Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Time Person of the Year 2017: The Silence Breakers (time.com)
196 points by rbanffy 10 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 140 comments



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. Maybe this only works for people of a certain charisma, but I worried this will become the new way to respond to allegations.

> In a CBS poll (which gives Moore a 6-point lead), 71 percent of likely Republican voters say the misconduct allegations against him are false. And of that group, 92 percent say the Democrats are behind the charges, and 88 percent say newspapers and the media are behind them.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/06/turnabout-why-tru...


Are you proposing we assume people are guilty until proven innocent? What if they _are_ innocent, and therefore keep denying it?

Are you worried that innocent people will insist they're innocent, or what?

Note: I'm not saying that Moore is innocent, I honestly don't know pretty much anything about that case. But being worried that people who aren't convicted of anything will deny they did something wrong just sounds... weird, regardless of the topic.


There's more to it than just he-said-she-said. For example, there's the fact that he had admitted relationships to some of the (older) accusers. And now he has just been issuing blanket denials. Which recently caused one of the accusers to come up with even more evidence:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/woman-shares-new-evi...

One thing that struck me after the James O'Keefe sting blew up in his face [0] was how hard it is to backfill the details of a fabricated life, especially details, public records, witnesses and relationships for your whereabouts and actions 30 years ago. The WP has found 7 women who not only face terrific abuse for speaking up, but whose claims have stood up to deep research.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approa...


> I honestly don't know pretty much anything about that case.

You should read about the case.


I've read about it and I'm still waiting for the definitive proof that his denials about sexual misconduct are false. Although, I understand the standard of proof required for the court of popular opinion is much lower than an actual legal court.


> I've read about it and I'm still waiting for the definitive proof that his denials about sexual misconduct are false. Although, I understand the standard of proof required for the court of popular opinion is much lower than an actual legal court.

The standard required in an actual legal court for anything other than a criminal conviction is much lower than what you demand, and even the criminal burden of proof is singificanrtly lower, as “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a far cry from “definitive proof that denials are wrong”.

Ironically, the standard you demand is exactly the standard many people apply in the court of public opinion for rejecting their priors, especially when those priors are tribal (e.g., political partisan) identity markers, like “the guy on my team is virtuous”.


Yes, there is definitely enough evidence to conclude Ray Moore's accusers are telling the truth, if you use "beyond a reasonable doubt". Too bad so many people politicize this and take it way beyond reasonable.


The civil standard is preponderance of evidence. The criminal standard is beyond reasonable doubt. I believe that the civil standard is appropriate for public elections. And for this type of proceeding, hearsay is admissible as evidence.

At this time, the prosecution in the court of public opinion has offered reams of eyewitness testimony (even as unreliable as that category of evidence may be), and the defense has offered "nuh-uh, wazzenme" and a parade of character witnesses--that are strangely reticent to back up their assertions with their specific reasons for believing that it would be out of character for Roy Moore to have pursued and sexually molested children when he was younger. As I am a cynical anarchist atheist, "he votes Republican and regularly attends Christian churches" actually holds negative weight for me.

There is also the other thing, the thing that is undeniable fact, and a matter of public record. He has twice been evicted--dragged kicking and screaming--from public office, for flouting the law. He has twice proven himself to be incapable of upholding the parts of the U.S. constitution that he doesn't like, and it would have only taken once for me to consider him unfit to be a U.S. senator.

And besides all that, he gives me the same vibe as an Alabama politician that I got from Rod Blagojevich as a Chicago politician. It's as though all the bacteria in my intestines are screaming in unison: "That guy is a colossal piece of isht, and we know isht better than anyone! Do not allow him within 100m of your government, your bank accounts, or your children!"


Roy Moore is saying he doesn't even know the women. There is documented evidence that he does (Year books and the like).

As it stands now, there is evidence that Roy Moore is a liar.


That yearbook is the only physical evidence presented yet it seems to be forgery. That doesn't bode well for the veracity of the allegations from that accuser or the level of due diligence offered by Gloria Allred.


There are two pieces and the only one claiming forgery, is Roy Moore's camp (Shocking, i know)


Roy Moore's camp is also asking the yearbook be handed over to a third-party for analysis but so far the request has been ignored.


it was examined by Mark Songer an ex-FBI Forensic Examiner. And now there is a second piece of evidence.

On a side note, Man, you guys will go to some great lengths in your misinformation. I can understand some critical thought, but its like talking to defense attorneys.


Just a note: since this discussion was had the lady in question has admitted that a portion of the yearbook entry was indeed forged by her. The portion that a great number of people online claimed looked suspicious that was also looked at by the WAPO's expert.


>We did not ask the expert to examine the printing after the cursive writing and signature,” Allred said Friday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/roy-moore-accuser-a...


Oh, well that was very convenient for them wasn't it?


argumentum ad consequentiam


This is an ironic comment for this particular HN submission, as it’s a story about women whose single testimony brought down industry leaders.

And Roy Moore has eight independent accusers to date.


While eight may seem like a lot, it's not that hard to find people willing to lie. If eight women came forward and said that a guy in the shipping department had harassed them, I may question it less because there is less motivation for eight women to say that. With a senate seat at stake there is a lot more reason to question it without any accompanying evidence.


It’s pretty had to get 8 people to get interviewed by the cops on something this serious without screwing it up badly.

Look at the fake accuser plant and the WP, they sussed it out very quickly.


What police interviews are you speaking of? As far as I know the Moore accusations have only been made to the press with no legal aspect to it at this time.


You’re right my bad I was thinking about the Washington Post but I said cops.


It’s actually 9 now.


Innocent until proven guilty is a fine principal for a court of law, but I feel no obligation to apply it to my own decisions. I see enough evidence (not proof, evidence) to make my own decision that Moore’s accusers are telling the truth.

To each his own.


What sort of evidence would you consider dispositive?


I think a clear photograph of the person committing the misdeeds would be useful, but not for everybody it seems.


Well yes of course that would be useful.

But let's try again. What's the least amount of evidence that you would find dispositive?


If the accused accuses back, the lack of proofs (despite evidences) would be an evidence of the plot.


The absense of evidence is not evidence.


Unless you have tens of accusers and no proof. Not talking about the case, but sure a lot of accusations without proof could be a plot.


Our not. The comment was about the right for people to claim their innocence.

I have no idea who the guy is.


someone defaming some other person before court case is heard is doing a public service of indicating their guilt...and its also a crime in fact...this is what Trump is being charged with in NY court...defaming an accuser


[flagged]


I think you need to read the charges more closely. Sexual assault of a 14 year old is not something you can judge a persons character on solely? What in your mind would be a “deal breaker” by itself?


It was 30 years ago. Even if he had killed somebody 30 years ago and lived ever since without any serious incident I would consider it to have minor relevancy for someone's character today. From a legal perspective, sure there have to be consequences. But from a moral perspective, I respect it even higher when somebody was able to change the life to the better.


To clarify you disagree with “an unpunished and unrepentant paedophile at the age of 30 should not be elected to office” and you actually just said that they are _improved morally your eyes by the experience_.

Just blows my mind. I can’t believe I’m on the internet arguing with such ignorant garbage.

You need to get a reality check and meet some victims mate, because that opinion is _objectively_ disgusting.


Your inability to tolerate different viewpoints and resulting parade of ad hominems are exactly the reason why many keep their opinions to the voting booth.


The attacks aren't ad hominem if they are "you are an abhorrent human being for considering pedophilia a 'different viewpoint'". The attack is directly against you for your terrible views. Ad hominem would be: "Your views on Net Neutrally are wrong because you and your party support child rapists".


It's not a different viewpoint.


Minor relevancy? They would have improved in character if they owned it when exposed and accepted whatever would be their fate. That is being moral.

Going on a concerted effort to deny their actions, diminish the victims, delegitimatise the media and further divide people IS NOT MORAL.

I hope you change your stupid point of view, it's just that: stupid.


> Judging a person's character by their sexuality alone is just absurd

If you rape someone, you are a bad person. End of story. There is no _other viewpoint_. There is no _other side of the story_. I'll refrain from name calling, but I do have one request for you. Really think about what you're saying. Try to see it from the eyes of the victim. What if your mom was the one that was raped?


You might say he brutally raped a child and is a pedophile.

I say he dated a teenager who told him on the 2rd date that she is actually 14 but they both undressed and he 'touched her over her bra and underpants' but drove her immediately home, after she said she didn't want to go further (not making things up - that is the official story in the Washington Post).


Being a child rapist is not 'having an alternative sexuality'.


Yes, but the battle isn't won in a day. The first step is creating an environment where women can speak up. To me that is a remarkably large first step. 71% of likely Republican voters think the allegations are false. Maybe true, but that means 29% think they are true which is 29% more than there were 10 weeks ago. One step at a time is an infinitely faster pace than no steps at all.


Not just women. The statistics vastly understate the problem for all genders, for the same reason. The fact that people still argue that men can't be sexually assaulted (and omit them from discussions) after Terry Crews came out about his experience and was even featured in this Time article is evidence. Plus, nonbinary and agender people are pretty much ignored in mainstream discussions.

It's a bad situation all around.


I understand the battle isn't won in a day and I am very encouraged that the environment is improving for women and men to speak up.

I am, however, concerned that we'll see more people that choose to simply deny credible allegations in the face of solid evidence (and rally others to do the same).


Blanket denial, and character attacks on the accuser, has been the status quo for eternity. Bill Clinton, Clarence Thomas, ...

This has recently started to change, because people recognize how unbelievable it is, and because accusers can have larger voices in today's media environment.

Roy Moore is using the old playbook. If it succeeds, in the face of all evidence, it will be a very bad thing.


I think his election would be a bad thing but I don't think it would foretell much or have much impact elsewhere, it'd just be bad because of the credible allegations against him and his otherwise being a miserable candidate.


I disagree. The ultimate goal is to stop the behaviour, and the first step is to make it clear that a) your behaviour has a good chance of being exposed, and b) you'll suffer consequences for it.

If the offenders think they can keep secrets, or that no one will care, there is no disincentive to continuing the behaviour. Aside from the whole morality problem of being an awful person, which seems not to be a big factor for some people.

It's possible that the Moore situation, however it breaks, will only apply to political figures, or only in Alabama. But the idea is chilling.


I understand what the concern is, I just don't think it applies more generally at all.

For instance, whatever else happens, I don't think Moore will win another primary in Alabama.


Senators serve for six years. It will be a loong time before that theory is tested, and the lessons derived from the election results will have weight until at least that time. Moore could also reasonably retire or die of old age before running in another primary.

I agree that this election in Alabama is difficult to generalize from though, there are many factors at play. Still, I'd prefer less ambiguity here.


The special election fills the seat until the 2020 election, so It'd be ~2 years until the primary.


Good point. Two years of tactical validation is still too many, but I suspect we agree on this much.


This doesn't seem new, or confined to sexual harrasment and assault allegations.

So while it's concerning, and I'd like to see it fixed, it's kind of orthogonal to this particular issue, and affects e.g. climate change, the impacts of the tax bill, the healthcare discussion and so on.


I would be shocked it this didn't happen. Calling accusers "liar" is pretty much exactly what everyone has initially done for, well, pretty much as long as people have been accusing each other or anything.

I understand your point and am hopeful that at some point it goes the other way and the rightfully accused say "ugh...better to just admit it and try to move on with my life too."


> 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...


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.


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-...


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."


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.


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.


> 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...)


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.


> Maybe this only works for people of a certain charisma

Honestly; it depends on the audience - are you willing to ignore the person being grossly abhorrent/immoral because they say something about some unrelated thing that you agree with? (Build a wall! Tax Cuts! No Baby Slaughter!).

Roy Moore is being framed to voters as, 'Would you rather a (potential) child molester in office or someone actively advocating for murdering Babies? When framed like that; it's much easier to bite your lip and vote for the molester because really - what are the chances he'll do it again now that he's in his 70s? The other guy will actively murder babies if he gets elected.


The problem is women can't see themselves for various reasons to involve the police. Unless society changes to make that possible, rich/self employed people/politicians will get away with it. Others will get fired.


Really...? If someone sexually assaults you you aren't developed enough to realize a crime was committed and you need to go to the police? Also, this problem doesn't only just affect women.


Justifiably so, given the immense professional risk in publically outing the harasser. (e.g. Weinstein’s attempts to dig up dirt on the accusers)


I did not want to imply it was unjustified.


Then, maybe, the problem lies elsewhere.


People believe what they want to believe, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


I was going to say something about partisanship, but Republicans are also less likely to believe allegations in general - even say the one against Conyers, 39% of dems believe it vs 32% of republicans. I don't think it's to do with the denial though - trump did initially admit to his, and 34% of republicans believe in his allegations vs 30% for moore. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/29/sexual-misconduct-...


Some Politico statistics about Conyers and Moore cannot be used to make the conclusion that “Republicans are also less likely to believe allegations.”


"Poll: Democrats more likely to believe allegations of sexual misconduct" that's the title of the article..


Victory in the Alabama Senate race is a binary signal that can hide a lot of information. If Moore wins, compare the margin of victory to pre-revelation polling. It's entirely possible that there's a major shift in public opinion, just not one large enough to make Alabama(!) blue.


The accuser just admitted to forging the yearbook


No she didn't, that's fake news courtesy of fox.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/363990-fox-news-issues-cor...



Oh my bad, you're right. Manually adding key and leading into isn't a forgery, it's "notes". Good catch.


Keep in mind that Moore was removed from the bench for failing to follow higher judicial decisions. Twice. We are talking about a judge who does not believe in the rule of law.

The fact that Alabama voters don't care about sexual harassment allegations is not surprising.


It's not that they don't care, it's that they care more about what they perceive as wholesale baby murder. Abortion is an extremely important issue in Alabama and to much of the state it is state sponsored genocide on a scale that exceeds anything Stalin or anyone else has committed. It can be difficult for people living in areas where abortion is not seen in this way to understand but in a state like Alabama, to them it really is a matter of being in a constant state of being horrified by the daily murder of thousands of babies. Those who don't see a fetus as being a baby have a hard time understanding beyond the most superficial that this is a deeply held belief by those opposed to abortion. Understanding this point of view on abortion is essential to understanding why so many cannot even conceive of voting for Moore's opponent.


[dead]


> Rejecting evidence is religion and conservatives have sadly become a religious cult.

I definitely did not say this.

You'll find evidence-rejecters of all shapes and sizes. Anti-vax, no-GMO, etc, etc.


Given those examples, I think you're actually strengthening his argument that they're a 'religious cult' - even if you didn't say it...


then how do we explain that most anti-vaxxers come from states that voted for President Obama?

this is all a matter of choosing to believe what we want to believe is true. it is not uncommon for us to want to paint those we don't agree with as wrong and even better if we can find a way to ridicule them, stereotype the whole, and what not.

it certainly has nothing to do with the truth. based on the initial accusations and where they came from with regards to sexual harassment I would have to believe the left is willing to ignore it if they win on other fronts, am I right? I don't think so but you can argue it


We've asked you many times already not to post like this so we've banned the account.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


Ah yes, I'm concerned as well that "innocent until proven guilty" will get in the way of our witch hunts!


>In a CBS poll

Hillary was going to win 275 seats according to those polls.

I wouldn't pay any attention to those anymore.


Why would someone reject the fundamentals of applied statistics?


Because inputs are not tightly controlled. we don't know who exactly is answering these polls and we have no idea if preferences of poll answering population can be extrapolated to "republicans".

There is nothing "fundamental" about these polls, throwing a web widget in front of a self selected group of audience is not scientific or fundamental.

Why do you continue to assert that these polls are "fundamental" when they are proven to be to be totally bogus time after time.


"The CBS News 2017 Alabama poll is conducted by YouGov using a representative sample of 1,067 registered voters in Alabama between November 28–December 1, 2017. The margin of error based upon the entire sample is 3.8 percent and for likely voters is 4.8 percent."

This is a poll done by a standard polling company. You seem to be mischaracterising how they are done and, two comments up the chain, you attack even professional polls based on their performance in the last presidential election, where they were very accurate in predicting the popular vote.


>This is a poll done by a standard polling company.

Ok thats fair. I might have dismissed them without good reason. I have a blocker for all news sites so i can't access them without going through like 20 steps.

>where they were very accurate in predicting the popular vote.

My comment was about their predictions about number of seats each candidate will win. What does that have to do with "predicting the popular vote." .


The "polls" did not predict the electoral college, they ask people how they are going to vote and how likely the are to vote i.e. the popular vote. Other predictions are a seperate step done afterwards using the polls as input, generally not by polling companies. And at least one such prediction by 538 had it as a 1/3 chance of Trump winning, which considering how narrow the eventual gap was, is a pretty darn accurate prediction.

A couple of other people did say 99%, but they were clearly wrong even before the result came in and were called out by, for example, 538.


>> I have a blocker for all news sites so i can't access them without going through like 20 steps.

Then consider no longer commenting on news related articles, sources etc that you don't know anything about. Wild speculation isn't helpful.


ok. my bad.


> My comment was about their predictions about number of seats each candidate will win. What does that have to do with "predicting the popular vote." .

Why are you using “seats” to refer to Electoral College delegates?


What do you mean by 275 seats..? EC votes or what? The polls were pretty accurate - they tightened to 3ish% in the end IIRC and she won by 2%.


As the article notes, this is very relevant to HN as Susan Fowler’s story indeed broke the floodgates for the tech industry.

See the HN discussion on Fowler’s original article, one of the most upvoted submissions of all time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13682022


It’s weird that the article author attributes Susan Fowler’s blog post as the reason for Travis Kalanick’s resignation when it was really more of an incidental symptom of the many underpinning factors that ultimately led to the board’s letter asking the former CEO to step down.

The important impact of Fowler’s post was the investigation that led to dozens of employee removals—the C.E.O. resignation wasn’t the primary effect.


Fowler is on the cover (along with four others: Taylor Swift, Ashley Judd, Tarana Burke and Isabel Pascual).


I'm very glad that they didn't go with "Person of the Year: #MeToo" and instead opted to create this exclusive group of "Silence Breakers". It strikes me as very important to separate these accounts from a hashtag which can be used by anyone for anything.


Same, the most I caught in the news about #MeToo was about the accused men, their excuses, their sudden admission that they were definitely gay to try and distract from the accusation they were pedophiles. That's the association I have with that hashtag, not the people - mostly women - that came forward with it after keeping relatively silent for years.


Why is that important to you? Genuinely curious.


I think it makes it more concrete to have actual victims talking about specifics of their incidents and then applying those to the bigger picture. A hashtag movement is much more abstract and harder for readers to connect to, which would be less powerful and do a lesser job of getting the message across.


I'm pleased to see this happen. It's always going to be tough for a victim to come forward but now it's ever so slightly less so.


[flagged]


Ah yes, as we all know all sexual assault is equivalent touching a knee. And no one faces harassment after putting their story out. No one.


del


Let me try: You are a clever little boy, saying such brave things. Good try! Let me pat you on the nuts, call you my beautiful little writer for putting that clever post together.

Its a big deal, in a work environment, to deliberately and routinely diminish the accomplishments of coworkers based on nothing but sex. Its actually illegal, and now that its being outed I hope folks who post things like that get fired


There's an interesting related wikipedia article on the "Weinstein effect" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinstein_effect


I like how all the people who were doing business with him suddenly started claming they themselves were also victims.

Here is an example from Time magazine interview with Tina Brown[1].

  You launched Talk Magazine with  Harvey Weinstein.  Do you regret going into business with Harvey Weinstein?

   I certainly do. I regretted that long before the sexual harassment complaints.
   I regretted it within about twenty-five minutes of signing the contract. 
   No, it was a very, shall we say, unwise career move on my part.
   And when I learned about what had been happening, I had no idea that that was happening.
 But the rest of his personality did not make me think, “What a surprise.” 

I like how time magazine themselves provided the answer for her in the question " do you regret" and horrible dishonest answer by Tina. Unfortunately noone held enablers like Tina accountable and time magazine helped ppl like Tina absolve themselves publicly via softball "interview". Very dishonest magazine and culture, Why didn't they ask her why she continued to take money from him if she knew within first 25 mins.

Why am getting downvoted :\, can down voters pls let me know. I think this comment is on topic.

1. http://time.com/5020615/tina-brown-interview/


That's a great interview. I didn't know anything about Tina Brown before, and I like hearing her voice in it.

Maybe you're being downvoted for somewhat over-the-top criticism? It's easy to criticize successful, energetic people -- they're always making mistakes and often learning from them too. But it comes across as jealous and petty.


I am jealous of Tina Brown? I don't think so, I have no idea who she is, this is first I've heard of her.

Whats "over the top" about my comment. Don't you think its fair to ask her why she continued to take money from him if she knew within 25 mins of meeting him.

I don't think Weinstein case was simple bad guy vs innocent women. There were many enablers, don't you think its fair to ask tough questions to people who got into business with him.

I think media like Time have gross "us vs them" biases, Tina is on their side so she gets asked no tough questions.


Your quote says she regretted going into business with him within 25 minutes of signing the contract. Not that she knew of his behavior within 25 minutes of meeting him.

Those are two entirely different things and if you want to avoid criticism you would do well to maintain consistency across your posts.


Then what kind of regret is she talking about? That it was some sort of bad business deal ? How is that relevant in this context. "Do you regret it" implies "regretting going into business with a sex predator" . Yea?

Her regretting bad business deal is not relavent here. Again thats the kind of stuff I would've asked her if I was the one interviewing her.


From your quote of the interview:

  I certainly do. I regretted that long before the sexual harassment complaints.
She regretted doing business with him before knowing he was a sexual predator. It's plain as day, and your misrepresentation of the interview is why you're getting downvoted. You need to learn to present your case more consistently and with quotes that actually expand on it rather than quotes, like here, which present a different case than you intend.


I understand, I am asking you what exactly did she regret about doing business with him. Its important to know since she regretted it before he was outed. correct?


She doesn't appear to say in the quote, but given the upcoming reference to his personality, that might be part of it.

Let's be clear: she can regret that he was an asshole to work with and it in no way reflects on his habits as a sex offender.


His being asshole otherwise is not relevant to the context. Question was "do you regret it" and context under which its asked is clear and its not about general amicability of Weinstien. What does it matter if he was an asshole to deal with.

"Mr. Weinstein’s final, failed round of manipulations shows how he operated for more than three decades: by trying to turn others into instruments or shields for his behavior, according to nearly 200 interviews, internal company records and previously undisclosed emails. Almost everyone had incentives to look the other way or reasons to stay silent. " [1]

Don't you think its media's job to ask tough questions to his business partners? Instead of letting them off the hook with "yea he was an asshole" type of non answers.

1. https://www.msn.com/g00/en-us/movies/news/weinstein%E2%80%99....


I would say the person doing the sexual abuse is clearly the worst person and the clear bad guy- yes people shouldn't enable them, but not cancelling a contract or something like that is not the same as doing sexual abuse. And it's not like cancelling the contract would've prevented the abuse.


> And it's not like cancelling the contract would've prevented the abuse.

Weinstein’s Complicity Machine

https://www.msn.com/g00/en-us/movies/news/weinstein%E2%80%99...


A journalist did not ask the question that was on your mind. Your response: "Very dishonest magazine and culture". That's a large jump.

Culturally, calling someone dishonest, particularly a journalist or publication is a very serious claim that requires serious evidence or argument. Now we have a president who throws it around carelessly. We don't have to allow this to become normal.


"Mr. Weinstein’s final, failed round of manipulations shows how he operated for more than three decades: by trying to turn others into instruments or shields for his behavior, according to nearly 200 interviews, internal company records and previously undisclosed emails. Almost everyone had incentives to look the other way or reasons to stay silent. " [1]

Why would Time give platform to Weinstein’s business partner Tina Brown to declare herself an innocent victim.

How do you explain it?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/weinstein%E2%80%99s-co...


Not sure why, but I really expected more from the comments on HN. A lot of the people here seem like conservative puppets who are just upset trump didn't "win".


There seem to be exactly 2 downvoted comments at the bottom of page expressing they wanted to trump to win.


I wonder how exposure to Arthur Miller's The Crucible affects opinion on these types of accusations?


I'm all for this but...shouldn't the person be like...a person?


1950: The American Fighting Man

1956: Hungarian Freedom Fighters

1960: US Scientists

1966: The Generation Twenty-Five and Under

1968: Apollo 8 Astronauts

1969: The Middle Americans

1975: American Women

1982: The Computer

1988: The Endangered Earth

1993: The Peacemakers

2002: The Whistle Blowers

2003: The American Soldier

2005: The Good Samaritans

2006: You

2011: The Protester

2013: The Ebola Fighters

2017: The Silence Breakers

Some of those were specific lists of people (US Scientists, American Women, Ebola Fighters, Peacemakers). There are also a few years where it went to 2 or 3 people but they weren't a named group.


I'm laughing at '82


Petty solid selection of an important thing happening at the time.


But a weird thing to give the label "Person". They could have selected one or more notable humans involved.


It was apparently changed to "Machine of the Year" for that one. Endangered Earth, it was "Planet of the Year".


Maybe next year will be the 'dying influence of print media'


Trump probably won, but pissed off the selecrion committee last minute.


Trump logic does not apply to reality. He was already POTY last year. The selection is not always an honor either. Let's stop pretending this is a competition just because Trump thinks it is.


This may surprise you, but this is just a dumb arbitrary thing one magazine picks every year in an effort to sell more advertising. It doesn't actually have any constraints.


Poor choice of a passing fad. Next year the runner ups Presidents Trump and Xi will be far more influential.


Only me who thinks this is pretty lame? The whole point of having "Person of the year" is for it to be a person.

This is just stupid.



Doesn't make it less lame.


History says no, TIME does not think it's the point. As noted, this is also one article published by a single magazine.


Then what do they think is the point? I seriously have a hard time to understand. Ok if it is a small group of people that actually did something great but having stuff like "The american woman" or "The computer" isn't very interesting in my opinion.

I understand that other people feel otherwise, but I would rather read more deeply about a single person because I find that way more interesting.

The entire "silence breakers" is simply about creating medial rage against people who are not yet proven guilty which is in my opinion immensely stupid.


The distinction is arbitrary and appears to be generally used to highlight the most important things of the year through a person, group of persons, or event involving people, which is obviously quite wide. If you want a person of they year in-depth individual profile, you are welcome to look elsewhere, but that general type of thing is obviously important to many others and is true to what the series is. No flaw there.

> The entire "silence breakers" is simply about creating medial rage against people who are not yet proven guilty which is in my opinion immensely stupid.

I suspect your disapproval of the choice is motivating you to discredit the article series as meaningless, which is a flawed argument to take. Not to mention that many people have made apologies and confessions. If you think this is about "medial rage", you are missing the point. This is about progress on a huge cultural problem that has pretty much been in existence since the days of early men. This selection is highlighting the people who have helped drive that progress recently.


Really? You're gonna argue semantics?




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: