One thing to remember: it's only one side of the story from somebody who had/has serious financial interest depending on the outcome of the scandal. It kind of worries me how most comments take the allegations for granted.
If your career is equally or more remunerative than a payoff for silence, repairing your career-impacting public image would be equally or more valuable than a payoff.
It is reasonable to anticipate Pao is not giving up get career, and expects to make more than 2M from it. The spin about her during this debate has made her look pretty bad.
So... yeah. She could easily be motivated by money, in terms of investing in her long term earning potential.
Did you read what I was replying to? I was making an argument against the idea that she is somehow doing this for monetary gain. It doesn't matter how much she values money. If her chosen course of action is somewhat certain to pay less than the alternative, she is demonstrably not motivated (solely) by money.
Did you read my post? I was saying that perhaps she is indeed solely motivated by money. Turning down easy money in the chance to strike it big from the civil suit. If you only see the first part, then she apparently isn't motivated by money. But with the second part it becomes a possibility again.
If she wanted financial gains this whole scandal is not a good way to get it. She probably could've gotten more money by being silent and the lawsuit was sure to ruin her reputation. This seems like an honest grudge to me
It is true that she had a financial interest (how serious is unknown) depending on the outcome, but she could have walked away with probably a healthy payout had she signed the non-disparage agreement that is commonplace in these situations.
Healthy payout being maybe 5-10% of her net worth. Risking that for possibly doubling net worth seems reasonable. Going from say 20m to 22m isn't that big of a jump or a lifestyle differentiator.
And Pao makes clear that 1) the other side has ample resources to tell its side of the story (or promote the story it wants told), and 2) did.
If your training and professional career are all aimed at a business in which personal relationships are key, pointing out that those in it, and the relationships they promote, are toxic, isn't especially conducive to future professional development (unless you manage to overturn the entire profession -- a long shot). Pao is taking major risks here.
And I'm not particularly aware of students matriculating into English degree programs hoping to get rich writing novels and/or autobiographical accounts in the same way one hears of engineering, finance, or law degrees.
First time that I read a comment that reminds everybody that this is only one side of the story. Do you make the same comment on all stories? and if not, why not?
I think it's clear that the other side of the story is a concept that applies chiefly to controversial stories. And this story is extremely controverial.
No wonder people rightfully remind there's another side.
Person sues powerful firm for rightful reasons → powerful firm hires people to stir the mud → mud-stirrers create controversy → story now has "two sides" → balance fallacy causes powerful firm to come out on top in the public eye.
I think it's also important to remember this pattern. It's been coming up a lot in recent years.
Let's remember that lack of provable evidence does not mean that the harassment and retaliation did not occur. It simply means she did not prove her case with admissible evidence in order to win in court.
Short of having an audio or video tape, a couple witnesses, or written documents of propositions or threats to ruin her career at KP, she was in a he said she said scenario.
This is true for literal everything in the universe, and is the basis for both a philosophical concept called Russell's teapot and a religious one by Richard Dawkins called Flying Spaghetti Monster. Without provable evidence there isn't much we can assert, so it lands on trust and which side people feel is right. The legal system follow closer the scientific model and demand that the case is proven rather than disproved.
However you are forgetting in our court systems evidence can be thrown out because it was not admitted according to the Rules of Civil/Criminal/Appellate Procedures. At that point it isn't about trust or what people feel, it is only about evidence a jury can consider.
It would be akin to having to acquit someone you feel is quite because the state failed to make their case or because the state made their case but screwed up something on a technicality and now you cannot consider that single piece of evidence in deciding which side prevails.
In courts there is proof, evidence and admissible evidence. At the end of the day only the latter matters.
So was evidence thrown out because of procedure violation in this case?
I would note that this aspect is a construct of common law. In civil law all evidence is admissible, and the facts that would cause evidence to be inadmissible in common law would simply be additional context in civil law.
Not that I am aware of but all evidence is not admissible in civil court. It must be correctly admitted into evidence, it must be authenticated or meet a business records exception, can't be hearsay, etc. and must meet the rules of evidenceto name a few.
You forget that a legal system is a closed-loop system while learning the laws of the universe is (at least generally) not.
When proving the theory of relativity the universe will not suddenly decide to behave differently in order for you to have a harder time proving it. It's an absolute opposite in terms of the legal system.
So when you're trying to operate in an environment that is highly unstable and at times contradictory (killing a person is bad, killing a person who is trying to kill you is ok, killing a person who you thought was trying to kill you but actually wanted to talk is bad, what if any of the parties are lying as well?), then introducing Russell's teapot might just be as appropriate as following the proven path.
As the proof itself might be so weak that introducing something unproven might just be as plausible.
