“she said it was finally time to be strong and speak up now, as long as she was fully anonymized … She’s still lying awake each night, replaying, over and over, the nightmare of what Ben did to her.”
And then you publish it for the first time telling everyone not to believe her???
If what you describe is actually what she told you, how dare you use it for your own gain here? What a cruel and bizarre thing to do
If what you describe is actually what she told you, how dare you use it for your own gain here?
to imply something like “if the alleged victim shared private and very personal information, you should not publish it.” This still makes most sense to me as a literal reading.
(I would agree that “don’t publish plausibly false allegation [that you don’t see reason to litigate]” feels like a stronger position.)
to imply something like “if the alleged victim shared private and very personal information, you should not publish it.” This still makes most sense to me as a literal reading.
If that’s the case, then yeah, she gave permission and was happy for me to share it, as long as it was anonymized. She signed off on this post.
Sorry that bad phrasing on my part I meant: Kirsten might have been saying “don’t speculate that it’s false when doing so will badly harm the accuser if it’s actually true”. I didn’t mean Kirsten might have been saying “don’t spread possibly false accusations.”
Yes, that’s what I mean. If a friend of mine confided in me about something really bad that had happened to her, I wouldn’t want to publish it 2⁄3 of the way down a post about my own drama, even if she said it was okay—and especially wouldn’t then tell people not to believe her. But obviously I wasn’t sitting in on the conversation and there might be important context I’m missing. It just seems really wrong to me.
Ah, gotcha. In that case, I disagree. I think if somebody is accused of something, it is OK and good to debate whether a) the thing happened and b) whether the thing is bad.
This seems crucial for ethics and epistemics. Imagine the alternative. If somebody accuses somebody of something, people are not allowed to debate whether it happened or if it’s bad. This would lead to all accusations being treated as true by default and there would be no way to determine whether it was true or bad. False accusations would be a win-button for anybody.
And I think the main point I was making was that you shouldn’t believe or not believe the accusation based on what I wrote because the methods I used were bad (e.g. one sided, loaded phrasing, no disconfirming evidence, etc) which I stand by. If she had just told me that information in that way, I wouldn’t update a lot. I would ask Ben for his perspective and get more evidence before I came down too harshly on him.
I have just had too many times where somebody told me this terrible thing happened to them, but when I heard the other side, it almost always turns out to be more nuanced than that. If you only hear one side of a fight, you have very little information about what actually happened.
I think the allegations are true and that in that particular case, what Ben did was unethical. I think that ~50% of EAs would disagree with me and the woman though. I also think that the woman is happy (for the most part) with the actions being taken to correct the behavior.
Yes, I meant some combination of this + this was not a good place to publish that allegation, which again imo harms the accuser if it’s true. No worries at all Joel!
While it’s generally poor form to attempt to de-anonymize stories, since it’s at issue here it seems potentially worth it. It seems like this could be Kat’s description of Kat’s experience of Ben, which she (clearly) consents to sharing.
Hmm, there are a bunch of rhetorical components like “she told me not to talk to Ben about it” that I think almost any reader would interpret as disconfirmation of this being the case.
I think if this is a summary of Kat’s experiences with Ben, then I think that section would IMO be pretty misleading (and that is relevant and not just pre-empted by it trying to be a reductio-ad-absurdum, since the level of misleadingness is trying to be parallel to the original Nonlinear post).
“she told me not to talk to Ben about it” still can be true (but misleading) under this hypothesis.
In a section written as true but misleading, this does not seem to me like evidence against “she” referring to Kat in that sentence.
I don’t think the section is written to be misleading in a generic sense. The section is written to be misleading in a very specific way by drawing an analogy to how information in Ben’s post was presented. I don’t see any candidate analogy for this kind of misleadingness in Ben’s post.
I think if this is a summary of Kat’s experiences with Ben
Is it actually the case that Kat and Ben used to date? If so this seems like the sort of information that should have been disclosed, probably in both posts.
They definitely did not date. But also, where are you getting the implication of dating from? The relevant section doesn’t seem to make a reference to dating.
I think you might have misunderstood what I was trying to convey. I wasn’t telling people not to believe her. I was telling people that if they heard the full story, there would be debate about whether what happened to her was bad/as bad as she made it out to be.
I for one think that what happened to her was very bad. But I predict ~50% of EAs would disagree.
“she said it was finally time to be strong and speak up now, as long as she was fully anonymized … She’s still lying awake each night, replaying, over and over, the nightmare of what Ben did to her.”
And then you publish it for the first time telling everyone not to believe her???
If what you describe is actually what she told you, how dare you use it for your own gain here? What a cruel and bizarre thing to do
Isn’t the implication that the (EDIT: alleged) victim gave consent for Kat to share anonymously?
EDIT: This was confusingly phrased, see what I actually meant expressed more clearly below.
I think Kirsten point was maybe “don’t publish it as plausibly a false allegation” not “don’t publish it without the accusers permission”.
I see. In that case, it’s not a false allegation. I have information that makes me very confident it happened
Why on earth are you reporting it here, given that it is completely irrelevant to the truth of the allegations against nonlinear?
I took
to imply something like “if the alleged victim shared private and very personal information, you should not publish it.” This still makes most sense to me as a literal reading.
(I would agree that “don’t publish plausibly false allegation [that you don’t see reason to litigate]” feels like a stronger position.)
If that’s the case, then yeah, she gave permission and was happy for me to share it, as long as it was anonymized. She signed off on this post.
Can you just confirm that it’s something someone else told you, and not referring to yourself in third person?
Sorry that bad phrasing on my part I meant: Kirsten might have been saying “don’t speculate that it’s false when doing so will badly harm the accuser if it’s actually true”. I didn’t mean Kirsten might have been saying “don’t spread possibly false accusations.”
Yes, that’s what I mean. If a friend of mine confided in me about something really bad that had happened to her, I wouldn’t want to publish it 2⁄3 of the way down a post about my own drama, even if she said it was okay—and especially wouldn’t then tell people not to believe her. But obviously I wasn’t sitting in on the conversation and there might be important context I’m missing. It just seems really wrong to me.
Does it matter that she wanted me to share this? Are you going to say that she shouldn’t be allowed to do it because you wouldn’t want to do it?
Ah, gotcha. In that case, I disagree. I think if somebody is accused of something, it is OK and good to debate whether a) the thing happened and b) whether the thing is bad.
This seems crucial for ethics and epistemics. Imagine the alternative. If somebody accuses somebody of something, people are not allowed to debate whether it happened or if it’s bad. This would lead to all accusations being treated as true by default and there would be no way to determine whether it was true or bad. False accusations would be a win-button for anybody.
And I think the main point I was making was that you shouldn’t believe or not believe the accusation based on what I wrote because the methods I used were bad (e.g. one sided, loaded phrasing, no disconfirming evidence, etc) which I stand by. If she had just told me that information in that way, I wouldn’t update a lot. I would ask Ben for his perspective and get more evidence before I came down too harshly on him.
I have just had too many times where somebody told me this terrible thing happened to them, but when I heard the other side, it almost always turns out to be more nuanced than that. If you only hear one side of a fight, you have very little information about what actually happened.
Just to clarify do you think the person sharing the allegation is a fantasist or not? I’ve lost track
I think the allegations are true and that in that particular case, what Ben did was unethical. I think that ~50% of EAs would disagree with me and the woman though. I also think that the woman is happy (for the most part) with the actions being taken to correct the behavior.
Ah! Thank you. That makes most sense to me both as a literal reading and as a position. Sorry Kirsten if I misread.
Yes, I meant some combination of this + this was not a good place to publish that allegation, which again imo harms the accuser if it’s true. No worries at all Joel!
While it’s generally poor form to attempt to de-anonymize stories, since it’s at issue here it seems potentially worth it. It seems like this could be Kat’s description of Kat’s experience of Ben, which she (clearly) consents to sharing.
Hmm, there are a bunch of rhetorical components like “she told me not to talk to Ben about it” that I think almost any reader would interpret as disconfirmation of this being the case.
I think if this is a summary of Kat’s experiences with Ben, then I think that section would IMO be pretty misleading (and that is relevant and not just pre-empted by it trying to be a reductio-ad-absurdum, since the level of misleadingness is trying to be parallel to the original Nonlinear post).
“she told me not to talk to Ben about it” still can be true (but misleading) under this hypothesis. In a section written as true but misleading, this does not seem to me like evidence against “she” referring to Kat in that sentence.
I don’t think the section is written to be misleading in a generic sense. The section is written to be misleading in a very specific way by drawing an analogy to how information in Ben’s post was presented. I don’t see any candidate analogy for this kind of misleadingness in Ben’s post.
Is it actually the case that Kat and Ben used to date? If so this seems like the sort of information that should have been disclosed, probably in both posts.
We never dated. We only interacted briefly once before this whole thing happened
Thanks!
They definitely did not date. But also, where are you getting the implication of dating from? The relevant section doesn’t seem to make a reference to dating.
I think I got confused by the adjacent sections where the subsequent one is about bad breakups and disgruntled exes.
She asked me to share this and is grateful I did.
I think you might have misunderstood what I was trying to convey. I wasn’t telling people not to believe her. I was telling people that if they heard the full story, there would be debate about whether what happened to her was bad/as bad as she made it out to be.
I for one think that what happened to her was very bad. But I predict ~50% of EAs would disagree.
You found your own comment helpful?
Sorry that was an error! I didn’t know how else to see who had found it helpful on mobile, but I meant to untap it after I had checked