I guess I’d just say that the missing context from the TIME article seems hugely important in understanding exactly how much of a boundary/norm violation this event was.
Not that I endorse it, but Aella’s position that in 80% of the anecdotes the accused did nothing wrong is not incompatible with this anecdote being (mostly) accurate.
Not that I endorse it, but Aella’s position that in 80% of the anecdotes the accused did nothing wrong is not incompatible with this anecdote being (mostly) accurate.
One of the other cases was banned from EA events for his behaviour, which I’ll take to mean he did something wrong. There was only like 10 incidents described. So with at least two cases of confirmed wrongdoing, and none so far in the “debunked” camp, the statement seems extremely unlikely to be true. Which is unsurprising, given that it was made with very little evidence.
I guess I’d just say that the missing context from the TIME article seems hugely important in understanding exactly how much of a boundary/norm violation this event was.
Not that I endorse it, but Aella’s position that in 80% of the anecdotes the accused did nothing wrong is not incompatible with this anecdote being (mostly) accurate.
One of the other cases was banned from EA events for his behaviour, which I’ll take to mean he did something wrong. There was only like 10 incidents described. So with at least two cases of confirmed wrongdoing, and none so far in the “debunked” camp, the statement seems extremely unlikely to be true. Which is unsurprising, given that it was made with very little evidence.