A few conferences ago, I walk passed a drunk woman who turned around and hit me out of the blue. I could attribute that to conference culture, or I could attribute this to a woman who was so drunk she could barely stand and was talking to herself. If this had been at the work place, I would react very different, as in this case I just continued walking.

Bars and free alcohol is not something I associate with a place of professionalism. I am not sure why so many people try to combine the two, which is why I ask.

EDIT: It's a context thing. If I was in the middle of a difficult problem and wanted a little "mental lubricant", I don't think anyone would question it. Drinking for no reason, or when being even slightly tipsy could affect performance, makes for perfect grounds for punishment.

I understand the professionalism argument, but we're all adults here. If having a drink completely obliterates your sensitivities, you didn't have very many in the first place.

Which, when you think about it, is just a backhanded way of disqualifying women.

So, with that established: Why do people make critical business decisions in bars?

* A social outing lets people pretend to be friends, and to act like friends, while skipping the months and years of effort it takes to actually become friends. It's an "act the part, be the part" trick.

* Intoxicants create a polite fiction that allows people to be direct and blunt in a way they can't in a formal business setting, which expedites dealmaking.

I do however think it make for a bad move if a taxi company has a open bar for cab drivers who is on the job. Its a design for disaster. The taxi company would have made a bad decision, and the drivers are still 100% responsible if they drive drunk. The one do not exclude the other.

Edit: To clarify, I agree there might be another side to this but until/unless the person the post's author is referring to makes a statement there is almost nothing to be gained by dismissing the author's account as some sort of half truth.

IMO, saying "it's a culture issue" is just wishful thinking, based on an assumption that there can ever exist a culture where all members are completely conformist and nobody is a "jerk". In reality, people will be selfish, and you will be put into positions where you need to stand your ground (in some way). The only thing that "culture" can do is exactly this - call out the jerks (in person or online), and other members of the "culture" agreeing that the behaviour is shitty.

> Why is it "worth exploring" potentially discrediting aspects of the victim's stories, but not worth exploring the events that lead up to the story with good faith interpretations?

I didn't say that. I just said that it's worth exploring both.

About some things? Yes. A culture of 100% agreement about people of European descent not being superior to other races, for instance, is a good thing. There is such a thing as an unproductive disagreement, and even of toxic disagreements. An attempt to disagree about the role of Jewish people in international banking conspiracies, for instance, would be unwelcome.

It's interesting that you openly acknowledge this, as well as what I now realize was support for shaming people who ask naughty questions (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9057857). Most folks refuse to openly admit to this sort of anti-intellectualism, I'm glad to see it out in the open.

It's easier to call something a "dumb idea" and attack those discussing it than it is to actually refute it. Particularly when, as is the case here, there probably isn't much of a moral principle beyond "it makes me SOOO ANGRY".

Going back to the issue at hand, your so-called easy way out is exactly what tomp was doing upthread. To paraphrase both you and him, "It's easier to put forth reasons why someone would write something like that in bad faith (mental illness, attention-seeking, etc.) and attack those discussing it that it is to actually refute it [the ongoing marginalization of the experiences of women in tech]." Underhandedly calling into question the veracity of the author's retelling overlooks the larger gender issues in the work world and sidesteps the issue at hand. It's much easier to throw out the idea that she has a mental issue, than to realize that many on-going social norms make a swath of the tech population feel unwelcome. EDIT: The moral principle that you seek is between the lines of her writing.

Throw in things like "there's no way to interrogate her account without sounding like a creep", an unwillingness to define your terms, and generally calling anyone who disagrees with you a "nerd" (3x in this thread!), and yep - I stand by anti-intellectual.

[1] E.g., no racial group can be better at something than others, therefore any statistical disparity must be caused b pro-Asian discrimination.

I wouldn't particularly enjoy or appreciate a diligent effort to argue that women were inferior to men, but I would respond to its existence on some random page on the Internet by simply not reading it. At issue in this thread is an attempt to litigate issues like that in response to a complaint about sexual harassment.

It's not anti-intellectual to point out that there's a time and place for different discussions, and to point out the subtext that animates your decision to try to have that discussion here. You and 'tomp intrusively introduce this fake debate into threads like this, and I think you do it on purpose (albeit for different reasons).

If you want to act like a creep and demand that people consider that the author of this story might be irrational, unreasonable, or dishonest, you can do that. Just don't whine about it when you're called out for doing it.

If you scroll up you'll see that I dont share tomp's skepticism. Stuff like this happens all the time, in and out of tech.

That aside: your comment isn't responsive to mine. You're just repeating the same point you made upthread.