Google Reportedly Paid Andy Rubin $90 Million After He Allegedly Coerced Sex From Employee (theverge.com)

The New York Times has revealed new details on the circumstances that surrounded Andy Rubin's departure from Google in 2014. According to the report, Google "investigated sexual misconduct claims against Rubin, which revolved around an incident in which he allegedly coerced another Google employee into 'performing oral sex in a hotel room in 2013,'" The Verge reports. "Despite reportedly finding the claims credible -- to the point that Page decided Rubin needed to go -- Google gave him a $90 million exit package. The last $2 million of that agreement will be paid out next month." From the report: Before that payout, and during the initial stages of its investigation in 2014, Google awarded Rubin "a stock grant worth $150 million." The move gave Rubin, at that time a highly-valued executive at the company, major financial incentive for sticking around after he'd moved on from Android to focus his efforts on a robotics unit. The Times says it's unclear whether Page or Google's leadership committee knew about the misconduct allegations when they approved that huge grant. But they certainly did when reaching the $90 million figure as Rubin headed out the door, and Page offered public praise for Rubin in announcing his departure. After he left, Google proceeded to invest in his VC, Playground Ventures. And the company even allowed him to delay paying back a $14 million loan it'd given him "to buy a beach estate in Japan." In a statement to the New York Times, Google said: "[W]e investigate and take action, including termination. In recent years, we've taken a particularly hard line on inappropriate conduct by people in positions of authority. We're working hard to keep improving how we handle this type of behavior."

UPDATE: Google CEO Sundar Pichai sent an email to employees Thursday in response to the report, saying 48 employees have been fired for sexual misconduct over the last two years.

Comments

Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean by "coerced"? "Coerced" as in he forced an employee to give him a blowjob or "coerced" as in he convinced an employee to give him a blowjob? There is a huge difference between the two. If it's the latter definition, then there is no issue. Adults can do what they want.

Re:Coerced?

[shaitand]

Legally yes, but a boss is not entitled to even attempt to convince an employee to engage in a sex act or allowed to participate in a sex act with a willing and consensual employee in most businesses. It is a conflict of interest. People are supposed to get raises for work performance not because they will suck a dick for it.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Coerced as in there was an imbalance of power in the workplace.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

We should call Bill Clinton. He can clear it up.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you are the President, then you can have an intern suck you off and 150 million people will shout, "It's just sex! It was consensual!"

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was considered consensual by Monica Lewinsky. She's continued to say so even decades later.

Re: Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

He did get a r@ise, 90M worth, in one shot. Beach in Japan had it coming.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

We should call Bill Clinton. He can clear it up.

That depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Re:Coerced?

[tsqr]

Legally yes, but a boss is not entitled to even attempt to convince an employee to engage in a sex act or allowed to participate in a sex act with a willing and consensual employee in most businesses. It is a conflict of interest. People are supposed to get raises for work performance not because they will suck a dick for it.

Actually, legally no, though it's civil liability rather than criminal. And the legal issue is not conflict of interest. Coercion is implicit when a there is a significant difference in the power or authority of the two parties, even when both parties claim the relationship is consensual. A hypothetical example would be, oh, say the President of the United States and a White House intern.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Legally yes, but a boss is not entitled to even attempt to convince an employee to engage in a sex act or allowed to participate in a sex act with a willing and consensual employee in most businesses. It is a conflict of interest. People are supposed to get raises for work performance not because they will suck a dick for it.

Guess you missed the post I was responding to.

Either that or you missed the point entirely.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

-Nope! Sex was consentual, unlike Trump raping his ex wife, or being urinated on by Russian whores for kompromat. Entirely different, sorry YOU don't get it, traitor.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Coercion is implicit when a there is a significant difference in the power or authority of the two parties, even when both parties claim the relationship is consensual.

I call bullshit. Citation please. We're not talking about statutory rape here.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Very interesting when the CEO is married to a coworker. Yes it happens in smaller companies.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Legally yes, but a boss is not entitled to even attempt to convince an employee to engage in a sex act or allowed to participate in a sex act with a willing and consensual employee in most businesses. It is a conflict of interest. People are supposed to get raises for work performance not because they will suck a dick for it.

Actually, legally no, though it's civil liability rather than criminal. And the legal issue is not conflict of interest. Coercion is implicit when a there is a significant difference in the power or authority of the two parties, even when both parties claim the relationship is consensual. A hypothetical example would be, oh, say the President of the United States and a White House intern.

I would be very interested in how you came to that conclusion. As far as legality is concerned the law seems to indicate that for sexual harassment in the workplace to take place it must:

Be unwanted
Or
Job review/position must be tied to the sexual advance (example I'll give you that manager position for a blow job).

Granted, executive with subordinate sexual relations are forbidden in almost all corporate policies.

http://www.workplacediscriminationlaw.com/sexual-harassment/

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

People are supposed to get raises for work performance not because they will suck a dick for it.

Marissa Mayer

Re:Coerced?

[cayenne8]

Actually, legally no, though it's civil liability rather than criminal. And the legal issue is not conflict of interest. Coercion is implicit when a there is a significant difference in the power or authority of the two parties, even when both parties claim the relationship is consensual. A hypothetical example would be, oh, say the President of the United States and a White House intern.

So, you're saying now, that in this day in age...you are no longer able legally in any way, to date within the company???

Geez....so, if you are a boss and you see a lady you want to date, you have to fire them first, before you can ask them out?

That doesn't seem to be a good opening line no matter how you look at it...

Re:Coerced?

[rogoshen1]

In this day in age you have to be absolutely pants on head retarded to even THINK about pursuing a romantic relationship with a co-worker (If you're male. Women it seems will get a bit of a pass here.)

And if you've managed to attract the attention of a female co-worker; be afraid, be very afraid -- in fact you might as well resign as you're one spurned advance away from a career ending false #meToo moment. (hyperbole? perhaps).

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if you convinced me that you would be dismissed with $90 million dollars over this blowjob, and that half of that would be mine... I would consider that coercion!!

Re:Coerced?

[Hylandr]

a boss is not entitled to even attempt to convince an employee to engage in a sex act or allowed to participate in a sex act with a willing and consensual employee in most businesses.

This is a matter of common corporate policy, but by no means is this a law.

Re:Coerced?

[bobbied]

Coercion is implicit when a there is a significant difference in the power or authority of the two parties, even when both parties claim the relationship is consensual.

I call bullshit. Citation please. We're not talking about statutory rape here.

NO citation necessary. IF the boss is trying to get a person who works for him to do something personal and not business related (sexual or otherwise) it is considered improper and subject to civil litigation. If it's a sexual favor being proffered for say a good review, retaining one's job or some such, epically if the "victim" is a woman, willing or not, you can bet her lawyer will have THEIR way with you and your company for allowing it.

I'm telling you, DON'T date where you work. Even as peer to peer. It's hardly ever a good idea and rarely works out well for anybody involved.

Re:Coerced?

[squiggleslash]

If you're a paranoid Slashdotter who thinks feminism is scary, then sure. If, on the other hand, you let things happen naturally (as opposed to begging everyone in a skirt for sex), and avoid dating people who work under or over you (this isn't new, the view bosses shouldn't have sex with subordinates is something I remember learning in the 1980s, before I even gained employment myself), you'll be fine.

Social stuff and dating has always been a little scary for nerdy types, but this paranoia crap has really gotten out of hand. You do know members of the opposite gender want relationships and/or sex as much as you do, right? Even *gasp* heterosexual female feminists have boyfriends and sometimes even husbands, the horror!

FWIW, I met my future wife at work. We did lunch a few times, and one thing lead to another, and, well, we're married. With a beautiful kid who's smarter than I am. In the real world, rather than Eric Raymond's blog, this is fine and normal and the way the world works. Stop worrying, just... you know... don't be an asshole and you'll be fine.

Re:Coerced?

[rogoshen1]

Paranoia in (moderation) is a healthy human instinct evolved for a good reason though. The simple fact is that realistically all it would take is a whiff of impropriety and you're fucked.

For every relationship that ends up in marriage, there's what.. 10-15 others didn't work out so well? When dating a co-worker, or you know, going down that path, the odds are definitely not in your favor. But true, it does occasionally work out.

But the sad truth though is given the many, many avenues of meeting people -- trying to fish off the company pier is probably the worst out of all of them.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

when a there is a significant difference in the power or authority of the two parties

... more like he has to make an effort to keep his ... in his pants, because it might accidentally get sucked when he is not paying attention. All the allegations against him sound more like an attempt at blackmail, and Google only had to distance themselves for PR reasons.

Re:Coerced?

[MrKaos]

People are supposed to get raises for work performance not because they will suck a dick for it.

Maybe it was Andy Rubbin one out?

Re:Coerced?

[cayenne8]

Social stuff and dating has always been a little scary for nerdy types, but this paranoia crap has really gotten out of hand. You do know members of the opposite gender want relationships and/or sex as much as you do, right? Even *gasp* heterosexual female feminists have boyfriends and sometimes even husbands, the horror!

Picking up and dating women, isn't really the problem.

The thing you now have to be paranoid about is, that the #MeToo has been weaponized...and if you jilt her or she doesn't take a breakup very well, well, all it takes now is a mere unsubstantiated accusation and your career and life are toast.

Re:Coerced?

[losfromla]

There's zero evidence of the claims you are making. You are parroting the talking points of the very demented and unhinged occupier of the WH and his idiot sycophant followers.

Re:Coerced?

[losfromla]

wtf?

Re:Coerced?

[losfromla]

You wouldn't consider it a pretty good offer? It's way higher than the going rate for a BJ even from a very high-priced call-girl... so I hear.

Re:Coerced?

[gman003]

No, just only within your own rank. Date a coworker? Sure. Date your boss or your underling? Nope.

Re:Coerced?

[squiggleslash]

No, it hasn't been weaponized, it is paranoia, and what you're describing is not what's happening.

Firstly there are very, very, few cases where #metoo concerns one allegation against a man. In general virtually every #metoo case, from Spacey to Kavanaugh, has involved multiple people bringing up cases of sexual assault. Additionally, virtually all have been corroborated in some way. Dr Ford's testimony, for example, while imperfect, had the somewhat compelling fact behind it that she'd been in therapy about this incident for four years, without any reason to believe Kavanaugh was going to be appointed a supreme court justice. Cosby admitted his behavior in a court deposition on an unrelated case. Weinstein's own staff supported the allegations of multiple victims, and other directors - such as Peter Jackson - came forward to confirm that women who didn't cooperate with Weinstein were smeared and blacklisted.

Second, virtually none of the #metoo claims (none I can think of) involve relationships that have gone wrong.

Third problem: there are multiple disincentives for making false allegations: most women who have come forward have seen negative consequences for their careers despite apparently telling the truth. Now imagine that some idiot makes a false allegation against every ex-boyfriend who she has a bad break-up with. How credible do you think she'd be?

Now, that said, remember that we're talking about here are nerds frightened to date because they think they'll be #metoo'd if they ask Karen from Accounts Receivable on a date. They're not going to be #metoo'd for asking Karen for a date. They will probably suffer an immediate hostile response if they just jump in with a date request without spending some time getting to know her, but it's not likely to go to HR. Frankly, it's not likely to go to HR if it involves a stolen kiss, however gross that might have been for the poor woman, because she's (A) had to put up with this shit for most of her life and knows there are no consequences for people who do this and (B) she'd be embarrassed and unlikely to say anything anyway.

I'm not saying that because I think you should behave that way. Of course not! (1) You'd be an asshole if you did, and (2) if you're really interested in a date with Karen then you probably want her to be happy, rather than feeling disgusting and humiliated. But the point I'm making is that women put up with rather a lot of low level shit that you'd never think would be tolerated, so the paranoia about #metoo isn't justified. Let things happen naturally. Try not to be a dork. If it's not to be, it's not to be, be prepared to let go.

You definitely shouldn't be putting your life on hold because you think the moment you ask Karen to lunch Gloria Allred's going to appear out of nowhere demanding you be fired and Karen gets paid one kagillion dollars.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Weaponized biz-nazi women ... well known. Poison Ivy on hydroponics. Evidence? Don't fuck around much do you ... and don't read the paper spewing SJW Trotsky-slut .

Re:Coerced?

[squiggleslash]

The simple fact is that realistically all it would take is a whiff of impropriety and you're fucked

Not really, no. It'd have to result in a formal complaint to HR (unlikely), HR would have to believe the best solution is to fire you (very, very, unlikely), and so on. A bad relationship? These things happen, and in most companies the people in those bad relationships tend to work it out themselves without getting the company involved. Usually that's just being professionals - we all work with people we don't like from time to time.

Note that none of the cases in the headlines are as you describe. They're not people who were in bad relationships, they're cases where a single man has groped, used his power to force sex with, or even drugged, multiple women. This story is interesting in that it's apparently one woman that made the complaint, but I bet you if you scratch below the surface you'll see that she wasn't the only victim which is why Google were so keen to get rid of him. They certainly weren't in fear of a lawsuit, as that would have cost somewhat less than Rubin's severance.

trying to fish off the company pier is probably the worst out of all of them.

It's not ideal, but it's the 21st Century, and in the US in particular with its lack of social spaces, it's the most available and common way to get hitched. It's fine as long as you're not a predator.

The men who are being #metoo'd are not being fired for bad relationships, they're being fired for multiple incidents of horrendous behavior.

Paranoia is a useful instinct, but sometimes it's whipped up by people with agendas, and harmful and needs to be overcome.

Re:Coerced?

[ScentCone]

A hypothetical example would be, oh, say the President of the United States and a White House intern.

Nope. Hillary Clinton - the most intelligent person in the world - says that's not true, because Lewinsky was "an adult." So, that settles that.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol. You're talking to a bunch of aspie nerds on the internet. The closest thing they'll ever get to a workplace bj is if they let the hand dryer in the bathroom blow on their tiny little pricks.

Re:Coerced?

[gerald.edward.butler]

> who works for him

Yep, the boss is always male. How sexist of you! Misogynist!

> epically if the "victim" is a woman

Yes, women need special protection from men by other men. They need to be at home where their man can protect them from the "world". Problem solved!

> Even as peer to peer.

Yep. That's why women and men should not share work-places or schools or clubs or hobbies or shopping areas or bathrooms or beaches or parks or roads. Yes, if we just covered women in a thorough head-dress from head-to-toe we could better protect them from the evil men. Too bad we're not as sophisticated as Saudi Arabia!

Re: Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your Kavanaugh facts regarding her 2012 therapy are incorrect. Please research before repeating. He was considered top SC candidate for Romney.
  But I am sure that was just conveeeeenient coincidence. And her lengthy list of checkable lies and zero corroboration. She is a liar.

Re:Coerced?

[DNS-and-BIND]

EXCEPT if it's Bill Clinton. Then, Monica Lewinsky was able to consent, despite what you just said about power differentials. That's right, the President of the USA, the most powerful man in the world, and an intern. There could not be a greater power disparity.

Reminder: 20 years ago, Monica Lewinsky, Jennifer Flowers and Juanita Broaddrick tried "breaking their silence" about Bill Clinton. TIME did not name these brave women "Person of the Year". Instead, Hillary Clinton and the mainstream media attacked and victim shamed them. #MeToo

He got a blowjob from an underling during work hours inside a public government office. How do you not get fired and/or prosecuted for that? Everyone else would have. What the hell?

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Yep, the boss is always male. How sexist of you! Misogynist!

Yep the pedo butler is always a misogynist. How male of you! Pederast!

Re:Coerced?

[jpaine619]

I call bullshit. Citation please. We're not talking about statutory rape here.

Have you never heard of a sexual harassment lawsuit? What the fuck do you think those involve? It ain't rape..

All a boss has to do is imply that a sexual act will affect your standing (positive or negative) and he/she has just opened themselves up to one whopper of a lawsuit.

But, since you apparently joined the workforce yesterday and require citation... This is from the US EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission):

It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

That clear enough for you? It is unlawful (that means against the law) to request sexual favors if you are the boss. Failure to rectify situations where harassment is occurring between employees also will open the employer to lawsuit. But, generally speaking, the employee rarely ends up being the one sued. You go after the deep pockets and that's one of the reasons many employers have zero-tolerance policies regarding employee fraternization.

Re:Coerced?

[jpaine619]

So, you're saying now, that in this day in age...you are no longer able legally in any way, to date within the company???

Geez....so, if you are a boss and you see a lady you want to date, you have to fire them first, before you can ask them out?

No. But if you ask them out and it's unwanted, you are in violation of Federal Law. So.... you better be pretty fucking sure they are gonna say "yes", 'cause if they say "no", then it was unwanted and you are gonna be busting out the ol' checkbook.

Oh, and if you fired the lady first, so that you could ask her out, you are in even deeper shit. You cannot terminate someone's employment for the purpose of pursuing a sexual relationship with them, asshole.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dr Ford's testimony, for example, while imperfect, had the somewhat compelling fact behind it that she'd been in therapy about this incident for four years, without any reason to believe Kavanaugh was going to be appointed a supreme court justice

No dumbass, she might have been in therapy for "an incident" that she believes occured to her, but it was not "this incident." "This incident" never fucking happened. Please produce evidence that she went into therapy and said "Brett Kavanaugh fondled me 30 some years ago."

Re:Coerced?

[ilguido]

No, just only within your own rank. Date a coworker? Sure. Date your boss or your underling? Nope.

What if he/she gets promoted? Have you to break up your relationship? Should a company not promote employees enganged with other employees?

Re:Coerced?

[AmiMoJo]

Easier to blame feminism and #metoo than to look at yourself I guess.

What's really sad is that this belief stops guys improving themselves or getting any help.

Re: Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also the issue of equality. Bruce down in accounting was never offered the same choice for career advancement.

Re:Coerced?

[DNS-and-BIND]

So how many rubles does it pay when you write a divisive comment that inspires hate like that, Ivan? Do you get a bonus for getting it modded to +4? Maybe a little extra kasha in the lunchroom? It's almost lunch time in your time zone, isn't it?

Re:Coerced?

[houghi]

What if it is not sex related? But instead e.g. a drink after work with all the co workers, because it is his birthday?

Oh and the thing about not dating at work, because it does not work out? Some of them do and I have seen adults not make it and be, like, adult about it.

Re:Coerced?

[bobbied]

I never said it never works, I said it rarely works. My point about dating at work is the chances of having problems are high while the chances of success are low with heavy prices to be paid for failures. I'm just pointing this out and advising you avoid it. But if you want to make the mistake, best of luck.

Re:Coerced?

[bobbied]

Well, you DON'T charge the president with anything while he's in office, you impeach them first. Also, Clinton was roundly condemned for this behavior by Republicans, while Democrats largely tried to ignore the whole thing, so for a president it boils down to politics, at lest in Clinton's case. Really, the #MeToo thing is just another political ploy anyway, but that's another debate.

Also, the difference with Clinton was by the time Monica could have made a claim, the whole thing was blown sky high in the political realm and Monica was desperately trying to get out of the public eye and daily news cycle. As it stands, she became a social pariah and laughing stock which ruined her hopes of a career, all at the hands of Clinton's inappropriate advances, and has said it made a wreak of her professional and private life. One can only hope she got a sizable settlement on the side for this. But that was the 90's this is 30 years later.

Now days, women (and even men) in such situations can and do make civil claims. The courts look dimly on the past social norms of women being seen as sex objects and not just employees. So sleeping with the secretary is no longer two adults just playing around, it's sexual harassment and a civil suit.

Re:Coerced?

[serviscope_minor]

What's really sad is that this belief stops guys improving themselves or getting any help.

I think that's why the idea is so incredibly popular. People in a bad situation can now do the easy thing of blaming someone else and getting a loud, angry and comforting pity party at the same time.

It's very similar to the current incel world in that regard, it's feminazis, HR and #metoo instead of Chads, biotruths and canthal tilts. Either way the effect is the same, it absolves people from any blame (in their mind) and of the need to make difficult changes to how they act.

IOW in a perverse way it's safe and comforting.

Re:Coerced?

[jareth-0205]

What do you mean by "coerced"? "Coerced" as in he forced an employee to give him a blowjob or "coerced" as in he convinced an employee to give him a blowjob? There is a huge difference between the two. If it's the latter definition, then there is no issue. Adults can do what they want.

And when that sex act gets implicitly linked to your continued employment or career progression? As it would be with your boss? It's sketchy, at the very least.

Don't have sex with people that you have power over. How complex is that? What happened to independent adults coming (heh) together consensually? If you have life-altering power over another human then they aren't ever going to have the chance to make an independent decision. A 'no' could mean consequences for their actual livelihood -- how is that healthy?

Re:Coerced?

[serviscope_minor]

I'm telling you, DON'T date where you work. Even as peer to peer. It's hardly ever a good idea and rarely works out well for anybody involved.

I'm coming to the conclusion that your advice is excellent for anyone who believes it. In other words of the nuance of such situations is lost on you (and many of us do find such things difficult) then you're better off steering clear because you're much more likely than average you mess up bad.

I do however know several long term married couples who met at work. I don't personally know anyone who's fouled up badly by dating at work, but then I don't know anyone who's done any really ill advised things like dating someone in their immediate team.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Drink! AmiMojo and serviscope_minor projecting HARD in their own two minutes of hate on those nerds and incels!

Re:Coerced?

[AmiMoJo]

I'm not completely unsympathetic to the incels... Trans folk have similar issues sometimes. ContraPoints did a video about it, where she noted the similarity between how incels think that the geometry of their head is an impossible to overcome barrier and how say trans women think that aspects of their bodies will prevent them from ever reaching the feminine ideal they want.

On the other hand it's inexcusable that it quickly becomes about hatred and loathing. That's not helping anyone, least of all themselves. You are right though, there is a kind of comfort in it for them.

Re:Coerced?

[serviscope_minor]

Ok yes, there are several different things going on. The original concept of once I'm not unsympathetic to. Some people have trouble dating for various reasons andthat sticks and they want a sympathetic ear and community and that's fine.

In principle.

Unfortunately, it's become an incredibly nasty community dedicated to hating women as much as possible and no small part of it actually involves cheering on mass murder. That I have no sympathy with.

The body image thing, so that's a thing. It also has several aspects. Body issues can be very hard to shift even if you objectively know it's not really true. And probably many people will never really quite reach their ideal, and pressure to do so has caused a lot of problems for women historically and a rapidly growing amount for men too now. That basically sucks for all involved.

However it's a problem when it turns into "women are evil femoids and Elliot Rodger was a supreme gentleman, but I can't get a date because of my jawline rather than because I transparently hate women and want to murder then". It's also used to trap hapless depressed men into the community. The further in they're drawn, the harder it is to escape, because the overriding message is it's someone else's fault and you can't change anything no matter what.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen it. My girlfriend's son had someone make a false accusation against him. He was 17 and in high school. Because of the assumption of guilt (#believeher), he was shunned at high school. He got depressed and dropped out. We got him through it - he finished up high school online, but he could be on a much better trajectory if it wasn't for this bullshit.

And there was more. Feminist types started unfriending my girlfriend on Facebook. The barista stopped talking to my girlfriend's daughter when she and her friends would go for chai. And lots of other interactions became weird, maybe because of this, or maybe it just seemed that way because we did become a little paranoid.

2 years later and the girl publicly admits what she did.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch The Red Pill and then tell me feminism isn't scary.

Re: Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

You and the other AC should probably get together and agree on a common spin for this one, and for what it's worth, both of your arguments are complete BS, relying upon dubious factoids to divert attention from the reality. The reality is that four years ago she made these specific allegations to her therapist, having no reason whatsoever to suppose that he was going to be appointed to SCOTUS. There's no logical path for her to have suddenly decided "Hey, it's slightly possible that this guy I went to college with might one day be appointed to the Supreme Court, so I should probably manufacture some evidence against him right now" four years ago, it would have been a tremendous amount of work for something unlikely to ever be useful. Would you do it? You can probably read something somewhere that suggests a specific person might be the Democratic front runner for President in 2024, would you consider it a good use of your time to manufacture an allegation against him right now that'll require you spend four years convincing a therapist, a trained professional who knows when you're lying, that this happened?

Also if she'd started four years ago with a view to testifying in Congress four years hence, she would have done more research so she could specify the exact party, exact people who knew, etc, before testifying. Her initial information was, as you'd expect trying to recall a traumatic event 35 years previously, riddled with mistakes. It wasn't until she was questioned by Mitchell that it became obvious exactly what party was under discussion (which is generally thought to be the reason why Mitchell's interrogation was cut short.)

Re:Coerced?

[serviscope_minor]

The simple fact is that realistically all it would take is a whiff of impropriety and you're fucked

That's flat out not true.

But the sad truth though is given the many, many avenues of meeting people -- trying to fish off the company pier is probably the worst out of all of them.

Also just plain wrong. If you hit on your immediate co workers, then yes that's a recipe for disaster. Or if you treat the company like a speed dating event and systematically ask out everyone who's got a pulse and not physically glued to the floor then that's also going to be a problem.

For everything else, it's not nearly such a big deal. Once a company grows over a couple of hundred people for example, then there's going to be whole departments of people you almost never see and certainly don't interact with for day to day work. Even if you don't both manage to be slurs and have a bad breakup it's not going to make much practical difference, and it gets smaller the larger the organisation grows.

If the other person is sufficiently removed and you at least have some sort of chemistry before you ask them out you'll be fine. If you don't feel you can judge either of those yourself then yes, it's not for you.

Re:Coerced?

[DNS-and-BIND]

The "opposite" gender? Implying there are only two? The parent comment has been reported for transphobia. If this was Facebook we'd have your real name and we could report your ugly bigotry to your employer.

Re:Coerced?

[bobbied]

Do what you wish. I'm just saying that in my view, the chances for a bad crash and burn are high and the chances of success are low, so like I advise not buying lottery tickets, I advise not to date people from work.

Personally, I've seen budding relationships at work and only one resulted in an enduring situation, and they where on totally different programs when it started. Every other relationship was a messy crash and burn and usually ended up having ugly consequences for the people involved and sometimes for the company too.

So, I advise extreme caution when dating folks from work and if I was mentoring you I'd tell you the same things. It's way too risky for you, your career and even your job. Given today's #MeToo obsession it's getting even more risky, regardless of if you think it's consensual or not. Such events can be dredged up decades later, cast in a questionable light and used to ruin reputations and careers on a whim. But if you want to take the risk, just remember you ignored my advice so don't come crying to me.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Men shouldn't date women at all. MGTOW.

Re:Coerced?

[shaitand]

That's pretty sketchy as a claim of "legally no" you can claim civil liability for just about anything. If I overwater my lawn and the run-off kills your rosebush I could have civil liability but that doesn't mean I've broken the law.

Re:Coerced?

[shaitand]

"All a boss has to do is imply that a sexual act will affect your standing (positive or negative) and he/she has just opened themselves up to one whopper of a lawsuit."

It's worse than that. If someone feels like that is the case, real or imagined, anything the boss has said or done, including watching the employee is highly dangerous. It doesn't matter if there is any validity to the feeling or not.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off you twat.

Re:Coerced?

[serviscope_minor]

Like I said, if you're not able to navigate those kind of situations then then best advice is certainly to not try to. My happily married friends who met spouses at work would certainly disagree with you.

You're correct that the potential for badness is high if you do something stupid (actually thinking now I have seen that, it looked stupid at the time--dating a close co worker's's subordinate--and it imploded messily). Dating someone outside your department has much, much less potential for disaster.

But your me too complaints are just overblown. I don't know anyone and have never then heard of anyone who had their career ruined simply for dating at work.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

PoundMeToo

Re:Coerced?

[cayenne8]

Where in this conversation did "difficult" to date women come into play?

Getting dates and getting laid is relatively easy.

Its the consequences NOW with a weaponized #metoo that threatens to ruin your life you you piss a girl off these days...whether you've slept with her or not.

Re:Coerced?

[cayenne8]

No. But if you ask them out and it's unwanted, you are in violation of Federal Law.

You mean to tell me that merely ASKING a chick lower on the totem pole than you out for a date, no pussy grabbing or anything truly physical, would be against federal law?

SHit, if I was a CEO in a company, I'd never talk to a woman period....its just too fucking screwed up and scary these days with this crap.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you're part of the problem here.

coerce /krs/Submit
verb
persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.
"they were coerced into silence"

Re:Coerced?

[squiggleslash]

Its the consequences NOW with a weaponized #metoo that threatens to ruin your life you you piss a girl off these days...whether you've slept with her or not.

As I said, "weaponized #metoo" doesn't happen and never will: the moment a woman starts making accusations against any men, even now, she generally suffers severe career consequences, and unless multiple women come forward making accusations against the same man, the allegation never goes anywhere.

And the moment she starts making multiple allegations against multiple men who are not being accused by anyone else, she stops being credible period.

It's simply not possible to weaponize #metoo. The people you're reading claiming otherwise are generally the people trying to discredit the allegations against themselves, or people who believe the latter.

Live your life.

Re:Coerced?

[shaitand]

"You do know members of the opposite gender want relationships and/or sex as much as you do, right?"

Rarely. Women have sex drives and an individual woman might even have a greater sex drive than an individual man but in light of recognizing and making things comfortable for these individuals we have started to forget the generality that the typical man has by an order of magnitude a stronger drive than the typical woman remains generally true.

Just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you. Have you paid attention to the world lately? There have been numerous public pushes for action against men accused by women without any due process.

Re:Coerced?

[shaitand]

Far more likely is the scenario that you find someone attractive and try to behave without the interest naturally slipping out in ways that combined with restraint come off as creepy because the ladies in question aren't interested. At some point you ask a random employee who happens to be female to gather things up after a meeting or grab starbucks on the way in for a team gathering, something you wouldn't hesitate to ask a male, and bam they profile you.

Fired? Pre-2015 you'd probably just have a reputation that hurts your career and some employees shifted around. Which would be a good thing because there is a serious risk if you ever have to pass one over or write them up for poor performance. Now? The company politically would probably have to fire you the minute a hint of something inappropriate is raised or risk being accused of ignoring reported issues. Who knows.

Re:Coerced?

[shaitand]

In fairness there really isn't any evidence to support many of the allegations of the #metoo movement either.

Re:Coerced?

[shaitand]

"Firstly there are very, very, few cases where #metoo concerns one allegation against a man. In general virtually every #metoo case, from Spacey to Kavanaugh, has involved multiple people bringing up cases of sexual assault."

There are always multiple cases once there is one against a public figure whether anything real happened or not. As far as sexual assault goes, the concept has been watered down to the point where being drunk and stupid one evening a club and misreading signals that lead to unwanted contact is being called sexual assault. That should be socially frowned on but then it always has been but it certainly shouldn't be illegal.

Re:Coerced?

[shaitand]

Here is the problem. This is the statement of an extremist and how he stereotypes and characterizes everyone who disagrees with him. Of course the only thing disagreeing with him means is an argument for preserving due process in a nation which has as it's most sacred legal concept "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

"Unfortunately, it's become an incredibly nasty community dedicated to hating women as much as possible and no small part of it actually involves cheering on mass murder. That I have no sympathy with.

The body image thing, so that's a thing. It also has several aspects. Body issues can be very hard to shift even if you objectively know it's not really true. And probably many people will never really quite reach their ideal, and pressure to do so has caused a lot of problems for women historically and a rapidly growing amount for men too now. That basically sucks for all involved.

However it's a problem when it turns into "women are evil femoids and Elliot Rodger was a supreme gentleman, but I can't get a date because of my jawline rather than because I transparently hate women and want to murder then". It's also used to trap hapless depressed men into the community. The further in they're drawn, the harder it is to escape, because the overriding message is it's someone else's fault and you can't change anything no matter what."

Re:Coerced?

[serviscope_minor]

Here is the problem. This is the statement of an extremist and how he stereotypes and characterizes everyone who disagrees with him. Of course the only thing disagreeing with him means is an argument for preserving due process in a nation which has as it's most sacred legal concept "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you replied to the wrong post beast what you wrote has nothing to do with what I wrote. Nah just kidding.

Here's a tip from the professionals: if you want me to disagree with you, you have to actually express an opinion rather than a grab bag of ad homenin non sequiteurs.

I did like your enough jump from absolutely nothing to how I want to end due process. Funnily enough I was taking about just such wild jumps earlier with AmiMojo. The usual thing that happens next is I ask for evidence where you link to a post where I express such an opinion. What follows from that is that you get angry and deflect.

So go on let's play this game. You post evidence for your claims about me.

Re:Coerced?

[serviscope_minor]

Where in this conversation did "difficult" to date women come into play?

I'm not going to do your reading for you. If you follow the thread it becomes entirely clear. However you have to read what both myself and AmiMojo wrote in it's entirety going back quite a bunch of posts, something I'm confident you won't do.

Getting dates and getting laid is relatively easy.

Not for everyone I guess otherwise there wouldn't be whole communities of people will can't and an entire industry devoted to helping/extracting money from them.

weaponized #meetoo

That's not a thing. If you feel you've fallen foul of it why don't you tell us about it and let us see for ourselves.

Re:Coerced?

[bobbied]

But your me too complaints are just overblown. I don't know anyone and have never then heard of anyone who had their career ruined simply for dating at work.

Really? Al Franken wasn't railroaded for a PICTURE, even though he didn't touch her and she didn't know about the joke? I think he was. It was sophomoric crude humor but it wasn't assault.

Then there is the whole Kavanaugh debacle, where, 30 years later, claims where being made, unsubstantiated claims, that nearly derailed the guys career...

#MeToo is a serious risk to young professionals. It's a good idea to protect yourself from such claims by being as circumspect and as far above reproach as you can. Society is taking a very dim view of this kind of thing. These days, just being in a situation where the abuse was possible, just the claim is enough, even if it was consensual at the time. He said, She said is slanted toward the "she said" side, proof is not necessarily required, at least not to ruin a reputation and a career.

#MeToo has the chilling effect of applying TODAY'S social perspectives to times and situations which where very different. I can only assume that this redefinition of what's "right and moral" will continue to morph over time. Who knows the behavior which is accepted today won't be prosecuted as crimes in the future. Best stay as clear of this kind of thing if you ask me. But hey, I'm nearing retirement, I have stuff to lose. If you are a young kid with nothing but a diploma and student loan debt you may not care right now.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it hasn't been weaponized, it is paranoia, and what you're describing is not what's happening.

Firstly there are very, very, few cases where #metoo concerns one allegation against a man. In general virtually every #metoo case, from Spacey to Kavanaugh, has involved multiple people bringing up cases of sexual assault.

Independently, or as a "me too! me too!" once announced? The first would be indicative of something. The latter can be explained away as liars piling on.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know members of the opposite gender want relationships and/or sex as much as you do, right?

Of course they do. Possibly even more...

But when her boyfriends finds out, she will scream rape.

So yeah, be afraid of feminists.

Re: Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way you could "know" is if you were there while it was being written by her minions or you yourself are one of her minions writing it and planting it. Either way, doesn't look good.

Now, if you want to admit you believe it, believe it so much you have faith it actually happened without actual evidence, then just say so.

Re:Coerced?

[shaitand]

I don't care if you agree with me or not. Your own comments lacked rational argument and I can't see any value in debating you. I did nothing more than highlight them as a randomly chosen example of the kind of attitude being expressed by extremists. I let your commentary speak for itself to others. I can certainly extract something from someone being emotional and extreme coming from the other direction but the simple truth is that this side of extremism is making headway into expanding and succeeding in actually changing things in its image whereas the other is mostly just blowing hot air like it always has in this country.

It's pretty easy to point out an ideology doing extreme things like planting bombs. Subtle systemic discrimination implemented under the guise of protecting people and fairness is far less flashy and dramatic and more difficult to demonstrate but is ultimately much much more dangerous for the same reasons.

We are a country which embraces viewpoint diversity and freedom of expression. In general being a woman, man, communist, neo-nazi, satanist, christian, stutterer, homosexual, muslim, bitch, asshole, jerk, creep, sheep bugger, etc and speaking your views should not prevent you from pursuing or continuing your career or hobbies or otherwise live your life unless it objectively obstructs your job function in some way. When you try to obstruct those same freedoms for someone else (including by advocating advantages, unearned credibility, etc) everyone else should being standing up for that someone else, even if we don't like or agree with their views ourselves.

Re: Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two years and two Supreme Court justices later, Trump is still president, Hillary isn't, and evidence of Russian collusion continues not to exist.

It must be exhausting being so obviously and laughably wrong literally all the time about literally everything.

Re: Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an absolute moron.

You think that if you behave well, you won't get fucked over when the relationship ends..? You're fucking insane, and totally ignorant of reality.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not going to do your reading for you. If you follow the thread it becomes entirely clear. However you have to read what both myself and AmiMojo wrote in it's entirety going back quite a bunch of posts, something I'm confident you won't do.

Drink! serviscope_minor gives an angry evasion answer when people ask for evidence!

Re:Coerced?

[tsqr]

You make an excellent point, because accidentally killing someone's rosebush is exactly like forcing someone to have sex with you. Maybe even worse!

Re:Coerced?

[serviscope_minor]

I actually can't be arsed to even look up three comment of mine you're replying to. Your comment is so astoundingly generic that it's clear you're not remotely interested in discussing in good faith, instead you will simply splat down your talking points regardless of how well they fit.

You have also as I predicted angrily refused to provide any evidence for your claims about me.

speaking your views should not prevent you from pursuing or continuing your career or hobbies or otherwise live your life unless it objectively obstructs your job function in some way.

Anyone should be allowed to express an opinion unless it's an opinion you don't like (I.e. An opinion about something someone said). Sorry dude, that will never fly with the first amendment.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

SHit, if I was a CEO in a company, I'd never hire a woman period....its just too fucking screwed up and scary these days with this crap.

Fixed that to reflect my attitude. I'd rather take a risk at not hiring women at all. Seems like a much smaller risk than talking to them at work, by comparison. At least if their foot isn't in the door yet it's easier to make up a believable non-gender-related issue as to why you never hired them.

Re:Coerced?

[shaitand]

When you are talking about the technical distinction begin illegal (criminal) and legal with civil liability, yes it pretty much is. Also the scope of this discussion included consensual sex and even flirtation where it involves a boss and an employee. There are certain circumstances which actually are illegal but most all of these interactions are against corporate policies.

Re:Coerced?

[shaitand]

"You have also as I predicted angrily refused to provide any evidence for your claims about me."

I characterized comments you made and quoted them. What claims, about you specifically, am I supposed to be providing evidence for?

"Anyone should be allowed to express an opinion unless it's an opinion you don't like (I.e. An opinion about something someone said). Sorry dude, that will never fly with the first amendment."

You are simply taking what I said an pretending I said the opposite. I am opposing rules that punish, deter, and exclude people from working, participating, and expressing their views. Anyone should be allowed to express an opinion, that doesn't mean they should be allowed to reshape the rules to reflect that opinion. The rules for a sanitation worker shouldn't exclude the hiring and continued employment of an outspoken neo-nazi anymore than they exclude the hiring and continued employment of an outspoken butch lesbian.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but I'm sorry, being a "bitch, asshole, jerk, creep" should impede everything you do and get you a punch in the face.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with this is if one person gets promoted, someone has to quit.
also, all it takes is one of the parties complaining about things after a bad split, and things get infinitely worse.
Happened to a coworker of mine, dated a woman on the company for six months or so. Everything fine. Then suddenly she started accusing him of things after he dumped her.
He's way too nice to have done any of them, and she had a history of backstabbing.

Re:Coerced?

[kaatochacha]

Well duh. If I was the CEO of a company, I wouldn't date anyone in that company. You're just asking for bad things.
But I'd also understand that If I WAS asking someone in the company out, there would be that underlying "I can fire you" threat behind it, even if I didn't mean it. So back to not asking anyone in the company out.

Re:Coerced?

[HornWumpus]

For everyone other than Bill Clinton (and Harvey Weinstein) it was already as you describe in the 90s.

Re:Coerced?

[HornWumpus]

Jobs are easy (for typical /.ers), relationships aren't (for anybody).

Date that person (outside your report chain) from work, go ahead. But find a new job when you _start_ (or don't do it).

Keep your inner dog in check, if it isn't worth changing jobs for, just don't do it.

If you own the business, talk to someone you know that runs another. Arrange a good opportunity for your prospect, before you start sweating up the sheets with her.

Re:Coerced?

[HornWumpus]

You don't fire them, you have your buddy from the chamber of commerce hire them away from you (hopefully with a decent raise). Then you START the relationship in ernest.

If you find out that two employees are fucking, you arrange an opportunity for the less valuable one. Before it blows up in your face.

Re:Coerced?

[cayenne8]

As I said, "weaponized #metoo" doesn't happen and never will: the moment a woman starts making accusations against any men, even now, she generally suffers severe career consequences, and unless multiple women come forward making accusations against the same man, the allegation never goes anywhere.

Tell that to that lacrosse team that got falsely accused of rape a couple years back, and even though they finally got the lady that lied...those guys lives are still likely difficult if not ruined.

Re:Coerced?

[cayenne8]

Well duh. If I was the CEO of a company, I wouldn't date anyone in that company. You're just asking for bad things.

But I'd also understand that If I WAS asking someone in the company out, there would be that underlying "I can fire you" threat behind it, even if I didn't mean it. So back to not asking anyone in the company out.

It's sad that we've come to this today, where men can't be men and women can't be women due to fear of litigation or worse.

Re: Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the government admitting it existed.

Re: Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

The rich white kids from a well known university? Yea those kids are quite fine. Their parents bailed them out.

Re: Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

LUL. Triggered repubtard breaks down. Can't come to grips with free market, and allowing a company to police Nazis. Error...errorr does not compute.

Re:Coerced?

[serviscope_minor]

I characterized comments you made and quoted them

No you wrote some stuff then quoted my comment. What you wrote was however utterly disconnected from what you quoted.

What claims, about you specifically, am I supposed to be providing evidence for?

The opinions you claim I hold.

You are simply taking what I said an pretending I said the opposite.

Incorrect: I'm taking what you said and following it to its logical conclusion. If the premise leads to an absurd conclusion then the problem lies with the premise, not the conclusion.

I am opposing rules that punish, deter, and exclude people from working, participating, and expressing their views. Anyone should be allowed to express an opinion, that doesn't mean they should be allowed to reshape the rules to reflect that opinion.

That sounds like you want to prohibit people from acting on their opinions in a legal manner: you wish to prohibit freedom of association, something I consider every bit as important as free speech.

You can't have it both ways: if you (the general you, not you in particular) have the freedom to express that I should be killed, I have the freedom to call you an asshat and refuse to have anything to do with you. Further, I have the right to use my free speech to convince other people to have nothing to do with you.

So far all you have done is advocate restriction of my speech because you don't like what I have to say. I think free speech only means you won't be thrown in gaol because anything more is a restriction of someone else's speech.

IOW free speech means you won't be imprisoned for being an arsehole, it doesn't mean you have a legal right to have friends provided for you. You will claim you have not said that: that it true after a fashion. You didn't explicitly say it, but there is no other consequence of your idea so you are nonetheless promoting that.

shouldn't exclude the hiring and continued employment of an outspoken neo-nazi anymore than they exclude the hiring and continued employment of an outspoken butch lesbian

For some reason, we as a society have decided that shagging someone with the same genitals and refusing to be apologetic about it is less bad than advocating genocide. You are proposing an equivalence between them. I'm not a moral relativist so I do not accept your proposition.

Re:Coerced?

[losfromla]

Lol. Is that what you right wing morons are trying to do now? Did you forget that the WH occupier is a Kremlin sock puppet dictator? We haven't forgotten and you can't redefine reality. I got modded 0/troll so I guess your Russian buddies got a lot of mod points this week. You do seem quite familiar with the ways of your buddies and even know what time zone they're on... You guys are definitely tight. Do they piss on beds for your enjoyment too? I guess that's now a presidential form of entertainment. *sigh*

P.S.
Shutting down hate speech with violence is the right and proper reaction. You lose the right to civil treatment when you go down the path of hate.

Re:Coerced?

[losfromla]

Women and men see a different world. Just like blacks see a different world (cops as unjust oppressors) than whites do.

What steps does a male take to avoid rape on a day to day basis? .... none if not in prison.
What steps does a female take to avoid rape on a day to day basis? ... lots, look it up if you care

My point is that, just because you don't see the sexual harassment doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Re:Coerced?

[tsqr]

Are you being obtuse? Sexual coercion is not remotrly similar to flirtation or to unwanted advances. Civil liability for coercing sex is similar in kind, if not degree, to the civil liability for wrongful death; in other words, huge. As in, life-destroying. And as mentioned previously, the concept of consensualty goes out the window when you're talking about sex between a boss and an underling.

Re:Coerced?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Those who seek to divide us and make us fight with one another are Russian trolls. You are doing exactly that. You're so easy to spot, Ivan.

And if you're not a dirty foreigner? You're a useful idiot, who is helping Putin for free. They pay good rubles for help like yours, you're a sicker to do it without a salary.

We are pledged to stick together no matter what. We have more in common with each other than any foreigners. We do not recognize you as the enemy. If you're a troll, fight us. If you're an American, join us.

Re:Coerced?

[jpaine619]

You mean to tell me that merely ASKING a chick lower on the totem pole than you out for a date, no pussy grabbing or anything truly physical, would be against federal law?

No. That's not what I said. I said that "unwanted" attention (of a sexual nature) is a violation of Federal Law. If she says "Yes" and hops on your dick, you're in the clear.

It's not a man/woman thing.. It's a Power thing.. If you are the Boss and you ask out an employee, is it reasonable to assume that they might feel that if they say "No" they'll suffer repercussions? It's the workplace not The Dating Game.. Plenty of other places to go fishing where there isn't a power dynamic.

It's a pendulum... First we swing too far one way and then we swing too far the other way. In the 60's you could get away with just about anything at the workplace.. Eventually people got fed up with it.. And basically we're now in a zero-tolerance era when it comes to workplace sexuality. Maybe the pendulum will swing the other way at some future date.. Who knows...

Re:Coerced?

[jpaine619]

I could tell you stories.. I have a couple of female relatives, who own businesses, who absolutely will not hire women (yes, the irony is... blatant) because of the baggage and liability that some women bring.

Re:Coerced?

[jpaine619]

It's sad that we've come to this today, where men can't be men and women can't be women due to fear of litigation or worse.

That's what happens when some men act like assholes and demand sex from employees.. The Hollywood Casting Couch isn't an urban legend.. That shit used to (and still does) happen.. Well, we all heard about what a shitbag Harvey Weinstein was...and that was just a year ago?

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shutting down hate speech with violence is the right and proper reaction.

LOL! Priceless, Mr. Antifa! But obvious troll is obvious... And obviously you're a democrat. Quite the little fascist if you actually believe what you wrote there. And of course shutting down your kind of violence with an irresistible force is the most desirable reaction, definitely right and proper.

Re:Coerced?

[geekymachoman]

1. All people with a brain think feminism (what it is today) is scary, as well as other group identity crap
2. If you're not paranoid and careful what you doing in 2018, well... good luck
3. Horror for the husband, i'm sure. It's bad enough with the opposite sex, never mind the opposite sex that's a lunatic.


People turn to be assholes even with best intentions. See divorce rates. Divorce goes very badly for men. Very badly.

Having said that, good luck.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was 'coercion' in the same fashion the Russians 'coerced' people into voting for Trump. We're all adults. If there's no physical force, there is no coercion. We're gonna see a killer Red Tide in November. The democrats and the dumbass 'liberals' that stick with them have gone off the rails.

The 'mooch' was on Maher the other night. And Maher just doesn't want to hear why they lose, despite the simple terms that mooch was trying to explain to him. He didn't want to hear it, so he starts yelling and screaming. You'd swear you were listening to David Horowitz.

Re:Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

About 15-25% of all marriages in Western countries come from people who met and dated at work, depending on country. Generally the percentage is rising, roughly in lock step with working hours getting longer.

Its usually the single largest way of people getting together for life. Thats hardly "it rarely works" (other than if the premise that people dating generally rarely leading to marriage).

Agree with the risk factor though - if it goes bad it costs one or both their job.

So ..

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Coerced Sex From Employee.
2) Get fired.
3) Profit!!

Re:So ..

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Coerced Sex From Employee.
2) Get fired.
3) Profit!!

Get invited to White House as Trump's newest, bestest hero.

Re:So ..

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Coerced Sex From Employee.
2) Get impeached.
3) Get Re-Elected!

I doubt

[arbiter1]

"saying 48 employees have been fired for sexual misconduct over the last two years." I doubt any of those Employee's that were fired got 90million to leave like Andy got. I doubt they got anything period cept a pink slip and a "Collect your crap and leave" speech. Typical rich people get paid to leave after doing crap.

Re:I doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt any of them founded Android and brought it to Google like Andy did.

Re:I doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying things like "cept" lowers the validity of your comment. Learn to write properly.

Re:I doubt

[should_be_linear]

Others where not part of 1%, so they can just fuck off.

Re:I doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

Others where not part of 1%, so they can just fuck off.

Hey look, the 1% liberal company! What do you know?

Re:I doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

A mobile OS that consists of a bloated Java VM on top of a kernel optimized for servers...wow, amazing stuff for sure.

Re:I doubt

[sexconker]

Android is Google spyware on top of Java (but don't call it Java - Oracle keeps suing us) on top of Linux on top of busted ass Qualcomm hardware that for some reason prevents us from updating anything running on it after Qualcomm cuts off support.

Don't worry guys, Project Fuchsia will fix it all!!!

Re:I doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

J2ME was a real success in the years before. I had one, but it was before wifi and headphone jack were common. Proprietary socket for power and data, data cable not included. No touch screen but that was better like that. I accessed the internet (web, wap?) a bit, could access google and download java games instead of paying for them! Not super great but games or apps were like a few KB or a hundred KB.
A very different era, websites still ran fine on IE5 and Netscape 4.

Well IIRC phone keypads didn't support simultaneous button presses, so there was no mario bros or wolfenstein 3D clones to speak of.

Re:I doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

Your fixations lower yours.

69!!!!! Yeeeeeeeeah!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Should have paid him 69 million dollars. Bazinga!!

If getting a blowjo in a hotel room is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't wanna be right

Re:If getting a blowjo in a hotel room is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd be the one giving, cuck.

Andy Rubin?

[Anonymous Coward]

More like Andy RUBIN DEEZ NUTZ ON UR FACE.

Literally.

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Re:Andy Rubin?

[Anonymous Coward]

69!!!!! Yeeeeeeeeeeah!

Re:Andy Rubin?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the street you pay for sex. In the Soviet Google, sex pays you.

90 Million for raping someone

[makotech222]

God, I LOVE CAPITALISM!

Re:90 Million for raping someone

[Thud457]

They really must have wanted him to go away if they paid him $90,000,000,000! Hell, a ticket to the ISS is only $20M.

$4.32 Billion

[Kunedog]

Google CEO Sundar Pichai sent an email to employees Thursday in response to the report, saying 48 employees have been fired for sexual misconduct over the last two years.

That's a lot of lottery winners!

Re:$4.32 Billion

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the comment. Was going to say, at Google they pay you $90 million to engage in "sexual misconduct"--nice euphemism for coercing a coworker to suck your dick--and then leave the company. Remember Google: where it pays to force sex out of your coworkers.

10% cut

[bill_mcgonigle]

I'm not saying he offered the victim 10% to make the complaint, but that would certainly be one way to get seed funding for a new start-up venture.

Re:10% cut

[Anonymous Coward]

Seed funding!

I see what you did there.

Let's follow the morality of the libtards!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just have the Fake News cover it all up!

Re:Let's follow the morality of the libtards!

[HarrySquatter]

So they should have turned to an outlet like the Gateway Pundit or the Washington Times to write the story instead of the New York Times?

You don't spill the blood of kings

[rsilvergun]

and you don't get between a CEO and his golden parachute. Countess Bathory would be proud.

Re:You don't spill the blood of kings

[AmiMoJo]

What was he going to do if they didn't pay? Sue, and air all his dirty laundry?

Having said that it's possible that the victim was unwilling to testify on Google's behalf, so would have been advised to settle. Often victims don't want what happened to be public because it can make it hard to get another job. That's just happened in the UK with Philip Green, a couple of the accusers supported not making his name public for fear of ruined careers.

Re:You don't spill the blood of kings

[serviscope_minor]

Haha your post is currently at +4 troll. I'm rooting for 5 since I've not seen one of those in ages.

And about Philip Green: couldn't have happened to a nicer man. He's a skeezy bastard and I hope he gets taken down for something (i.e.losing his knighthood) because he richly deserved it. He got to keep it only because it was better for the pensioners he screwed to receive half their pension (with sir green keeping his title) than for them to receive nothing.

He still ended up hundreds of millions better off even with buying his knighthood back and an end to further investigations with £375,000,000.

Re:You don't spill the blood of kings

[AmiMoJo]

The moderation system is completely fucked up at this point. I'm not even sure how we move forward.

It seems in hindsight that this thing with Green was almost inevitable. What are the chances that someone who acts like that in public isn't even worse in private? Sadly I'm sure he won't be the last.

Re:You don't spill the blood of kings

[Anonymous Coward]

The moderation system is completely fucked up at this point.

Looks right to me. AmiMojo, a guy with a history of wearing a troll's uniform, is getting troll mods out of principle even when he takes the uniform off.

It's no different than how certain right wing personalities (say, Alex Jones, Brietbart, Milo notspellinghislastname) have built up a reputation of being crazy fake news spewing trolls, so even when they aren't going full throttle on their crazy, quite a few people would still dismiss them out of principle.

Heck, some would even dismiss people who have NO reputations (e.g whenever Mashiki pulls some link to some random Internet blog or some random youtube video as "proof" of his conspiracy theories, you can bet AmiMojo would discredit the source as not being from a reputable source)

TLDR: reputation matters. AmiMojo has a bad reputation. The mods he gets reflects that.

Now, let's drink to AmiMojo complaining about the downmods he gets, seemingly forgetting that his freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences (a phrase often told to right wingers who whine about how their speech gets down modded, censored, banned, or worse)

Re:NYT? Stormy Daniels and now this.

[Anonymous Coward]

is it a technologically enabled genocide? no...such things are the purview of other sites

The definition of open by Andy Rubin

[Anonymous Coward]

the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"

more like:

the definition of open: "shut up and open your mouth bitch!"

Re: The definition of open by Andy Rubin

[Anonymous Coward]

Did it say the victim was female?

Re: The definition of open by Andy Rubin

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Damore

[Anonymous Coward]

If he had written a thought-piece that offended, though, I'm sure he would have been in real trouble...

Example #65,535

[AndyKron]

This is why I mostly don't give fuck anymore.

Re:Example #65,535

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I mostly don't give fuck anymore.

Especially not when you can get paid 90 MM to force someone else to give it.

Re:Example #65,535

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully we're storing this count in something larger than a 16 bit register. We've only got one more example before we run out of room. This is going to be Y2K all over again!!

Reminds me of that line from M*A*S*H

[Lucas123]

"Fair is fair, Henry. If I nail Hot Lips and punch Hawkeye, can I get $90 million?"

I'm paraphrasing, of course.

Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

[Anonymous Coward]

No need for due process!
No need to assume innocence!

Accusation is proof of guilt! Hang the guilty!

Re:Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

[Bobrick]

Show us on the doll where you like to force it.

Re:Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right there at Amendment #5.

Thrust into it and twist until it screams its surrender, Monsieur Robespierre.

Re:Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

[HarrySquatter]

The Fifth Amendment applies to the HR groups of corporations? Since when?

Pretty Typical

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount is large, because he made a lot of money, but this is pretty typical. It is cheaper for them to offer a big buyout then deal with the legal fights.

Re:Got that one beat

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a big fat liberal company doing the same thing.

How many women were fired for sexual misconduct?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Google an equal opportunity firerer?

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

The most expensive oral sex ever..

Fuck bitches, get money

[Tsolias]

Google, the diverse company.

Re:Fuck bitches, get money

[Anonymous Coward]

Diversity is strength! Apparently forcing your underlings to suck your dick is also strength!

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[Tsolias]

Bad words against sjws, modded down. /. Is turning into a shithole.

Don't forget that google is the sjw company that treats users like cattle. Users are there to get their personal info milked for profit.
We shouldn't be surprised by all these, to be a google employee you should have zero ethics and self-pride. Everything for the money.

*YAWN*

[Jarwulf]

Humans, at least normal humans, aren't asexual robots who can turn it on and off with the flip of a switch. Sex and eroticism is embedded to our core as one of our primary instincts. Being driven by our sexual impulses all the time, yes even in the workplace, is a feature not a bug as designed by God/evolution. You attempt to suppress this basic drive and it will leak out elsewhere in more destructive ways, ie even deeper perversion or fanaticism. G00gle and other ultra left wing tech companies and modern world in general apparently have forgotten the lessons humanity learned at great cost with its experiences with societal and religious traditions over the past thousands of years.

Re:*YAWN*

[GameboyRMH]

For years now I've been secretly looking forward to eventually being promoted to Lord-Emperor of All Capitalism with my rare superpower of having conscious control over where my boner and hands go. It's only a matter of time until my ascendancy.

Fear not, for I will be a kind and generous god, I will build a humane prison system for the teeming masses of men serving jail time for sex crimes, and fund scientific efforts to develop some drug or gene therapy to allow them to gain control over their hands and boners as well.

Re:*YAWN*

[serviscope_minor]

Try being a grown-ass man rather than a 16 year old horn dog (assuming you're a dude). Most of us are capable of keeping instincts in check day to day because we are in control of ourselves. That's one of the things you learn as you grow up.

And ultra-left? WTF? It takes a perverse kind of stupidity to call one of the largest monuments of present day capitalism "ultra left". Unless of course you have absolutely no idea what the left even is, never mind the hard left.

But what if you own a porn studio?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sucking dick is literally part of the job description for certain employees.

.8

[Anonymous Coward]

998 k

Wait...

[Locke2005]

He got $90 million AND a blowjob? I'm in the wrong line of work!

Re:Wait...

[iggymanz]

I'm not even so greedy, I'll take half that money and no blowjob necessary.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[AmiMoJo]

Don't forget that google is the sjw company

On the one hand they aren't SJW enough, they gave the guy $90M even though he sexually assaulted someone. On the other hand they are too SJW because... Wait, can you explain that one to me?

Should I care?

[WaffleMonster]

What am I supposed to believe "coerce" means in the context of this article?

Does coerce mean a promise to buy her a nice dinner later?

Does coerce mean threatening to chop her head off with a dull axe?

Interesting an article that goes on and on about golden parachutes, emails and extraneous drama involving unrelated people providing a history of who fucked who would pay lip service to the most critical aspect of the underlying story in a manner that offers no substantive information about the actual topic of the article to the reader.

Re:Should I care?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmkay. So if a right-winger is involved, it's raah feminism, #WeBelieveSurvivors, Handmaid's Tale!

As soon as it's a left-winger, you start debating the meaning of "is"?

If we could harness hypocrisy for clean energy, we would solve global warming tomorrow.

Re:Should I care?

[joe_frisch]

Considering his much higher position in the company, even a polite "request" could easily be seen as harassment due to the potential for retaliation. Unless the article is lying, "coerced" is a term that implies more than just a request; it would have to include some direct or clearly implied threat.

If he offered her a promotion for sex, that would count as sexual misconduct and harassment. Since the term "coerced" is used, I assume threats of some sort were involved.

Of course if the source is simply lying, we can't believe anything, but I don't see any reason to think that is the case.

Re:Should I care?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course if the source is simply lying, we can't believe anything

That's the problem here - you don't get to know if they're lying or not before you determine whether to believe them. Believe it or not, you don't have to pass judgment on something you have no proof about, regardless of what you read in some trashy paper. Time to go back to "it's none of my business".

Re:Should I care?

[Anonymous Coward]

Offering a promotion for sex would still be considered coercion.

Re:Should I care?

[WaffleMonster]

Mmkay. So if a right-winger is involved, it's raah feminism, #WeBelieveSurvivors, Handmaid's Tale!

As soon as it's a left-winger, you start debating the meaning of "is"?

If we could harness hypocrisy for clean energy, we would solve global warming tomorrow.

These misunderstandings are common among individuals who elect to stop taking their meds without direction from medical professionals. Never even used a hash tag, spoken about "feminism" or believing. It's all in your head.

It's not like my question is secret information surely the people investigating this and perhaps the media reporting this story have contextual information that directly answers my question.

Re:Should I care?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the Dems went a little overboard on their feigned outrage with the Kavanaugh thing. I don't think Bill Clinton particularly did anything wrong, except the perjury thing. When I was a kid, I didn't understand why everyone got their panties in a bunch about Clarence Thomas talking about a pubic hair. So no, no raah feminism from me.

> If we could harness hypocrisy for clean energy, we would solve global warming tomorrow.
We're already past that point. Even if we could stop releasing all greenhouse gases tomorrow, there is still too much greenhouse gases out there, and we're going to have a bad time.

It might seem strange that I'm addressing this, but I think the American public is being distracted from real issues, like global warming, but fabricated issues. Feminism is a new religion that the powers that be are using to distract the masses while they rape the planet.

Re:Should I care?

[steamraven]

coerce /krs/
verb
persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.

Re:Should I care?

[HornWumpus]

And accepting it would be whoring.

Re:Should I care?

[kaatochacha]

I'm pretty sure corece means " I'm a big powerful google executive, do what I say or you may lose your job / promotion opportunities. I don't really need to say this out loud, you know how it works".

Re:Should I care?

[WaffleMonster]

I'm pretty sure corece means " I'm a big powerful google executive, do what I say or you may lose your job / promotion opportunities. I don't really need to say this out loud, you know how it works".

Based on what?

He had a prior sexual relationship with her and according to Rubins ex-wife's divorce complaints Rubin spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on other women for sex during their marriage.

For all you know he simply offered her diamonds and gold.

Re:NYT? Stormy Daniels and now this.

[GameboyRMH]

People got bored of mass genocide against brown people in the early days of the Syrian civil war. The story isn't new either.

Re:NYT? Stormy Daniels and now this.

[GameboyRMH]

Yes it is, they're using fancy American military tech with the support of American military personnel.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[WaffleMonster]

On the one hand they aren't SJW enough, they gave the guy $90M even though he sexually assaulted someone.

Sexual assault? Who said anything about assault? What evidence is this characterization based upon?

Re:Android - the rape phone

[GameboyRMH]

I was reminded of reiserfs when I saw the news...

Re:The next GOP Supreme Court nominee!

[Anonymous Coward]

Andy Rubin is a resolute Democrat.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[djinn6]

They're applying different standards to different people. Social Justice rules are for the little guys. The big shots get to do whatever they like.

No CRIME was committed

[DallasTruaxxx]

It is totally legal for a company exec. to talk an underling into performing sexual acts. Legal is not to be confused with ethical. He was let go because he violated company ethics, company rules, not for breaking the law. His contract likely contained specific reasons why he would NOT get his $90M upon leaving. Sexual ethics violations were apparently not on the list. Perhaps sexual ethics violations will get higher billing in Google contracts in the future, but I doubt it.

Re:No CRIME was committed

[Anonymous Coward]

To lose that money, he'd have to be grossly negligent in his duties, commit fraud, or some major federal crime.

Word verification: wenches

Re: No CRIME was committed

[Anonymous Coward]

Which makes this a non-story. Next.

Re:Who cares

[Bobrick]

Guess you missed the "coerced" part.

Japanese visa?

[Anonymous Coward]

What visa do you suppose this guy has in Japan? Or does he never stay in his beach estate more than 90 days at a time?

I don't recall seeing a "hey, you're rich" option when looking into Japanese visas.

Re: Android - the rape phone

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean "Designed by rapists for the therapist in you"

Re:The next GOP Supreme Court nominee!

[LifesABeach]

Well, there is an opening for United Nations ambassador? And part of the job was taking down names. Legend has it that presidents could read and write long ago.

Re: The next GOP Supreme Court nominee!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think its funny that the reporter had to come up with "reportedly" as a synonym for "allegedly" because it would look funny being used twice on one title.

How many unsubstantiated claims must there be before it's no longer treated as fact?

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

Chief Google Asshole Shawn Willden would be the first to tell you that ethics are a Really Bad Thing!!

Don't be evil???

[hyades1]

Wow...a forced blowjob AND $90 million. When Google says they take a "hard line" on sexual misconduct, I wonder if they mean what we're supposed to think they mean.

Re:Don't be evil???

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an extremely hard line. Google didn't cough up 90M because they approve of what happened. They payed because they disapproved so much that they essentially fired the guy, opting to pay the severance package he had negotiated, instead of keeping him on. Keeping him on would most likely have been cheaper.

It is one thing to act on what are essentially rumors. It is another to bring it to court, and prove it to sever without payment.

I applaud Google for this

Re:Don't be evil???

[hyades1]

Applaud all you want. You've obviously never spent so much as a moment thinking about how much legal firepower even a couple of million dollars would bring to bear on a relatively open/shut case of sexual harassment.

It's obviously not your money on the line, or you'd be seriously pissed off that Google didn't go to war...which would have been a hell of a lot cheaper.

Re:Don't be evil???

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the line of work, you have to be born into the right tribe

There is only one solution.

[gerald.edward.butler]

Women should not be in the same work-place as men. There should be women only companies and men only companies and never the two shall meet (at work). Problems solved.

Re:There is only one solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

And pedo butlers should never work around children.

Re:There is only one solution.

[jpaine619]

He has an ass backward idea and you hope he dies? Are you eleven?

Re:There is only one solution.

[serviscope_minor]

I thought this was an instance of Poe's law. Having seen your other posts, it's appears more likely that you're serious.

I would say that the advice of "never date at work" would be a very good idea for you to follow, since I think with your current views you're likely to fuck up badly otherwise.

Re:There is only one solution.

[gerald.edward.butler]

What am I serious about? Are you sure you can figure that out? Is there a point to my rants? Follow the common thread. If you're sophisticated enough to do so.

Re:There is only one solution.

[serviscope_minor]

What am I serious about? Are you sure you can figure that out? Is there a point to my rants?

Well on a whim I had a look at your posting history. As far as I can tell you're deadly serious about never ever writing a post which demonstrates any hint of insight or a point. It is actually sort of impressive. My best guess is you're testing the slashdot mod crowd you see if you can maintain a positive karma without ever making a contribution to a discussion or expressing an opinion of any sort. That's actually quite a difficult task and both more interesting and more honest than simply expressing whatever opinion you think might get modded up.

Though it was kind of tedious reading your interactions with tedious ACs. You can sometimes get upmods from those of you deliver a really good smack down, but you're just as likely to get a down mod from people who don't want the conversation polluted with AC related crap.

Good luck though, I shall follow your karma score with interest.

Re:There is only one solution.

[kaatochacha]

how is this even faintly insightful. You'd just move the problem over to gay/lesbian coercion.

Re:There is only one solution.

[gerald.edward.butler]

I'm pleasantly surprised you took me up on that. I wouldn't expect most anyone to do so. I know my posts are, for the most part, quite over-the-top, but, if you look closely at what I'm responding to, it is hypocritical, non-scientific, non-fact-based, clap-trap.

I have such a complete and utter dislike and aversion to the current climate of anti-science, anti-fact crap (from all sides), that I've made it my mission in life to exaggerate the extremes at every opportunity to show how disgusting the whole idea is.

You probably (or at least most wouldn't) believe that, but, I think if you look closely, you'll notice that common thread (though sometimes it is quite obtuse and hidden).

And yes, I do not consider most "Humanities" to be fact-based/science-based. That doesn't mean I don't think they have value, just, that I think they over-inflate their own value far beyond their contribution of well-being to humanity.

I strongly believe in "doing" and "providing" and "building" and I'm not so much into "introspection" and "mindfulness" and crap like that. I strongly believe that there is far too much non-productive "work" going on and that the few percentage of people actually working their ass off are getting bled dry by all the religious/psychology/management/legal/political scumbags who exist solely as leeches upon the actual productive members of society (buildings, scientists, engineers, farmers, bricklayers, garbage men, custodians, etc., etc.).

I make it my mission to call out the "garbage" (as I see it) on every possible occasion in a way that flies directly in the face of the so-called "inteligencia" that continuously crank out the crap.

Hope that explains my motivations some. Thanks for asking.

Re:There is only one solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

if you look closely at what I'm responding to, it is hypocritical, non-scientific, non-fact-based, clap-trap.

Ah, the old "they did it first" rationalization - classic narcissistic personality disorder behavior. And as with all NPDs your rationalization has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with your own solipsism. You aren't doing anything to make the world better, all you are doing is indulging your grievance addiction to make yourself feel superior because you have a gaping hole of insecurity at the core of your soul. Nothing will ever fill it, you are doomed to go about your life spreading misery because you are stuck in authoritarian zero-sum mindset where you can only feel better by making other people feel worse.

captcha: obscene

Re:There is only one solution.

[gerald.edward.butler]

Ah, the old "I'm an armchair psyhoanalyst bullshit" from an anonymous coward who can't be held accountable for their worthless words. Your crap is nothing but misery. Hey, look at me, I can run my mouth while everyone else works to feed, clothe, and shelter me. Fuck off! The government should pay my student loans for my shitty, worthless "degree" because I'm special. Translation: Someone should put a gun to people's heads who are being productive and rob them to pay for my navel gazing. Fuck You!

Re:There is only one solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

For someone whining about being psychoanalyzed you pretty much proved the point with all your unfounded accusations. Another defining characteristic of NPDs is ultrafragile ego that must always, always lash out in response to any criticism. NPDs build their lives around dishing it out, but when served even just a drop of their own medicine they totally lose their shit.

Here's the thing - nobody who has dealt with NPDs in their own lives needs to be a psychoanalyst to figure you out. Every time you post its like a giant billboard with flashing lights saying "NPD right here!!!!" We ALL see you because you are exactly like every other NPD, the pathology is really consistent.

Re:There is only one solution.

[gerald.edward.butler]

Everything you said is complete nonsense. Make up some more worthless shit and post it anonymously and cowardly. You are completely and utterly full of shit.

Re:There is only one solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh-huh. Keep looking away from that mirror dude, because the person in it is so pathetic and weak that seeing them who they are would make you puke.

Re:There is only one solution.

[gerald.edward.butler]

Keep projecting your inadequacies on others ANONYMOUS COWARD!

Re:There is only one solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh so you do know the word for what you do every time you post.

Re: There is only one solution.

[Maelwryth]

What about gay people?

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

It is textbook SJW come on. SJW is about establishing one standard for the "ordinaries" (although they prefer to use the word mediocre) and one standard for themselves. They are the new aristocratic ruling class after all.

Not doing evil

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess my definition of not doing evil and Google's definition are very much different.

Re:NYT? Stormy Daniels and now this.

[Anonymous Coward]

People never get tired of killing brown people.

40+ employees fired?

[Anonymous Coward]

But did they get 90 million?? Lol

Re:The next GOP Supreme Court nominee!

[Anonymous Coward]

So was President Trump.

Hope That Blowjob Was Worth It

[mentil]

Guess he considered blowjobs from coworkers... essential.

Re:Hope That Blowjob Was Worth It

[Anonymous Coward]

$90 million worth it!

Google is an extremely vile and vicious company...

[Anonymous Coward]

They are actually worse than Facebook; maybe even a lot worse!

Re: The next GOP Supreme Court nominee!

[Barsteward]

ROFL.. you talk as if a woman refused/humiliated you in the past and you still haven't got over it and now they all out there to get you.

Sure, Sundar

[Anonymous Coward]

When are you going to take action against Sergey?

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2014/04/sergey-brin-amanda-rosenberg-affair

The company code of conduct makes it abundantly clear that any romantic relationship between someone who has power over another is not OK. But, it's always one set of rules for the peons, and another set for the royalty.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[AmiMoJo]

Coerced sex is sexual assault... At least it is here, maybe in the US there is a different legal term for it.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[AmiMoJo]

How is that "SJW" though? Aren't SJWs famous for going after the rich and powerful?

It's almost as if that term is just a meaningless pejorative.

Reportedly allegedly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did any of this actually happen? Wake me up when there are actual news to report, please.

Egregious UK case ignored on /. US centrism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again we see the US centrism, I thought us geek were supposed to buy into post-nationalism mindset, the trans-national view of the internet.

So what is this far more egregious UK case being ignored on slashdot? Imagine the google case with five times victims, combined with the Kavanaugh case.

Five substantial settlements for abuse, purported to multi-million pounds to each complainant.
The perpetrator a member of the the UK's second house, House of Lords.
The perpetrator a billionaire businessman, with family links to the American criminal underworld.
Kept secret with a super injunction, a newspaper legally gagged from reporting the details, despite the legal principle that civil law should never trump criminal law.
Revealed under the right of parliament privilege protection.

https://slashdot.org/submissio...

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely circumstances are important. I mean ultra rich guy getting a blow job, that can be considered coercion if you're going to be anal about it. Implied promise of material gain is being offered in exchange for sex. Don't get me wrong, bosses engaging in this behaviour require extra scrutiny, but it's not all or nothing.

Also, it was Google. She knew full well he wouldn't take punitive action from her refusal, else he would be in a world of hurt.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[djinn6]

Google leadership doesn't need to embrace 100% of the ideology to act like SJWs. There were Jews who fought for Hitler and I don't think they were okay with death camps.

You can define SJW however you want. To me, an SJW is someone in favor of minority and women's privilege to the point of irrationality. The reason it's "social justice" and not simply "justice" is because they don't actually want that. Justice means equality before the law and that prevents them from giving minorities and women extra privileges.

The reason they're called "warriors" is because they feel very strongly about it and are willing to go to great lengths to reach their goals. They believe the ends justify the means and would love nothing more than to grind the white male into the dirt, even if that particular individual had nothing to do with past oppression of women and minorities.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[AmiMoJo]

If there is no agreed definition of SJW, no identifiable group or traits that we can use to make a determination, then the phrase is meaningless.

I've noticed that in almost every case where the phrase is used it's about vague claims of irrational behaviour rather than specific incidents. Often it's just speculation about what might happen in the future, were such people to actually exist.

It's the ultimate straw man. It both labels your opponent, instantly enraging many listeners and poisoning the well, and lets you make any ridiculous claim to rail against because SJWs are known to be completely ridiculous.

Contracts?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious how much of these payments were contractual obligations that were already in motion.

i.e. things like severance packages that were already part of employment contracts etc.

Give it or part of his contract?

[houghi]

Did they just give it to hime, or was this part of the contract negotiations when he signed on to the company?

If the latter, where is the news. If the first I see it before me: He walks out with a carton box with his plant in it. All sad. Head down. And just after door closes behind him, an employee yeslls after him "Hey, Any. You forgot your 90 million doller check." He turns, smiles. Sees that it is the girl who gave that fantastic blowjob.They walk into the sun together. --- Fade to black.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is no agreed definition of SJW, no identifiable group or traits that we can use to make a determination, then the phrase is meaningless.

Drink! AmiMojo uses his usual "SJW has no meaning" strawman to call the other side a strawman!

I've noticed that

Drink! AmiMojo rhyming off personal unverifiable anecdotes to reinforce his confirmation bias!

(Anecdotes which, if you notice, also has no "agreed definition", "identifiable group" or "traits we can use to make a determination"... AmiMojo is basically pulling a Trumpian "oh yeah I saw a bunch of Muslims cheering on 9/11", but oh it's ok when he does it!)

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[serviscope_minor]

You can define SJW however you want.

And that is the definition of "SJW" in a nutshell.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[serviscope_minor]

I've noticed that in almost every case where the phrase is used it's about vague claims of irrational behaviour rather than specific incidents. Often it's just speculation about what might happen in the future, were such people to actually exist.

It's more than that. It also used like:
1. AmiMojo is a well known SJW
2. SJWs literally support murdering men. I'm sure I read that somewhere. Or I made it up, but it sounds like it's true, so it is.
3. Therefore AmiMojo literally supports murdering men

I've had a lot of similar claims made about me. When I demand for sort of evidence like a link to where I ever said such a thing, I get angry, evasive responses. The more I demand evidence that I actually said something, the angrier the accusers seem to get. Only evil SJW want evidence of claims it seems.

too much money unless

[Anonymous Coward]

If coercion in this case means the boss getting really pushy then he's been overpaid. If coercion meant they were making out at the beginning of a consensual relationship and she gave him a blowjob and regretted it later when she wasn't elevated to girlfriend it's trickier. Like the comedian who just got hoisted because the date started regretting it after he went down on her for a while and decided he should have detected that she wasn't into it - even though she didn't tell him before or during the muff diving only bringing it to twitter later when she wasn't girl friend.

In Rubin's case I'd wager money that he jumped her in a hotel room and put his cock in her mouth and, because he was her boss or boss's boss she didn't fight back. If so he's a scumbag and shouldn't have gotten the cash. Here's hoping the woman involved keeps her name from becoming a hashtag and moves on.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

So it is slightly more meaningful than "racist", "misogynist" or "nazi" then?

Re: The next GOP Supreme Court nominee!

[JackieBrown]

Kind of like complaining and stating you are afraid due to an unsuccessful event that happened in the 80s?

Re:The next GOP Supreme Court nominee!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't that during his pussy-grabbing days? Now it all makes sense!

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[AmiMoJo]

For some people it seems that imagining you did something is the same as you actually having done it... Which is something they frequently claim that SJWs do.

In fact I've noticed a pattern. Anything they claim an SJW is doing is almost certainly what they themselves are doing. Their own minds work that way, so they assume everyone else's do too.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

... And you miss the significance of that for its adopters as well?

Re: The next GOP Supreme Court nominee!

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Rapists are almost always Democrats.

Sometimes they change and decide to become better people, and that often comes with a change in political views. Suddenly murdering children in the womb and oppressing blacks with welfare slavery aren't as appealing when you decide to not be an evil piece of shit.

Re: The next GOP Supreme Court nominee!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not OP. I am a woman.

He/she is entirely 100% correct.

WTF is this shit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the fuck are people getting PAID MILLIONS to leave after they fuck up so badly? When is this shit going to get fixed?

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[djinn6]

I've had a lot of similar claims made about me. When I demand for sort of evidence like a link to where I ever said such a thing, I get angry, evasive responses.

Funny how you say that about other people. The last 3-4 times I replied to your posts you responded with childish insults.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[djinn6]

You can claim that, but I think most people already have a good idea of what "SJW" refers to.

In our society, there's a group of people who hate white people. There's another group that hates men. And there's a group that don't care about due process. These groups overlap, and the intersection is what I call SJW. You can give it a different name, I don't really care. But those people exist.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[HornWumpus]

Coerced/rape is 'fuck me or I'll fire you.'

Whoring about on company funds is 'fuck me and I'll promote you.'

We don't know which this was. Only that she was butthurt about it after.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[AmiMoJo]

The problem with "fuck me and I'll promote you" is that refusal may offend, so the victim will be worried about retaliation. Therefore it is always coercion.

It is also unfair to anyone not asked to fuck.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[WaffleMonster]

Coerced sex is sexual assault... At least it is here, maybe in the US there is a different legal term for it.

Coercion by definition is NOT limited to threats of doom and violence. There are many ways to compel people to do what they otherwise wouldn't.

Surely you are not asserting for example buying someone something nice or expensive in exchange for sex is sexual assault in your country?

Why go that extra mile with reckless assumptions invoking "sexual assault" something nobody not even the authors of the articles or anyone else here has done when you have no supporting information to indicate it took place?

When people are reckless with assumptions and accusations and they are proven wrong it has negative impacts on others.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[AmiMoJo]

The other common attribute of the SJW is that they are powerful, capable of taking down even the rich and famous who are normally above the law. They control huge multi-billion dollar companies and force them to institute SJW polices, spending vast sums of money on them (e.g. Intel spent $300M on diversity).

So if they do indeed exist there should be plenty of individuals to point to, plenty of evidence of this power, right? Otherwise they are just another Illuminati conspiracy.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[HornWumpus]

'Fuck me and I'll give you diamond' has the same issue.

Women that sleep their way to the top are co conspirators, not victims.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

The other common attribute of the SJW is that they are powerful

Nobody thinks SJWs are powerful. SJWs power comes exclusively from leveraging fear of being publically attacked and smeared to coerce others into going along with their bullshit. It's a form of terrorism. Follow our political doctrine or we will destroy your career.

capable of taking down even the rich and famous who are normally above the law

They are only capable of taking down the rich and famous precisely because they are the most vulnerable to this type of attack. No name nobodies have no public profile to defend or lose.

If you really want to see a SJW in action try this link. These type of people who weaponized the precept of equality and pervert it as a vehicle for spreading intolerance and hatred are the true face of SJWism.

http://webcache.googleusercont...

The sad part is that SJWs are retarding social progress by weaponizing politics and creating an evolution between tribes that doesn't need to exist.

Normal people (Not yourself AmiMoJo you are not normal) you are incapable of understanding read this shit, see the aftermath of public figures they've long known been smeared to death without commensurate supporting evidence and they tune it all out as noise and take steps to act against what they see is an attack. Not just SJWs but the underlying issues and causes of equality everything remotely connected to it. So now we have an evolution between people that is entirely meritless and entirely instigated by the media for profit to maintain perpetual outrage and crazy people with mental disorders. (SJWs)

SJWism isn't helpful or constructive to society. It isn't a badge of honor it isn't a good thing. It is entirely destructive in nature.

Quick Duck!

[gerald.edward.butler]

Whoosh!

Re:Quick Duck!

[Anonymous Coward]

Doooooooooooooooosh!

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[_Sharp'r_]

It's easy to explain. If you look at the patterns, most sexual harassment/assault being tolerated appears to happen in SJW-oriented locations, like Google, academia, government, news media, Hollywood, etc...

It seems to contribute to people in those cultures being way more concerned about it (because it apparently happens all the time there and is swept under the rug much of the time), while people in more rational fields wonder why they much more rarely see the types of things which are apparently common when you put a bunch of power-hungry leftists together in an organization.

Then the leftists project their own issues on to everyone else and assume it must be worse elsewhere, because they're "woke" or something and just ignore that Clinton/Weinstein/slave-girl-island whatever stuff behind the curtain.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[serviscope_minor]

. The last 3-4 times I replied to your posts you responded with childish insults.

I did? Perhaps, but I don't keep track of you so I couldn't confirm or deny that. And there's a chance that if you said something aggressively stupid then I treated your post with the contempt it deserved. Or maybe I was in a bad mood. Who knows!

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[AmiMoJo]

The moderation display seems to be broken... This is score 1, with

20% Interesting
20% Insightful
20% Funny

I guess some meta moderation is not included, but holy crap there must have been a lot of triggered anti-SJW metas today.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[AmiMoJo]

most sexual harassment/assault being tolerated appears to happen in SJW-oriented locations

Isn't the rather more obvious and likely explanation that we simply find out about it in those locations more often because SJWs bring it to light?

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[Tsolias]

On the other hand they are too SJW because... Wait, can you explain that one to me?

If it's not obvious to you by now, there's no way you'll ever understand it.

End of the fucking world

[geekymachoman]

If the guy wasn't as rich, this wouldn't be news at all.

It's rich people hating article that marginalizes every other person that had to suck cock for nice dinner/promotion or just for the sake of sucking cock.

GTFO. News that matters.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had a lot of similar claims made about me

Well if you float like a turd and stink like a turd, you might just be a piece of shite.

If you are going to use Aristotelian logic to try and prove something it would help ever so much if you could do so properly

1. When Serviscope Minor can't make a logical argument he resorts to obvious rhetorical tricks
2. He only does so when he has nothing better
3. Therefor his last comment was made because he could not make a logical or factual argument and resorted to obvious tricks.

You see the difference ?

When I demand for sort of evidence like a link to where I ever said such a thing, I get angry, evasive responses. The more I demand evidence that I actually said something, the angrier the accusers seem to get. Only evil SJW want evidence of claims it seems.

That's highly unlikely just clicking on your name brings up the following without even having to go beyond the first page.

I did? Perhaps, but I don't keep track of you so I couldn't confirm or deny that. And there's a chance that if you said something aggressively stupid then I treated your post with the contempt it deserved. Or maybe I was in a bad mood. Who knows!

https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12812525&cid=57544089

Captcha:@verfl@w

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I feel stupid. All I had to do was just read the next comment in the thread to find you proving yourself a bitter idiot.

captcha:weighs

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[_Sharp'r_]

Only if you think there are no SJWs at all elsewhere, and you also don't have anyone else willing to report that info and you don't have direct experience of those other locations.

Besides, why would that lead to it being more tolerated by the SJW-rich areas?

So in other words, no.

Go WOKE. go broke.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me or do SJW make everything worse. Google is as far left as you can get, yet, these people never seem satisfied. Professional bed-wetters are bad for any business.