Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelmrose | Hacker News Reader

I have a former friend who developed a drug habit and exploded nearly violently at his neighbors with no provocation in the lobby of his apartment building making a huge scene which resulted in the gentlemen in blue having a talk with him. He turned his reaction to too much meth into a wholly fictitious trans hate scenario in which he was victimized. None of this actually happened.

People lie and the presumption of innocence isn't just the law its a reasonable reaction to the imperfect, screwy world around you.

Expecting people to back up accusations with proof isn't hate.

View on HN

Presumption of innocence is reasonable because most people are innocent. It is not because the world is imperfect. It follows from the base rate, which is experimental, not from any fundamental principle.

For example, if most officials are corrupt, you should not presume the official you are dealing with is not corrupt. That's just stupid. Legal case still should be backed by evidence, but your personal presumption should consider the base rate, not just presumption of innocence.

A presumption of innocence decreases the value in telling damaging lies which in turn disincentives lying. It would be valuable in the face of most people being guilty.

How does some trans person you know with a drug problem have any connection to this situation? Are you trying to generalise from one trans person to ask others?

The point is that while lots of people face very real discrimination a minority creates drama.

If it's the minority that are drama creators, isn't it more reasonable to think that in most cases it probably is discrimination, then?

Your comment really seems to be an attempt to turn that presumption and balance on its head.

The thing is, people who create drama tend to be much more visible than those who suffer quietly (for better or for worse).

Presumption of innocence implies that the default attitude towards accusers is healthy skepticism plus a willingness to listen. This is necessary because if we are not skeptical nearly anyone can successfully attack anyone else with impunity and destroy their reputation and if we aren't willing to listen we risk ignoring victimization.

In this case the proposed victim is silent on the matter and there is not only no proof there aren't even any details. My default assumption of skepticism leads me to conclude in the total absence of any other information that the individual was fired for some other reason and the accusations of bias was erroneous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com