Hm, I am kinda against internet mobs. But I don't see a way to form a consensus about whether this guy is guilty or not, or what to do about it if he is. At the same time, we do need some kind of defense mechanism to make sure people are secure. We can't just let everything slide because we're perpetually waiting for more evidence.

>At the same time, we do need some kind of defense mechanism to make sure people are secure.

Well, how about the law?

>We can't just let everything slide because we're perpetually waiting for more evidence.

But it's not 'sliding', it's going to court.

And it doesn't concern us anyway -- it's not like we witnessed it in real life and didn't speak out.

At least one of the down votes you got was for the last sentence in your post.

Stopping sexual assault should concern everyone!

>Stopping sexual assault should concern everyone!

Well, some downvotes should come your way for misattribution too then.

I didn't say that "Stopping sexual assault should not concern us" (or anything to that effect).

I said the case is of no concern to us. First, it's not our place to make judgements of guilt or innocence without knowing what transpired and not even knowing those people. Ee don't even know for sure whether it was actually sexual assault or not -- that's for the law to decide.

(Of course we might be suspicious of the law, or a specific court result, or the way a trial was conducted etc. But we are not even at that stage yet).

Plus, you're not stopping sexual assault by saying you are against it in an internet forum (and concerning an undecided case). Heck, even rapists would say they are "against sexual assault" in public.

Hitting on women inappropriately isn't illegal. Being a slimy VC and using your position to meet the ladies isn't illegal. Nor is sending explicit texts, as long as the target isn't underaged and you're not technically stalking them. Not investing in some guy's company because you think he is ugly or you hate his dad isn't illegal, either.

It all those things are not illegal, then it's probably not our job to call them immoral either.

Rich people use their position to attract girls all the time, it doesn't change if they are VC or not. You can always tell them that you're not interested or to get the fuck off if they insist. Besides their riches are part of who they are (it's not like they just won the lottery) -- a struggling artist or fair-trade hippie activist will also use his being as such to attract girls who are into that sort of thing.

I don't find "explicit texts" of concern either. What is this, victorian morality police? Some texts are bad because they are naughty? "I want to have sex with you" might even be more open and honest than "Let's have some coffee" (when the main reason is ending up in bed).

Threatening texts or actual sexual assault on the other hand, well, yeah, that's of concern.

Not every argument has to go to court. I don't see this going to court anyway, but even if they do sue, he'll probably just settle out of court.