FWIW, Quinn Norton's post that seemed to set off yesterday/today's spate of accusations happened sometime in the early 2010s. Scoble had announced in 2015 that he was going sober. However, at least one of the accusers has said that Scoble propositioned her (repeatedly) after 2015:
Hence public announcements and public apologies are too be taken with (at least one) large grain of salt. It's up to his victims to forgive him -- not us.
I think for the audience I would want much less an apology and more an explanation: what was he thinking and how did he view women when he sexually harassed them and how has his mindset changed in how he views women that will cause him not to do it anymore?
It’s not for me to forgive him, but I can’t see an apology without an explanation as for how his mindset has changed and a full admission of not only his actions but the mindset that has caused these actions to occur. Otherwise he is being cheap and saying that just because he’s sober now his actions will drastically change without any evidence there’s any motivation to that change other than “oh shit got caught”.
It's really upsetting to see men just need to say 'i see what I did was bad,I'm sorry, I'll try to fix it and be better'. But the victims, in this case are highly educated women, have to live with this painful experience the rest of their life.
Can't seem to find any details on the extent of his mis-behaviour. Wikipedia page says "sexually assaulted", and that "Sarah Seitz, a sustainability analyst at NASA, replied accusing Scoble of also having assaulted her"
Isn't sexual assault a serious crime? Why didn't these women report it to the Police. Or does touching without consent or grabbing someone or trying to grope someone (like our current President is alleged to have done to many women) also constitute sexual assault, but is generally not reported by the female victims for fear of getting ostracized or receive backlash from friends and co-workers?
[Not trolling serious question. The difference I see between Dave McClure and Robert Scoble is that the former was accused of 'sexual harrassment' whereas Robert Scoble appears to have been accused of 'sexual ASSAULT' by a couple of women atleast ]
Have you ever looked at the accounts of women who /have/ reported it? If it actually goes to trial basically the defense finds every single thing you ever did and tries to portray you as a slut who was asking for it. If the person is famous people will say you’re lying and trying to get rich out of a settlement. You’re required to repeatedly go over every step of the assault whether it was harassment or rape. They ask if you orgasmed (because that means you wanted it), that your jeans were too tight for a rapist to remove them, you were partially responsible because you passed out (so it wasn’t rape), ...
Then even if they do get found guilty they punishment may be insignificant (think Stanford rapist)
And then there’s how you get penalized, irrespective of whether the person was found guilty
* if you’re on social media you get harassed by the bigots on chan, Reddit, etc
your name on google ends up publicizing the assault
* if the person you’re accusing has power/influence you lose your career (which is why so many victims in film didn’t say anything about asshole guy). Tech has a similar problem - look at what happens to women who call out anything at tech conferences.
The result of saying anything is typically catastrophic to the victim and frequently has little impact on the abuser.
If you ever actually pay attention you can find out about the people women tell each other to avoid at cons or parties because they are known predators. Because doing it that way is less harmful or and damaging to your own life than going public.
The Stanford case is a really good (and chilling) example of what victims of these crimes can go through. This is the letter the victim read to the rapist at his sentencing[1].
What is the benefit of going public through media but not reporting it to the police? Do women really get less harassed from chan/Reddit if they only go public on media? How would trial by media be better for the victim? Trial by media benefits no one.
> you were partially responsible because you passed out (so it wasn’t rape)
In practically every country in the world it is rape if someone has sex with a unconscious person. What legal system where you referring to that has that as a legal defense?
> What is the benefit of going public through media but not reporting it to the police?
A much lower burden of proof with swifter, cheaper, and more certain consequences. Is this a serious question?
> Trial by media benefits no one.
What? Look no further than the story you’re replying to. Anyone who has to interact or was considering interacting with Scoble is now more informed and better off than they were before.
olliej comment above says nothing about lower burden of proof with swifter, cheaper, and more certain consequences.
Harassment, personal and aggressive questioning from the public, low sentences, and general catastrophic impact on the victim from going public. Those were the arguments on why victims don't go public.
If lower burden of proof and harsher punishment for the accused is needed for victims to trust the legal system with sexual assault cases, then just be clear and advocate for that. The legal system can always be changed.
I was shocked to learn that most of the women I know have faced sexual assault (unwanted grabbing or groping), but none of them ever reported to the police. Similarly, most men I know have suffered some sort of physical assault but none reported it.
How many men do you know who have been punched by someone? Did they report it to police?
The reason why they don't report is because such crimes are very hard to prosecute and prove in court. Prosecuting them takes a toll on victim's life and rarely result in anything positive for the victim.
In theory, yes; in practice police, prosecutors, and judges all too often don't treat it (or even actual rape) seriously.
With regard to judges, the Stanford rape case is the banner example recently; but earlier in the chain the fact thatany departments collect but then do not process rape kits is a huge problem.
> The difference I see between Dave McClure and Robert Scoble is that the former was accused of 'sexual harrassment' whereas Robert Scoble appears to have been accused of 'sexual ASSAULT' by a couple of women atleast
McClure was accused of sexual assault as well (and not strictly legally speaking sexual harassment at all, AFAIK, but acts, both the assaults and lesser acts, that would have been harassment if VC-founder relationships were governed by the same legal rules as employer-employee relationships.)
> in practice police, prosecutors, and judges all too often don't treat it (or even actual rape) seriously.
You might have more experience with police, prosecutors, and judges than I do, but in my experience this isn't the case. I've known many to be dismissive of drug crimes and even property crimes, but sexual assaults and rape are both addressed earnestly.
That's not to say that sexual assaults and rapes are not nolle pros'd and often. As recent events demonstrate, unless people feel comfortable coming forward, then it is impossible to prove the case. The Confrontation Clause is an obstacle that is difficult to overcome in these cases without a profusely willing victim.
This is to say saying that law enforcement is the problem is an oversimplification.
> With regard to judges, the Stanford rape case is the banner example recently; but earlier in the chain the fact thatany departments collect but then do not process rape kits is a huge problem.
In a lot of states, crime labs are independent of police departments. There are severe backlogs because they are understaffed. If you want more processing, you need to ensure your state representatives properly fund these bodies.
Consequently, it's not up to the police in many cases when and if a rape kit is tested. Thankfully, there are organizations like SAKI[1] that are pursuing rape kit testing reform in many places where there are impediments to testing these kits.
I'm pretty sure it depends on the level of the sexual assault.
E.g. groping - if we're talking "groped someone randomly, with their clothes on" and nothing more, then even if this gets reported, what could happen? This probably won't result in too much of a punishment, and is pretty hard to prove. And, unfortunately, as you can probably see by now, it happens to pretty much all women and is extremely common. It doesn't make it right or mean that we shouldn't stop it, but I kind of understand why people who are used to it happening don't do much with it.
I think that's why we need to change the norms, both of how people who see this happening deal with it, and of how OK it is. If you see someone groping someone without their consent, say something! It's probably not going to get reported to the police, but if we as a society don't accept it, then it will get better.
Of course, once you get to things like rape, then that's a much more serious offense that can definitely have the police involved.
> E.g. groping - if we're talking "groped someone randomly, with their clothes on" and nothing more, then even if this gets reported, what could happen?
It's both a tort and a crime, usually, so there is a lot that could happen; which is not to say that it is likely that the consequences available in principle would be applied.
I think a lot could also theoretically happen when you punch someone, as that's assault. And yet I assume that depending on context, usually not much happens. E.g. I assume if someone is punched in a bar fight, the chance of being brought up on charges (and the punishment if you are) are rather small. As opposed to if I go up to someone in an airport and punch them.
Which is to say that context matters and is dictated by our customs, which is why we need to change what we think of us acceptable so that groping is unacceptable everywhere.
That depends on the police to whom he explained it, the prosecutors with jurisdiction, and the judge it got before if prosecuted.
There's enough history of all three groups granting men, especially middle or upper class white men, passes for sexual assault and even outright rape that it's hard to say “yes” with any confidence, even assuming that what he did matches the worst accusations made against him.
Interesting. Do you by any chance know of a situation like this where the perp actually did this?
I'm thinking that especially if the consequences are likely to be 'mild', there's really no reason to expect anything less from Scoble than admitting his acts to the police and see what happens.
I mean, it might be the right thing to do anyways, but if the risks are relatively low, even 'fear' isn't really much of an excuse.
Basically, is there any good reason for 'the public' not to set a precedent by demanding he report himself to the police?
I am not going to any event, conference, etc. where Scoble is present. I think he is a pathological liar and I am surprised that he is still considered a public figure worth inviting to speak.
A real apology requires a clear statement of what you did wrong, why it was wrong, and what exactly you'll do better in the future.
This apology doesn't even say what he did wrong. (He "damaged trust," "caused pain," "behaved in ways that were inappropriate.") He didn't admit that he sexually harassed anyone, say nothing of sexual assault.
Without a clear admission of what he did, I have no idea if he knows why it was wrong. He's done this many times! Does he think sexual assault is a bad thing only because it would "damage trust" in him, because it tarnishes his reputation?
On the list of public apologies, I give him a B+. he could have done better and he is not going to make everyone happy with his effort. It looks written by him. It looks sincere. It looks honest.
Yeah, a good apology should be several pages long but this was pretty good and well above some of the others we've seen.
'I am sorry that you felt abused and that your friends encouraged you to humiliate yourself in public...'
So, yeah, it's pretty good compared to some of them.
A good apology doesn't have to be "several pages long." A good apology could have been shorter than the bad apology he gave.
For example, he could have said this:
"I apologize for repeatedly sexually assaulting women at conferences, including Quinn Norton. Over the years, I've done this more times than I can count. What I did was is illegal, and rightfully so, because everyone has the right to be safe, and to decide who is allowed to touch their own body. I'll never sexually harass or assault anyone again. Most of the time I did this, I was drunk or high; I went sober over two years ago. I'm also seeing a therapist to help set me straight."
That good apology would have been half the length of the bad apology he actually gave.
> A real apology requires a clear statement of what you did wrong, why it was wrong, and what exactly you'll do better in the future.
He might have apologized directly to his alleged victims we don't know that. I don't think he should admit anything to anyone else, but to his alleged victims on a personal level.
If I read this forum, it sounds like nobody has never done anything wrong, behaved inappropriately in anyway, ever. I don't believe it one second, harassment(or even assault) isn't just sexual, it can manifest through other sorts of psychological violence at work for instance, and nobody is ever called out for it.
I'm not talking about leniency or understanding, something despicable happened and anybody can judge, but it should not be about one name or one guy everybody can scapegoat to mask their own shortcomings and wrongdoings, in a way to expiate them, as it happens way too often when things like that get public.
Why post a bad public apology at all? Regardless of whether he gave a good private apologies to his victims (he surely didn't), there's nothing to be gained from a public apology in which you don't admit to any particular wrongdoing.
> If I read this forum, it sounds like nobody has never done anything wrong, behaved inappropriately in anyway, ever.
This is false. Nothing in the forum implies that if one of the participants of this thread were to be found guilty of an inappropriate behavior, then they should be excused.
In fact, most of the discussion in this forum implies that if one of the participants of this thread, or anyone in the industry were found to be of inappropriate behavior, then it needs to be dealt with seriously.
Why was Redesk CEO Guy Pearson looking to hire someone for a speaking engagement the day after they were accused of sexual assault?
I stole that from Twitter, but it's not a good look. Did he just not really care or did he figure that he could act duplicitous and insert himself into a situation that has nothing to do with him? Who benefits from that?
Would rather not make this comment at all because there's an actual issue worth talking about here, but let's not applaud toxic behavior.
I know Guy for years. He enjoys these theatrics. Look at Redesk.com, it's not even finished. There is no conference. Guy basically social engineered him. I have to almost laugh at how he still has the energy for shanigans at our age.
> Always bothered me “but they were drunk, it’s not their fault”
While that argument may be made by some people somewhere, I don't think either Scoble or anyone else has made it in this case; it seems more like his position is that he was at fault, his alcohol problem was a contributing factor which he had to correct as part of taking responsibility.
A) How many actually good examples do we have to draw upon? Most such things are pretty blatant attempts at saving face. This at least has some sincerity to it.
B) He isn't justifying, excusing or denying. He did quit drinking already, which is perhaps the most important thing he could do to prove he is taking it seriously that he needs to stop hurting other people. He is fairly realistic that being better in the future is the primary thing he can do. He also acknowledges that it doesn't undo his past actions or somehow make things okay for people he hurt.
Amends are really hard to do. They also don't always come in a form readily recognizable as directly related to the bad act.
Also, he kept it short and didn't make it about him and his big feels or sob story. It is reasonably gracious in that regard.
I'd just once love to see one of these abusers make some kind of serious penance. I mean something that costs more than a few words written on a page. Donating x% of their wealth to organizations of the victim's choosing (where x is a fraction large enough to be uncomfortable), entering some kind of monastic or hermetic lifestyle for more than a day or two, committing to X hours of anonymous volunteer labor, resigning their positions of authority and power, retreating from public life.
Occasionally something like this is forced on the perpetrator, but I've yet to see any of them take it upon themselves to take this step. Personally I think an apology is worth about as much as the effort put into it, and this is low effort.
Amends and penance are not the same thing. Amends are about reparations for the victim. Penance is about suffering for the perpetrator. These things are mostly not related.
I was talking about penance, and I also used the word penance, so we're good, right? The quoted section is what made me think about this aspect of the issue.
You are entitled to your views. But, I don't want my remarks about amends conflated with penance.
I replied at all because of this line:
I'd just once love to see one of these abusers make some kind of serious penance.
I considered replying at length and decided against it. My initial impulse was to feel like I can give you the thing you are asking for. But, then I realized, no, I can't.
The individual that raped me made amends. But, he did not do penance. I eventually forgave him, in part because he made amends.
I never got the apology I spent years wanting, nor any confession of guilt. I eventually concluded it wasn't important.
I don't imagine you actually want to hear that. So, I decided to not write about it.
What you want is for these people to suffer. In a sense, you want some kind of revenge. I generally do not. I would much rather see reparations made to those who were harmed.
Ghandi said "An eye for an eye will leave us all blind."
I don't think you build peacefulness and positive environments by going on the warpath. Peace is not merely the absence of something negative. Peacefulness or a peaceful environment is an actively positive experience that can be remarkably hard to try to describe effectively.
It is probably a mistake to reply here. It feels equally problematic to not reply. I will likely not engage further.
Amends aren't hard to do, especially if you get to type them out and proofread them.
He says the question is "how can I do better?" That's not the question. The question is, will he be charged, and, if he is, what conclusion will the jury come to?
Well it’s years later and frankly at the end of his career. He has no downside to admitting this.
His apology means nothing. He needs to be ostracized, and hopefully this might send a message to anyone else thinking their status and influence means they have sexual power.
Something is very wrong with our industry when a self-aggrandizing mouth-breather like Scoble enjoys more fame and influence than someone like D. Richard Hipp. Worse still that because they're both "in tech," the former's atrocious conduct will, by broad brush strokes, reflect negatively on the latter, as well as everyone else "in tech."
That's been my number one question for a while now also in regards to other cases and other 'apologies'.
Would it makes sense for the perpetrator to go to the police and admit guilt? Would there still be consequences in that case? And if so, is that part of the reason why these apologies always seem to be very vague about details?
And if all that, should we expect anything less from an 'apology'?
Exactly, what's an apology without punishment? There have to be repurcussions of illegal behavior. Else I would just say sorry after murdering someone and get sympathy.
Remember, he's not sorry he did it, he's sorry he got caught.
Is there anything better than this kind of drama? Obviously I feel sorry for those hurt, and this sort of behavior is awful, but as an onlooker I live for these days. Nothing more entertaining than all the drama in the wake of something like this. Hope no one takes this as an endorsement of the behavior or support of being a bad person. Maybe you can look at this comment as directed at other people like me, with less involvement in this world, and maybe that will make it easy for you to ignore if you’re involved in this drama! Sorry for the monologue I just don’t like getting downvoted
No, I'm pretty sure I can say that I never sexually assaulted a woman when drunk (or, of course, sober) 7, 10, 15, 20, or 40 years ago. So, I think, can most of us.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/20/robert-scoble-has-allegedl...