anything, because inevitably I'll want to make a comment somewhere, and that undoes my prior moderations. So why bother?

    So the only people making moderations are idiots who have nothing intelligent to say, or people who do have something intelligent to say but then don't because they want to "do their part", so we lose out on their useful commentary. It's a horribly stupid system.

  18. "Alleged"? by EnglishTim · · Score: 1

    Is anyone seriously disputing that she experienced sexual discrimination at Uber?

    Then why the weasel words?

    1. Re:"Alleged"? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      she could be a gold digger.

      of course, she could be telling the truth.

      but you're implying we should reach a conclusion based on emotion and "it must be true" and "it sounds right to me" without hard proven facts.