News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Time Person of the Year 2017: The Silence Breakers by danso on Wednesday December 06, 2017 @10:43AM (#15861904)
> I'm concerned that given Roy Moore's example, we'll have more people that decide their best course of action is to continually deny everything in the face of strong evidence.

It is disconcerting, OTOH it's a reminder that not everything is about merit. Most of the other famous people brought down recently faced allegations with less evidentiary support, but Moore survives because of politics. Even as much as the rest of the GOP despises him, he represents an important vote on matters (as far as the GOP is concerned) far bigger than his personal integrity and sexual morality. Think of how the bills on healthcare and taxes have come down to 1 or 2 votes in the Senate.

Had even a hint of these allegations came up during the primary, when it was between Moore and the incumbent, Lester Strange (who was backed by Trump and the rest of the GOP establishment), no doubt Moore would have been demolished in the primary.

I'm somewhat surprised that given the GOP's dominance in Alabama that they didn't make a bigger attempt at staging a write-in campaign. After all, one of Trump's biggest Republican opponents, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, won via write-in and her last name is a fuckton harder to remember and spell than "Strange": https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/murkowski-writein-campa...

Re:Time Person of the Year 2017: The Silence Breakers by rectang on Wednesday December 06, 2017 @10:53AM (#15862014)
If a candidate is more likely than their opponent to vote for policies you favor, then supporting them despite their personal failings is rational.

Moore is an extreme example, but all humans are fallible. People's expectations are too high -- our representatives are nowhere near as consistently virtuous as the facades they present.

Re:Time Person of the Year 2017: The Silence Breakers by danso on Wednesday December 06, 2017 @12:51PM (#15863166)
No doubt, your observation also applies to the world outside of politics too. Many artists get leeway because their behavior and failings are hoped to be independent (and sometimes a pre-requisite) of their art. And the rationalization we make may have little to do with absolute standards and principles, and more with proximity to the subject and the controversy. For example, I have no problem ignoring/boycotting Roman Polanski's contemporary work while I had a much harder time not caring about Woody Allen's continued work, at least until I read Dylan Farrow's essay about the abuse she faced [0]. It wasn't because that the weight of Polanski being officially charged with rape was more significant than the public evidence against Allen. I just hadn't grown up watching Polanski, where Allen's past movies have been among my favorite. With familiarity and sentimentality, it becomes easier to delay passing judgment, or to have doubts.

In the case of Moore, many of his implicit supporters may not love him. But if their priorities are a conservative and pro-life agenda, it will likely seem rational to them to de-prioritize taking a real look at the accusations against him. Nevermind that for Christians, it's practically tradition that the "work of God" is often carried out by the corrupt and the flawed (e.g. much of the Old Testament).

[0] https://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/an-open-letter-...

Re:Time Person of the Year 2017: The Silence Breakers by kendallpark on Wednesday December 06, 2017 @11:12AM (#15862186)
Isn't this exactly the problem we're seeing in sexual harassment and sexaul assault cases outside of politics, though?

Simply put, some institutions have judged that the pros of keeping a sexual harasser around outweigh the cons. For example, the Uber harassers were swept under a rug by HR because they were "high performers."

Re:Time Person of the Year 2017: The Silence Breakers by rectang on Wednesday December 06, 2017 @12:05PM (#15862723)
No, I disagree with that black-and-white approach. Those are both examples of tradeoffs, true -- but it is entirely possible to come to different conclusions based on specific circumstances. There are many shades of grey -- from nearly black to nearly white and everything in between -- and it is possible to discern between them.

And in that context, although I would never vote for Roy Moore, I can understand why many Republicans might.

Re:Time Person of the Year 2017: The Silence Breakers by kendallpark on Wednesday December 06, 2017 @01:20PM (#15863457)
Could you explain how my approach is black and white? I'm stating that institutions weigh the tradeoffs, which is a pretty neutral statement. I know people that hated Trump but voted for him anyway because they had huge reservations about Clinton, they wanted to make the most of a Republican majority in the House and Senate, etc. These decisions depended on their own values and their projections of what the future would hold.

To continue the Uber example, it may have been in Uber's best financial short-term interest to keep "high productivity" devs around, regardless of harassment issues. But it might not be in their best interest in the long-term because of issues of toxic company culture or fear public outcry. Some would also argue that there is a moral responsibility in play as well. These factors are all being weighed by institutions and the outcome seems to depend on the collective values of that group.

That said, the poll cited above shows that the majority of his supporters don't even believe in the allegations. The ability of people to choose to disbelieve things based on what benefits your institution is supremely disturbing. It's nothing new in the history of humanity. But I'm worried more people will be emboldened to use conspiracy defenses in the future, given how well it seems to be working for Moore.

Re:Time Person of the Year 2017: The Silence Breakers by rectang on Wednesday December 06, 2017 @01:36PM (#15863615)
> I'm stating that institutions weigh the tradeoffs, which is a pretty neutral statement.

But you cite that as a "problem" in your previous comment:

> Isn't this exactly the problem we're seeing in sexual harassment and sexual assault cases outside of politics, though?

Decision making based on tradeoffs and acknowledgment of human frailties is better than decision making based on unrealistic absolute categorizations.

(For instance, we'd all be better off if we acknowledged that humans tend to be prejudiced, because we're designed that way by evolution -- as opposed to the "racist/not-racist" dichotomy that drives current discussion. But it will be a long time before society ever arrives at a consensus on that...)

Re:Time Person of the Year 2017: The Silence Breakers by logfromblammo on Wednesday December 06, 2017 @12:06PM (#15862736)
My high expectations make it difficult to find people qualified to hold office.

Much like tech development companies, actually...

And their pay is already pretty decent, considering the required skill set. Perhaps we should consider remote candidates or offshoring? I'm pretty sure that 80% of the Alabama legislature could be safely replaced by temps calling in from India, reading from scripts supplied by the party.~

Our expectations should be high. We really don't want to be ruled by a room filled with Georges Costanza, no matter how awesome that would make C-SPAN.