I never understood why the banality that Scoble produced was so popular? It's been a long time, but I seem to remember most of his articles had the vibe of "I tried 25 methods to format my USB stick and <this one> is two seconds faster".
Anyway, I hope Quinn Norton gets all the support, kindness and apologies, she deserves. And that Scoble finds the catharsis he needs.
Seems like he had a major drinking problem. Groping someone you just met at a professional meeting isn't normal behavior, seems like he couldn't control himself - alcohol being the issue. It's possible he's a decent guy but the demons come out with drink, like a Mel Gibson.
He's apparently stopped drinking so hopefully he stays sober.
Being drunk doesn't absolve you of your crimes, it means you should stay sober if you don't live alone on the moon. Especially if you know you will act a certain way.
I hadn't heard of Scoble for years so I googled "scoble abuse", and the first result is something he supposedly wrote about being groomed and abused by his coach while he was a kid (http://archive.is/AN19H). Can't find the Facebook post this suggests was written by Robert and I don't know anything about the website it was posted on. But if it's true, then it gives you a way to trace back how Robert Scoble became an abuser. It also reflects on his substance abuse issues and if true shows that society fails to help victims and puts them on a path to become future perpetrators.
> abusers of all varieties tend to realize the mileage they can get out of saying, “I’m abusive because the same thing was done to me.”
— Lundy Bancroft, "Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men"
The gist is that googling those two words revealed how Robert might have acquired his personal demons. I find that important to paint a more complete picture instead of only looking at what he did under the influence. It's an explanation for the defect he carries around, but ultimately he has control over the triggers that activate the behavior, so I fully agree with you that he cannot be excused and am sorry if you thought I was trying to excuse the behavior.
I have been drunk before; probably more often than my fair share (I went to college). While alcohol has disinhibited me, it has never prevented me from distinguishing between right and wrong.
While alcohol has caused me to overestimate my dancing abilities or to tell a friend things that I regretted later, it has never made me say things that I did not believe or made me do things I knew were wrong.
Sorry, but alcohol is not sufficient to explain groping or Mel Gibson's rants.
Nobody's saying being drunk is an excuse to do things or gives you permission.
Some people have repressed thoughts, feelings, etc. that they might act on when dis-inhibited. I recall one coworker being drunk and going from happy to angry repeatedly and another one pouring out his heart to me about his unhappy marriage. I discarded those events and never asked them about it, but I imagine that if this is what happens in a purely vocal way, then someone drunk acting in ways they only didn't before because they were sober means there are deeper issues only hidden and controlled by the rational mind prevailing during sober times. This is why those that went through something like the 12 steps become fearful of getting drunk/high again, since they recall their destructive side. Some people have "demons" they only release if dis-inhibited by being drunk or irrational due to a primal instinct in control.
People react to alcohol differently. I personally stopped heavy drinking because it causes me to enter a semi-conscious state where I honestly believe I act as if I am in a dream state, with basically non-existent rationality. The result was personal injury and property damage in college and that was enough to know to stop. (Thankfully when in this state of mind I never hurt or abused other people, I generally was either super friendly or verbally hostile, but in any case had minimal recollection or explanation for my behavior.)
> While alcohol has disinhibited me, it has never prevented me from distinguishing between right and wrong.
The whole reason that Quinn got involved was that there was a drunk woman making out with a drunk man and the sober people standing around thought that the woman had so much to drink that she could not distinguish between right and wrong.
We need more courageous people like Quinn and the two guys and I like to think I might have the guts too, but it's hard to predict. I applaud them for doing the right thing and hope I never get in a situation like that where I have to stand up be a barrier between a harasser and its victim.
I didn't learn about the UploadVR (where Robert works) drama from May before today, but I'm genuinely curious and want to ask if someone who has witnessed harassment at work like that can shed some light.
I know pop culture sexualises everything and fails to educate on matters of sex at the same time, but commenting on your female coworker's body in a meeting with others and saying you have to excuse yourself to go masturbate is something I never heard of happening in even the most dominantly male places.
How prevalent is this in the workplace? I mean, sexual attraction is a natural and sometimes useful thing to have, but humans are defined by not acting on each and every primal instinct.
Where do people acquire those behavioral patterns? Bad influence in the family or fraternity? Or is it porn consumption and subsequent belief that everybody is submissive when you're the boss (UploadVR executive)? I guess what I'm asking is what kinds of all-male activities to avoid if I don't want the bad influence.
To use the parent comment's example: almost everyone will be more willing to dance or sing really badly, or maybe kiss the wrong guy. Only a tiny fraction of people commit crimes under the influence.[0]
But you aren't completely wrong: Criminality just has a very low prevalence, so even if alcohol were to double it, it'd be rare to see. But from my experience it seems to be a very specific effect, making some people rather aggressive, for example, while having absolutely no such effect on others.
The difference just seems to be that some people have traits of aggressiveness, and alcohol stops them from controlling it.
Is that an excuse? Legally, it sometimes is: If you get blot-out drunk and shoot your wife in the head trying to reenact Wilhelm Tell, it's not murder, because no intent.
At that point it all depends on what you could reasonably expect yourself to do when drunk: If this is your third wife and the third Apple you missed, it starts looking quite different.
In this case, it appears Scoble had a history of such behaviour. Not only was he possibly behaving similarly even when sober (see the anecdote from her talk at the beginning), he had the chance of protecting people by avoiding such situations altogether.
I think you’re mistaken, simply by observing the incredibly high amount of drunk driving that goes on in my city. It’s indicative that alcohol can have very strong effects on inhibition and judgement.
> To use the parent comment's example: almost everyone will be more willing to dance or sing really badly, or maybe kiss the wrong guy. Only a tiny fraction of people commit crimes under the influence.[0]
I'm not sure I agree that 'the influence' does not correlate with criminal behavior, but perhaps you're right.
But even if you're right, I'm convinced that inebriation does correlate strongly with crossing lines. And it's still the case that in many cultures and environments, a lot of sexual misconduct is not considered a crime, but merely 'blurred lines'.
I hope that changing this 'culture' will go a long way towards curbing even the very drunk from some of this (apparently) systemic kind of misconduct.
Anyway, I hope Quinn Norton gets all the support, kindness and apologies, she deserves. And that Scoble finds the catharsis he needs.