Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,250
    Post Thanks / Like

    Shouldn't there be a thread on sexual harassment?

    When making this thread, there is that feature that shows similar threads. Wow. Bill O'Reilly was first hit with a sexual harassment suit back in 2004. How time flies. It only took Fox 11 years to fire the guy. Now, every guy who bared his wee-wee is getting run out of town. I have a few concerns about this. We have a court and legal system which was designed to handle disputes between parties. There are civil courts to handle issues where a law may not have been broken, but damage occurred. Finally, there are statute of limitations to these laws and injuries and those statutes exist for a purpose. So, my concern is that laws have been replaced with vigilante justice. A woman makes a public accusation and her accuser faces discipline from his employer and from the public mob. This seems to circumvent our criminal justice system. I understand there are reasons it occurred as it has. However, I am not entirely convinced that it makes it right.

    First, there is a funny quote some French guy said. When asked about making unwanted sexual advanced on women he replied something like; how would I know they were unwanted if I didn't make them? The point is simple, but sheds a bit of social truth here. Guys do weird stuff to get a woman's attention. Sometimes, it goes too far and sometimes the advanced are well-received. In other words, not all sexual harassment is the same.

    Let me take two real examples to point this out. I'll use two Democratic politicians so there can be no argument of bias. However, let's look at Al Franken and John Conyers. Franken has been accused by several women of reaching out and touching their boobs. Crass. Harassing in a way. However, he was not accused of raping anyone. He was not accused of demanding sex for a job or of using his position to coerce women to sleep with him. He made some unwanted advances and the comedian tweaked with a woman who was sleeping. I'm not saying he shouldn't apologize. I am saying some of these issues to be brought up years later (or in the case of the sleeping woman) 10 years later and for none of the women to have tried him legally or civilly, I just don't think what he did she be subjected to some sort of witch hunt. On the other end of the spectrum appears to be Conyers. He went beyond anything Franken did as he used his position to coerce women into accepting his crude behavior. He has been accused of things which could be considered real crimes. But, by publicly outing both men and putting them in the same boat of sexual harassers two things happen. Franken's behavior is seen as something more vile and wicked than it really is and Conyer's behavior is does not look as heinous as it should. In a sea of harassers, the mild and the outrageous all get treated pretty much equally.

    This is why these processes need to be redirected to the justice system. Rather than stupid #metoo hashtags, maybe Congress needs to create an a better Ethics committee to properly deal with criminal behavior from Congressmen. Perhaps, the Justice Dept needs to offer better oversight of local police who choose not to pursue sex cases. Maybe, some of these women should be suing the police where their cases were summarily dismissed or go after companies where their complaints were ignored. My point is that these cases need to be pursued through the justice system. Where the statute of limitations has expired, sorry. Something being hard isn't a valid excuse to avoid protecting yourself and it is not a valid excuse to allow the statute of limitations to expire.

    Here is my prediction. Just as women can gain public sympathy, they can also gain public scorn. It will take just a few cases where women have been found to have made false allegations or exaggerations to bring this whole thing crashing down and put women right back where they were before. However, if things are handled through the courts, then it won't matter. Crimes should be punished on a case by case basis in a courtroom and the lack of public overreaction will provide less reason for an overcorrection later.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  2. #2
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,060
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Shouldn't there be a thread on sexual harassment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    When making this thread, there is that feature that shows similar threads. Wow. Bill O'Reilly was first hit with a sexual harassment suit back in 2004. How time flies. It only took Fox 11 years to fire the guy. Now, every guy who bared his wee-wee is getting run out of town.
    Since a variety of very specific things are happening to different people, when mentioning what is going on we should accurately and specifically state what's happening instead of describing what is happening with vague, hyperbolic terms. No one was literally run out of town and quite a few of the subjects were not even figuratively run out of town.

    Donald Trump and Al Franken have not lost their office at this point (and probably will not be brought down by their groping scandals) and Roy Moore has a good chance at winning his election.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I have a few concerns about this. We have a court and legal system which was designed to handle disputes between parties. There are civil courts to handle issues where a law may not have been broken, but damage occurred. Finally, there are statute of limitations to these laws and injuries and those statutes exist for a purpose. So, my concern is that laws have been replaced with vigilante justice. A woman makes a public accusation and her accuser faces discipline from his employer and from the public mob. This seems to circumvent our criminal justice system.
    It doesn't circumvent that criminal justice system because these are not matters of criminal justice - just like a parent grounding his child for misbehaving is not circumventing the criminal justice system.

    If a guy sexually harasses a co-worker, the boss can fire him and his peers can think he's a creep and bad-mouth him. This is not a matter that concerns the criminal justice system and is pretty much along the lines of the punishment that the current batch of harassers are facing. No one is getting lynched or locked up - they are getting fired and publicly embarrassed which seems fitting assuming the accusations are true (and for the most part they seem to be as many are admitting the accusations have merit).


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    First, there is a funny quote some French guy said. When asked about making unwanted sexual advanced on women he replied something like; how would I know they were unwanted if I didn't make them? The point is simple, but sheds a bit of social truth here. Guys do weird stuff to get a woman's attention. Sometimes, it goes too far and sometimes the advanced are well-received. In other words, not all sexual harassment is the same.
    True. But the kinds of sexual harassment that is costing people their jobs and reputation is not the awkwardly worded attempt at getting a woman's attention. It's more along the lines of pants dropping and groping. As far as I can tell, no one is getting in serious trouble for what would be considered milder forms of harassment.

    I agree that we can be overly sensitive when applying anti-harassment standards. But these known sexual harassment situations don't seem to be based on overzealousness. Assuming the accusations are generally credible, these guys all did things that warrant the kind of reaction it got.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Let me take two real examples to point this out. I'll use two Democratic politicians so there can be no argument of bias. However, let's look at Al Franken and John Conyers. Franken has been accused by several women of reaching out and touching their boobs. Crass. Harassing in a way. However, he was not accused of raping anyone. He was not accused of demanding sex for a job or of using his position to coerce women to sleep with him. He made some unwanted advances and the comedian tweaked with a woman who was sleeping. I'm not saying he shouldn't apologize. I am saying some of these issues to be brought up years later (or in the case of the sleeping woman) 10 years later and for none of the women to have tried him legally or civilly, I just don't think what he did she be subjected to some sort of witch hunt.
    Again, "witch hunt" is hyperbolic and vague. As far as I can tell, he hasn't suffered much more than public embarrassment which seems more or less appropriate for behaving like a jackass in the past. At this point, he's not likely to be forced to step down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    On the other end of the spectrum appears to be Conyers. He went beyond anything Franken did as he used his position to coerce women into accepting his crude behavior. He has been accused of things which could be considered real crimes. But, by publicly outing both men and putting them in the same boat of sexual harassers two things happen. Franken's behavior is seen as something more vile and wicked than it really is and Conyer's behavior is does not look as heinous as it should. In a sea of harassers, the mild and the outrageous all get treated pretty much equally.
    I disagree. There are multiple Democrats asking Conyers to step down and I'm guessing he eventually will. Franken is not being asked to step down and probably won't step down.

    The worse the offense is, the stronger the reaction to it is. As it should be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    This is why these processes need to be redirected to the justice system. Rather than stupid #metoo hashtags, maybe Congress needs to create an a better Ethics committee to properly deal with criminal behavior from Congressmen.
    The me too movement has nothing to do with congress. It's a social media movement started by women themselves and I don't think it's stupid at all. Women should speak up if they've been harassed in the past. Assuming one is against sexual harassment, it's good to let people know how wide spread the issue is.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Perhaps, the Justice Dept needs to offer better oversight of local police who choose not to pursue sex cases. Maybe, some of these women should be suing the police where their cases were summarily dismissed or go after companies where their complaints were ignored. My point is that these cases need to be pursued through the justice system. Where the statute of limitations has expired, sorry. Something being hard isn't a valid excuse to avoid protecting yourself and it is not a valid excuse to allow the statute of limitations to expire.
    But the statute of limitations expiring only means that a criminal case no longer be pursued. But it does not mean that they can't hold their assaulters/harassers accountable in other ways - such as speaking out about what happened.

    While congress and law enforcement may have a place in the sexual harassment issue, people who belong to either are completely free to take their own actions and reveal harassers and fire harassers and shame them and so on. We don't need people to just shut up about it and let the legislators and police handle it alone.

    In fact, unless it's either a crime or involving congress or the police, it's really not any of their business. If a guy harasses a co-worker and the situation is bad enough and credible enough, the boss can and should fire the harasser and the police and congress need not be involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Here is my prediction. Just as women can gain public sympathy, they can also gain public scorn. It will take just a few cases where women have been found to have made false allegations or exaggerations to bring this whole thing crashing down and put women right back where they were before. However, if things are handled through the courts, then it won't matter. Crimes should be punished on a case by case basis in a courtroom and the lack of public overreaction will provide less reason for an overcorrection later.
    But then for the most part, we aren't talking about crimes. And I very much doubt things will go back to where they were before where men in power can pull some horrendous stuff (think Weinstein) and their victims will not speak up. What I predict is going to happen is that more men who have abused their position and sexually harassed and assaulted women will be held accountable and in the future, men who might have an inclination to behave in such a manner will not do so.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with women who have been harassed and assaulted in the past coming forward to tell what happened to them ("me too") and hold their abusers responsible.
    Last edited by mican333; December 2nd, 2017 at 01:28 PM.

  3. #3
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Shouldn't there be a thread on sexual harassment?

    Quote Originally Posted by ibelsd
    First, there is a funny quote some French guy said. When asked about making unwanted sexual advanced on women he replied something like; how would I know they were unwanted if I didn't make them? The point is simple, but sheds a bit of social truth here. Guys do weird stuff to get a woman's attention. Sometimes, it goes too far and sometimes the advanced are well-received. In other words, not all sexual harassment is the same.
    My favorite take was SNL tom Brady sexual harassment clip. can't link to it, cause I can't find it, probably scrubbed from existence. Point was, be attractive and rich.. or "be tom Brady", and it won't be "unwelcome" and thus not harassment.

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    Let me take two real examples to point this out. I'll use two Democratic politicians so there can be no argument of bias. However, let's look at Al Franken and John Conyers. Franken has been accused by several women of reaching out and touching their boobs. Crass. Harassing in a way. However, he was not accused of raping anyone. He was not accused of demanding sex for a job or of using his position to coerce women to sleep with him. He made some unwanted advances and the comedian tweaked with a woman who was sleeping. I'm not saying he shouldn't apologize. I am saying some of these issues to be brought up years later (or in the case of the sleeping woman) 10 years later and for none of the women to have tried him legally or civilly, I just don't think what he did she be subjected to some sort of witch hunt. On the other end of the spectrum appears to be Conyers. He went beyond anything Franken did as he used his position to coerce women into accepting his crude behavior. He has been accused of things which could be considered real crimes. But, by publicly outing both men and putting them in the same boat of sexual harassers two things happen. Franken's behavior is seen as something more vile and wicked than it really is and Conyer's behavior is does not look as heinous as it should. In a sea of harassers, the mild and the outrageous all get treated pretty much equally.
    I think ultimately the problem is that both are tabloid news stories. Maybe state and local, but what does Franken's behavior have to do with me or my state? Nothing. No one going to jail or even court over it.. how is it "news"?
    This is not news, this is gossip column stuff, being passed off as news.

    I think you are right that unequal instances are given the air of equality due to the way it is reported.

    Look I had a problem with his when it was Bill cosby. They were parading women with no credibility out just to make that counter go up a tick.
    As far as I'm concerned, if you were a prostituted, or in the act of doing drugs, I really don't care what you have to say happened 30 years ago on a dark and stormy night in a room you chose to be in.
    This time around that is happening a bit less, but people who aren't saying anything are getting attention based on what they MIGHT say.

    If anything, the media is not doing it's job investigating these kinds of stories so as to get people to go to actual jail. Like weinstien. everyone knew, but there was no reporter with a hidden mike and camera? No woman journalist took it upon themselves to nail this guy?
    Sorry, your failing at your job.

    So, I lay this whole mess at the feet of the media. First by presenting gossip as news, and second for allowing situations they knew were happening to go un-investigated.

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    Here is my prediction. Just as women can gain public sympathy, they can also gain public scorn. It will take just a few cases where women have been found to have made false allegations or exaggerations to bring this whole thing crashing down and put women right back where they were before. However, if things are handled through the courts, then it won't matter. Crimes should be punished on a case by case basis in a courtroom and the lack of public overreaction will provide less reason for an overcorrection later.
    This will all blow over, only I think it will go away not because women lie, but because no one is going to jail, and deep down plenty of women WANT this to happen.

    Degrading situations are simply par for the course in Hollywood, and women will continue to initiate all the situations that men are being castigated for pushing.

    For example, everyone is complaining about Harvey Weinstien, but think of the industry. These women are auditioning for degrading parts, it is no wonder they are going to have degrading interviews and be put in compromising situation, that they are going to consent too.
    I used this example. Your a movie producer, and you story requires a woman to be fully naked and bounce her breasts for the camera.
    ... now what does that "casting" audition look like? You are going to have a parade of women lining up to get fully naked and bounce their breasts for .. whoever is in a position to give them "a break".
    Scarlet Johansen had a story about how she was put in a degrading line up, and called fat but f-able. .. But what kind of part was she auditioning for? It was cast as though the people running the audition were wrong, but if the part was for that aforementioned bouncing boobs naked girl scene... then her audition was pretty conservative. .. can't find the story link.

    Bottom line, there are simply too many women who will insist on hotel room casting so that they can get a chance, and the men will once again become bold enough to actually ask for and expect it... again.
    To serve man.

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,250
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Shouldn't there be a thread on sexual harassment?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Since a variety of very specific things are happening to different people, when mentioning what is going on we should accurately and specifically state what's happening instead of describing what is happening with vague, hyperbolic terms. No one was literally run out of town and quite a few of the subjects were not even figuratively run out of town.

    Donald Trump and Al Franken have not lost their office at this point (and probably will not be brought down by their groping scandals) and Roy Moore has a good chance at winning his election.
    There are commonalities happening to all of the accused. It is fair to speak of them generally. I think it not hyperbolic to say Weinstein and Spacey were run out of town. Not literally, but figuratively.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It doesn't circumvent that criminal justice system because these are not matters of criminal justice - just like a parent grounding his child for misbehaving is not circumventing the criminal justice system.
    The accusers aren't parents and many of these cases are criminal cases (i.e. Weinstein). Almost all would be subject to civil trials. So, yes, these accusers are, in many cases, circumventing the legal system by blasting accusations in the media.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If a guy sexually harasses a co-worker, the boss can fire him and his peers can think he's a creep and bad-mouth him. This is not a matter that concerns the criminal justice system and is pretty much along the lines of the punishment that the current batch of harassers are facing. No one is getting lynched or locked up - they are getting fired and publicly embarrassed which seems fitting assuming the accusations are true (and for the most part they seem to be as many are admitting the accusations have merit).
    Publicly embarrassed and blacklisted. Maybe it is fair. Since when is mob justice acceptable, though? Fairness is determined in a court room with judges, lawyers, and a jury. You don't get to summarily declare that something is fair because you happen to like the outcome. They are getting fired, embarrassed and publicly found guilty. That isn't justice.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    True. But the kinds of sexual harassment that is costing people their jobs and reputation is not the awkwardly worded attempt at getting a woman's attention. It's more along the lines of pants dropping and groping. As far as I can tell, no one is getting in serious trouble for what would be considered milder forms of harassment.
    As far as you can tell? So far, we just have accusations from people whom none of knew just a few weeks ago. As far as I can tell, I know nothing. I'd like to believe the women making the accusations and I mostly do. However, me believing something does not make it true.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I agree that we can be overly sensitive when applying anti-harassment standards. But these known sexual harassment situations don't seem to be based on overzealousness. Assuming the accusations are generally credible, these guys all did things that warrant the kind of reaction it got.
    You are hedging your bets with phrases like, "seem to be.." but the truth is you do not know. That is why we have a legal system. So people don't just go around making accusations that destroy people's lives under the guise of it "seems to be" as the evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Again, "witch hunt" is hyperbolic and vague. As far as I can tell, he hasn't suffered much more than public embarrassment which seems more or less appropriate for behaving like a jackass in the past. At this point, he's not likely to be forced to step down.
    So, you are claiming jackass behavior deserves ridicule and public embarrassment? So, you are judge and executioner (not to be too hyperbolic). Again, that just isn't how our legal system works. While I would tend to agree guys like Weinstein are getting all they deserve and that they deserve more, I do not believe I want to live in a society were these decisions get to be made by a mob or social media.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I disagree. There are multiple Democrats asking Conyers to step down and I'm guessing he eventually will. Franken is not being asked to step down and probably won't step down.
    Some Democrats have asked Franken to step down as well.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...-resign-271805
    "Rep. Joe Crowley of New York, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, is the highest ranking Democrat to call for Franken’s resignation."

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The worse the offense is, the stronger the reaction to it is. As it should be.
    You mean the punishment should fit the crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The me too movement has nothing to do with congress. It's a social media movement started by women themselves and I don't think it's stupid at all. Women should speak up if they've been harassed in the past. Assuming one is against sexual harassment, it's good to let people know how wide spread the issue is.
    Women should speak up. They should take the accused to court. Simply saying metoo, outing someone on Twitter, and then watching the mob socially tear the accused to pieces (I know; more exaggeration) is not helpful. My take on metoo is probably a bit biased. I pretty much think anything on Twitter is stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But the statute of limitations expiring only means that a criminal case no longer be pursued. But it does not mean that they can't hold their assaulters/harassers accountable in other ways - such as speaking out about what happened.
    They can do it. Doesn't make it right. How can someone offer a legitimate defense of something they did 30 years ago? It is absurd. Again, by "speaking out" they are circumventing the legal system. They certainly have the right to do it, I just think it is flawed.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    While congress and law enforcement may have a place in the sexual harassment issue, people who belong to either are completely free to take their own actions and reveal harassers and fire harassers and shame them and so on. We don't need people to just shut up about it and let the legislators and police handle it alone.
    Take them to civil court. Yes, file complaint with the police. This is how Americans handle legal and civil disputes. Simply putting someone on blast without an opportunity to mount a proper defense is anti-American. It is, almost by definition, a witch hunt.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    In fact, unless it's either a crime or involving congress or the police, it's really not any of their business. If a guy harasses a co-worker and the situation is bad enough and credible enough, the boss can and should fire the harasser and the police and congress need not be involved.
    Ok. And under such an event, the employer is not allowed to comment publicly and the person continues to be free to pursue their life without the public's input. There is a difference between filing a complaint with HR which leads to a person's dismissal and publicly accusing that person of a misdeed on Twitter and the news.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then for the most part, we aren't talking about crimes. And I very much doubt things will go back to where they were before where men in power can pull some horrendous stuff (think Weinstein) and their victims will not speak up. What I predict is going to happen is that more men who have abused their position and sexually harassed and assaulted women will be held accountable and in the future, men who might have an inclination to behave in such a manner will not do so.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with women who have been harassed and assaulted in the past coming forward to tell what happened to them ("me too") and hold their abusers responsible.
    Again, the justice system isn't just for criminal complaints. Civil complaints are handled as well. You are perpetuating a straw man by insisting that I believe all suits should result in some sort of criminal trial. Furthermore, men and women have the right to speak up whenever they please. I do not believe publicly outing someone for bad behavior is justice. Especially when that behavior occurred 10+ years ago. Furthermore, while you may believe things will never revert back to the way they were, you have no reason to be so confident. We know that some accusers will be wrong/will make false statements. We know this because there is a percentage of women who lie about being harassed. When this happens and an innocent person is wrongly put through hell (loses his job his good name, etc), the public, being the fickle asshats we are, will stop paying attention and harassers will be free to continue. Everything is cyclical.

    ---------- Post added at 12:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My favorite take was SNL tom Brady sexual harassment clip. can't link to it, cause I can't find it, probably scrubbed from existence. Point was, be attractive and rich.. or "be tom Brady", and it won't be "unwelcome" and thus not harassment.


    I think ultimately the problem is that both are tabloid news stories. Maybe state and local, but what does Franken's behavior have to do with me or my state? Nothing. No one going to jail or even court over it.. how is it "news"?
    This is not news, this is gossip column stuff, being passed off as news.

    I think you are right that unequal instances are given the air of equality due to the way it is reported.

    Look I had a problem with his when it was Bill cosby. They were parading women with no credibility out just to make that counter go up a tick.
    As far as I'm concerned, if you were a prostituted, or in the act of doing drugs, I really don't care what you have to say happened 30 years ago on a dark and stormy night in a room you chose to be in.
    This time around that is happening a bit less, but people who aren't saying anything are getting attention based on what they MIGHT say.

    If anything, the media is not doing it's job investigating these kinds of stories so as to get people to go to actual jail. Like weinstien. everyone knew, but there was no reporter with a hidden mike and camera? No woman journalist took it upon themselves to nail this guy?
    Sorry, your failing at your job.

    So, I lay this whole mess at the feet of the media. First by presenting gossip as news, and second for allowing situations they knew were happening to go un-investigated.


    This will all blow over, only I think it will go away not because women lie, but because no one is going to jail, and deep down plenty of women WANT this to happen.

    Degrading situations are simply par for the course in Hollywood, and women will continue to initiate all the situations that men are being castigated for pushing.

    For example, everyone is complaining about Harvey Weinstien, but think of the industry. These women are auditioning for degrading parts, it is no wonder they are going to have degrading interviews and be put in compromising situation, that they are going to consent too.
    I used this example. Your a movie producer, and you story requires a woman to be fully naked and bounce her breasts for the camera.
    ... now what does that "casting" audition look like? You are going to have a parade of women lining up to get fully naked and bounce their breasts for .. whoever is in a position to give them "a break".
    Scarlet Johansen had a story about how she was put in a degrading line up, and called fat but f-able. .. But what kind of part was she auditioning for? It was cast as though the people running the audition were wrong, but if the part was for that aforementioned bouncing boobs naked girl scene... then her audition was pretty conservative. .. can't find the story link.

    Bottom line, there are simply too many women who will insist on hotel room casting so that they can get a chance, and the men will once again become bold enough to actually ask for and expect it... again.
    I don't want to get into the position of blaming women for being harassed. That isn't my argument at all. Bottom line is that there are men (and probably women too) who used their positions to trade for sex for access. Worse than trading, they physically coerced women into sex and other forms of degradation. Again, though, and this goes to my point. These things have two sides and being accused is not the same as being guilty. Furthermore, there are levels to this. And it is a lot harder to properly put someone's behavior into perspective or with context when people are choosing the path of least resistance and leaking information to the media or declaring that someone is guilty via their Twitter account.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  5. #5
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,060
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Shouldn't there be a thread on sexual harassment?

    First off, I'm going to make an argument that should cover a lot of ground and therefore will not respond directly to some of your points that are covered by this.

    There are a variety of negative consequences for those who are accused of harassment.
    1. Embarrassment - people find out about the harassment and then think less of the accused.
    2. Getting fired - one's boss terminates their employment due to the accusations.
    3. Civil suit - if found guilty in a civil court, they accused can forfeit money
    4. Criminal prosecution - If found guilty, he could go to jail.

    Now 3 & 4 are indeed matters of the court. They require a court to assess innocent or guilt and likewise the punishment given will be given by a court. 1 & 2 are not matters of the court nor should they be. It is not a matter for the courts if people say things about the accused and it's typically not a matter for the court if a person is fired from their job. There can be instances where the accused may sue in a court of law for slander or wrongful termination of employment but typically these are not issues for the court.

    And therefore embarrassment and firings are not matters for the court as typically haven't been prior to this nor should they be (barring specific circumstances) and therefore people are not circumventing the courts when the accused is subjective to embarrassment or being fired.

    And it also is not mob justice for mob justice, as it is typically defined, is where the mob does take the law into their own hands and metes out legal punishment without a trial - a primary example would be for the mob to hang someone accused of murder without a trial. That does not apply to this situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The accusers aren't parents and many of these cases are criminal cases (i.e. Weinstein). Almost all would be subject to civil trials. So, yes, these accusers are, in many cases, circumventing the legal system by blasting accusations in the media.
    Since they are not meting out legal justice (such as locking him up or fining him), the legal system has not been circumvented.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Fairness is determined in a court room with judges, lawyers, and a jury. You don't get to summarily declare that something is fair because you happen to like the outcome. They are getting fired, embarrassed and publicly found guilty. That isn't justice.
    It's not court-of-law justice but you can't say that you know that Weinstein did not get what he deserved. Assuming he did get what he deserved, then it is justice.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    As far as you can tell? So far, we just have accusations from people whom none of knew just a few weeks ago. As far as I can tell, I know nothing. I'd like to believe the women making the accusations and I mostly do. However, me believing something does not make it true.
    That does not address my point. I'm saying we have no cases of something mild resulting in someone being fired/blacklisted. Every accusation that has led to real consequences were of major violations, not someone just saying something a bit too raunchy. No one is getting fired for merely complementing a woman on her figure or telling a dirty joke. It's pretty much at the level of groping, pants-dropping, and worse.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You are hedging your bets with phrases like, "seem to be.." but the truth is you do not know. That is why we have a legal system. So people don't just go around making accusations that destroy people's lives under the guise of it "seems to be" as the evidence.
    First off, I'm not one of the persons who is accusing anyone of sexual harassment. The people who did accuse Weinstein and Spacy apparently had something much more solid than "seems to be" and since their accusations almost certain have merit (the accused not really denying the accusations indicates that), the consequences that "ran them out of town" are perfectly acceptable and it's not the place of the court to determine if these men were treated fairly or not. If Weinstein or Spacy think they were treated unfairly then they can file a civil suit against their accusers. Beyond that, there's no need for the court to assess how credible the accusations are or concern itself with the consequences outside of the legal system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, you are claiming jackass behavior deserves ridicule and public embarrassment? So, you are judge and executioner (not to be too hyperbolic). Again, that just isn't how our legal system works. While I would tend to agree guys like Weinstein are getting all they deserve and that they deserve more, I do not believe I want to live in a society were these decisions get to be made by a mob or social media.
    Then I suggest you find another reality to live in. Because this is what people do. If someone famous does something bad, word may get out and then people talk about it. And it's only a particularly bad thing if the accusations are false. If the accusations aren't false, then it's just the natural consequences of being famous and behaving like a jackass and I don't really have a problem with that (or could do anything about it even if I did have a problem).

    And no, I'm not being a judge. I'm just telling you how things are and also that I don't have a problem with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Some Democrats have asked Franken to step down as well.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...-resign-271805
    "Rep. Joe Crowley of New York, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, is the highest ranking Democrat to call for Franken’s resignation."
    But the call isn't nearly as strong as it is for Conyers.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You mean the punishment should fit the crime?
    Yes. And I don't see that not happening here. If anything, assuming the accusations are generally true, not enough punishment has been meted out. I mean it sounds like Weinstein should be in prison for some of the things he's done (and he may yet). Trump is still in office. Moore is still a viable candidate. I'm not freaking out about this but I will point out that many seem to have not received adequate punishment for their sins.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Women should speak up. They should take the accused to court. Simply saying metoo, outing someone on Twitter, and then watching the mob socially tear the accused to pieces (I know; more exaggeration) is not helpful. My take on metoo is probably a bit biased. I pretty much think anything on Twitter is stupid.
    Metoo IS helpful. When women realize that the problem of harassment is quite common-place (which "me too" has helped forward) then they are more likely to speak up about their own incidents of harassment and hold their harassers responsible. This probably has an effect on more and more men being outed as sexual harassers - Matt Lauer is the latest.

    While I can't draw a direct line from "me too" to Lauer being fired, it's not a coincidence (there's correlation at least).

    Telling women to shut up about it until they are in a courtroom is not helpful.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Ok. And under such an event, the employer is not allowed to comment publicly and the person continues to be free to pursue their life without the public's input. There is a difference between filing a complaint with HR which leads to a person's dismissal and publicly accusing that person of a misdeed on Twitter and the news.
    I'm not sure if the boss is not allowed to comment publicly but I'm quite sure that the victim of the harassment is free to comment publicly (unless she signed some kind of form saying she can't). And yes, there is a difference between the two but that does not mean that one can't do both of them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Again, the justice system isn't just for criminal complaints. Civil complaints are handled as well. You are perpetuating a straw man by insisting that I believe all suits should result in some sort of criminal trial.
    No. I did not attribute that argument to you. Although you do seem to be arguing that these things should be handled exclusively in the courts and are including civil courts under that.

    I mean you are saying that these matters should be handled by the courts (civil or criminal) and not by the "mob" (the people). But again, the courts don't handle what people say about each other or who gets fired (with some exceptions).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Furthermore, men and women have the right to speak up whenever they please. I do not believe publicly outing someone for bad behavior is justice.
    And I think it is justice. If someone behaves like a jackass, it's fair that people think he's a jackass. I'd say it's not fair (not justice) if someone behaves like a jackass and suffers no consequences for his bad behavior. And if his behavior doesn't rise to the level of a civil suit or a criminal prosecution, then there's no way the courts will hold him accountable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Furthermore, while you may believe things will never revert back to the way they were, you have no reason to be so confident. We know that some accusers will be wrong/will make false statements. We know this because there is a percentage of women who lie about being harassed. When this happens and an innocent person is wrongly put through hell (loses his job his good name, etc), the public, being the fickle asshats we are, will stop paying attention and harassers will be free to continue. Everything is cyclical.
    First off, we DON'T know that there will be a Weinstein-type accusation with all of the media hoopla and such that will turn out to be a false accusation. There might be a false accusation at some point but then there's no guarantee that it will be widely considered valid and then forwarded in the media only to discover later that it's all BS and therefore discredits accusers in general. So no, there absolutely is no guarantee that there will be a false accusation that has any kind of traction. In fact, when someone tried to falsely accuse Roy Moore, the newspaper found out it was a false accusation and for all you know, any future false accusations will meet the same fate.

    And even an embarrassing false accusation that needs to be retracted will not take us back because one of the primary things that has lead us to where we are will not change. And that thing is that women are much less afraid to accuse their harassers when they've suffered harassment. I very much doubt women are going to go back to being as afraid to accuse harassers as they used to be.

    And while some things are cyclical - there is much that is not. We aren't going back to women not having the vote of back to Jim Crow laws and so on. Some changes are linear.





    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I don't want to get into the position of blaming women for being harassed. That isn't my argument at all. Bottom line is that there are men (and probably women too) who used their positions to trade for sex for access. Worse than trading, they physically coerced women into sex and other forms of degradation. Again, though, and this goes to my point. These things have two sides and being accused is not the same as being guilty. Furthermore, there are levels to this. And it is a lot harder to properly put someone's behavior into perspective or with context when people are choosing the path of least resistance and leaking information to the media or declaring that someone is guilty via their Twitter account.
    As long as the stories are generally true, it doesn't really matter how the stories get out.

    While I don't know everything about everything, there doesn't seem to be a lot of questions regarding the behavior of most of the accused. I mean for the most part, they apologized for their behavior which indicates that there is indeed quite a bit of fire to go along with the smoke and the firings were justified.

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Shouldn't there be a thread on sexual harassment?

    These charges of political sexual misconduct are serious and should be investigated. But my opinion is that the liberal media is politically charged in setting a narrative that is ruining political careers over sexual allegations (rightly so, if true) and the person's character is ruined without a trial. Justice should maintain innocent until proven guilty. Sometimes evidence is conclusive, in others it is not as apparent. After the Russia witch-hunt by the Deep State to damage political careers, it is hard to tell truth from fiction because of the media bias in steering the dialog, and also what I consider is a cover up by the elite in society. I'm wondering how rotten Washington and the liberal media is.

    Three points I see as contributing to the current state:

    1. The company I worked for had a program of 'Diversity and Inclusion' which set the bar as to what was and was not acceptable behavior in the workplace. Congress had no such program. Power excluded the elite from treating others with dignity and respect in some cases.
    2. Icons of the culture such as liberal leftist Hollywood has promoted an atmosphere of sexual promiscuity that has pervaded every avenue, street, and lane of society. They have chipped away at our values until they hang by a thread. Every sexual pervasive situation imaginable has been protrayed by this smut industry, shaping the way society thinks, acts, and dresses. They have objectified women (sex sells) to the unhealthy point that men readily objectify women, and women objectify themselves.
    3. Our culture is very visual. Modesty in dress is almost forgotten by our culture. Our system of thought, feed by such industries, is contributing to our delinquency. We see situations every day on TV that desensitize us to what is right or morally good.

    Peter

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,250
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Shouldn't there be a thread on sexual harassment?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, I'm going to make an argument that should cover a lot of ground and therefore will not respond directly to some of your points that are covered by this.

    There are a variety of negative consequences for those who are accused of harassment.
    1. Embarrassment - people find out about the harassment and then think less of the accused.
    2. Getting fired - one's boss terminates their employment due to the accusations.
    3. Civil suit - if found guilty in a civil court, they accused can forfeit money
    4. Criminal prosecution - If found guilty, he could go to jail.

    Now 3 & 4 are indeed matters of the court. They require a court to assess innocent or guilt and likewise the punishment given will be given by a court. 1 & 2 are not matters of the court nor should they be. It is not a matter for the courts if people say things about the accused and it's typically not a matter for the court if a person is fired from their job. There can be instances where the accused may sue in a court of law for slander or wrongful termination of employment but typically these are not issues for the court.

    And therefore embarrassment and firings are not matters for the court as typically haven't been prior to this nor should they be (barring specific circumstances) and therefore people are not circumventing the courts when the accused is subjective to embarrassment or being fired.

    And it also is not mob justice for mob justice, as it is typically defined, is where the mob does take the law into their own hands and metes out legal punishment without a trial - a primary example would be for the mob to hang someone accused of murder without a trial. That does not apply to this situation.



    Since they are not meting out legal justice (such as locking him up or fining him), the legal system has not been circumvented.





    It's not court-of-law justice but you can't say that you know that Weinstein did not get what he deserved. Assuming he did get what he deserved, then it is justice.




    That does not address my point. I'm saying we have no cases of something mild resulting in someone being fired/blacklisted. Every accusation that has led to real consequences were of major violations, not someone just saying something a bit too raunchy. No one is getting fired for merely complementing a woman on her figure or telling a dirty joke. It's pretty much at the level of groping, pants-dropping, and worse.





    First off, I'm not one of the persons who is accusing anyone of sexual harassment. The people who did accuse Weinstein and Spacy apparently had something much more solid than "seems to be" and since their accusations almost certain have merit (the accused not really denying the accusations indicates that), the consequences that "ran them out of town" are perfectly acceptable and it's not the place of the court to determine if these men were treated fairly or not. If Weinstein or Spacy think they were treated unfairly then they can file a civil suit against their accusers. Beyond that, there's no need for the court to assess how credible the accusations are or concern itself with the consequences outside of the legal system.



    Then I suggest you find another reality to live in. Because this is what people do. If someone famous does something bad, word may get out and then people talk about it. And it's only a particularly bad thing if the accusations are false. If the accusations aren't false, then it's just the natural consequences of being famous and behaving like a jackass and I don't really have a problem with that (or could do anything about it even if I did have a problem).

    And no, I'm not being a judge. I'm just telling you how things are and also that I don't have a problem with that.



    But the call isn't nearly as strong as it is for Conyers.




    Yes. And I don't see that not happening here. If anything, assuming the accusations are generally true, not enough punishment has been meted out. I mean it sounds like Weinstein should be in prison for some of the things he's done (and he may yet). Trump is still in office. Moore is still a viable candidate. I'm not freaking out about this but I will point out that many seem to have not received adequate punishment for their sins.




    Metoo IS helpful. When women realize that the problem of harassment is quite common-place (which "me too" has helped forward) then they are more likely to speak up about their own incidents of harassment and hold their harassers responsible. This probably has an effect on more and more men being outed as sexual harassers - Matt Lauer is the latest.

    While I can't draw a direct line from "me too" to Lauer being fired, it's not a coincidence (there's correlation at least).

    Telling women to shut up about it until they are in a courtroom is not helpful.






    I'm not sure if the boss is not allowed to comment publicly but I'm quite sure that the victim of the harassment is free to comment publicly (unless she signed some kind of form saying she can't). And yes, there is a difference between the two but that does not mean that one can't do both of them.




    No. I did not attribute that argument to you. Although you do seem to be arguing that these things should be handled exclusively in the courts and are including civil courts under that.

    I mean you are saying that these matters should be handled by the courts (civil or criminal) and not by the "mob" (the people). But again, the courts don't handle what people say about each other or who gets fired (with some exceptions).



    And I think it is justice. If someone behaves like a jackass, it's fair that people think he's a jackass. I'd say it's not fair (not justice) if someone behaves like a jackass and suffers no consequences for his bad behavior. And if his behavior doesn't rise to the level of a civil suit or a criminal prosecution, then there's no way the courts will hold him accountable.




    First off, we DON'T know that there will be a Weinstein-type accusation with all of the media hoopla and such that will turn out to be a false accusation. There might be a false accusation at some point but then there's no guarantee that it will be widely considered valid and then forwarded in the media only to discover later that it's all BS and therefore discredits accusers in general. So no, there absolutely is no guarantee that there will be a false accusation that has any kind of traction. In fact, when someone tried to falsely accuse Roy Moore, the newspaper found out it was a false accusation and for all you know, any future false accusations will meet the same fate.

    And even an embarrassing false accusation that needs to be retracted will not take us back because one of the primary things that has lead us to where we are will not change. And that thing is that women are much less afraid to accuse their harassers when they've suffered harassment. I very much doubt women are going to go back to being as afraid to accuse harassers as they used to be.

    And while some things are cyclical - there is much that is not. We aren't going back to women not having the vote of back to Jim Crow laws and so on. Some changes are linear.







    As long as the stories are generally true, it doesn't really matter how the stories get out.

    While I don't know everything about everything, there doesn't seem to be a lot of questions regarding the behavior of most of the accused. I mean for the most part, they apologized for their behavior which indicates that there is indeed quite a bit of fire to go along with the smoke and the firings were justified.
    I think I'd like to start at the end. Your premise is that it is ok so long as the stories are "generally true". Generally true is very different than beyond a reasonable doubt or even a preponderance of the evidence. Generally true allows for some gray area of disagreement between the accuser and the accused. Another failed premise you are making is that the charges have been generally accepted by the accused. This is not true at all. Several of the accused have disagreed with key pieces of the accuser's stories. Even if the facts are agreed upon, there are often different versions of the context in which they occurred. For example, when Franken did his stage kiss, was it an example of harassment or was it a normal part of the scene and the job? This leads to my point about statute of limitations. No one can offer a serious rebuttal or defense against an accusation which occurred 10 years ago (or even longer). Federal law caps such claims at 300 days. Why? Part of our legal system contains built-in protections against unprovable claims by a plaintiff. Is someone seriously supposed to remember what happened at a party 20 years ago? You then, in recognition of this absurdity, attempt to rationalize why simply publicly accusing someone of a crime (or civil mischief) is an acceptable alternative. However, in so doing, you fully accept that the accusers are circumventing the justice system. If a behavior is a crime (or could result in civil damages) and the accuser chooses not to litigate, but instead chooses to Tweet (which carries a much lower burden of proof), then they are seeking penalties against someone without having to prove their case. This is, by definition, circumventing the justice system. I am not arguing that the accusers do not have the right to make this choice. I am arguing that it is not a good choice to make and, as a society, we may not be promoting the common good by encouraging it. Finally, you determine that acting like a jackass should contain some inherent penalty and that if the courts cannot perform this role, then it is justice when it is served in another way. This sounds a lot like vigilantism. Hey, the guy who killed Kate Steinle was found not guilty. Well, he acted like a jackass, so maybe we should get our pitch forks out and burn him at the stake. If the courts aren't going to act, then certainly, the public has this right.

    Finally, you seem confident that the public zeitgeist will be linear as it pertains to sexual harassment. You provide some examples of other events which are seemingly linear. I should point out that women's suffrage was attained by a Constitutional amendment. While Jim Crow laws were initially ended due to public outrage, they were officially ended by legislation. Isn't this my argument in the first place? If we want the end of sexual harassment to be permanent, then we must handle this through the justice system.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  8. #8
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,060
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Shouldn't there be a thread on sexual harassment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I think I'd like to start at the end. Your premise is that it is ok so long as the stories are "generally true". Generally true is very different than beyond a reasonable doubt or even a preponderance of the evidence. Generally true allows for some gray area of disagreement between the accuser and the accused. Another failed premise you are making is that the charges have been generally accepted by the accused. This is not true at all. Several of the accused have disagreed with key pieces of the accuser's stories. Even if the facts are agreed upon, there are often different versions of the context in which they occurred. For example, when Franken did his stage kiss, was it an example of harassment or was it a normal part of the scene and the job? This leads to my point about statute of limitations. No one can offer a serious rebuttal or defense against an accusation which occurred 10 years ago (or even longer). Federal law caps such claims at 300 days. Why? Part of our legal system contains built-in protections against unprovable claims by a plaintiff. Is someone seriously supposed to remember what happened at a party 20 years ago? You then, in recognition of this absurdity, attempt to rationalize why simply publicly accusing someone of a crime (or civil mischief) is an acceptable alternative. However, in so doing, you fully accept that the accusers are circumventing the justice system. If a behavior is a crime (or could result in civil damages) and the accuser chooses not to litigate, but instead chooses to Tweet (which carries a much lower burden of proof), then they are seeking penalties against someone without having to prove their case. This is, by definition, circumventing the justice system.
    While I respect your right to make a general argument against my arguments in one piece instead of going point-by-point, you are forwarding argument that I have clearly rebutted in my prior post so you seem to be ignoring some of my points when you don't go point-by-point. So I will have to repeat an argument I made in the last post. First I will copy and paste an argument.

    There are a variety of negative consequences for those who are accused of harassment.
    1. Embarrassment - people find out about the harassment and then think less of the accused.
    2. Getting fired - one's boss terminates their employment due to the accusations.
    3. Civil suit - if found guilty in a civil court, they accused can forfeit money
    4. Criminal prosecution - If found guilty, he could go to jail.

    Now 3 & 4 are indeed matters of the court. They require a court to assess innocent or guilt and likewise the punishment given will be given by a court. 1 & 2 are not matters of the court nor should they be. It is not a matter for the courts if people say things about the accused and it's typically not a matter for the court if a person is fired from their job. There can be instances where the accused may sue in a court of law for slander or wrongful termination of employment but typically these are not issues for the court.

    And therefore embarrassment and firings are not matters for the court as typically haven't been prior to this nor should they be (barring specific circumstances) and therefore people are not circumventing the courts when the accused is subject to embarrassment or being fired.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I am not arguing that the accusers do not have the right to make this choice. I am arguing that it is not a good choice to make and, as a society, we may not be promoting the common good by encouraging it.
    I don't see anything wrong with accusing someone who did something wrong of doing something wrong. The notion that one has to keep their mouth shut about someone else abusing or harassing them unless they are in a court of law makes little sense to me. If someone is sexually harassed by their co-worker, it's fine to go to the boss and tell him. If someone is acting like a jerk, it's fine to tell others that they guy is acting like a jerk. And doing absolutely nothing about bad behavior unless one is testifying in a courtroom is generally refraining from calling out bad behavior and therefore enabling bad behavior. I mean don't you think if someone is being jerk, it should be pointed out?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Finally, you determine that acting like a jackass should contain some inherent penalty and that if the courts cannot perform this role, then it is justice when it is served in another way. This sounds a lot like vigilantism. Hey, the guy who killed Kate Steinle was found not guilty. Well, he acted like a jackass, so maybe we should get our pitch forks out and burn him at the stake. If the courts aren't going to act, then certainly, the public has this right.
    Since I argued no such thing, I will just say that this is engaging in the straw man fallacy.

    What I'm saying is that if someone is acting like a jerk, there are natural consequences to such behavior and one of those consequences is that people might start thinking that he's a jerk. And I'm fine with such things happening. I in no way advocated punishing someone in a manner that is typically rendered by the courts such as a fine, imprisonment, or capital punishment.

    I'm saying it's fine if a jerk get treated by others like he's a jerk.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Finally, you seem confident that the public zeitgeist will be linear as it pertains to sexual harassment. You provide some examples of other events which are seemingly linear. I should point out that women's suffrage was attained by a Constitutional amendment. While Jim Crow laws were initially ended due to public outrage, they were officially ended by legislation. Isn't this my argument in the first place? If we want the end of sexual harassment to be permanent, then we must handle this through the justice system.
    But then it's not an either-or situation. We can have laws against sexual harassment and I'm guessing we do to some extent. But that in no way means that one cannot or should not be embarrassed or fired for their actions. In fact, if the violation is not too severe, the punishment should not go beyond those things. I mean if a guy just makes a crude comment at work and some women take offense and it's determined that it's not really a firing offense, then all that's going to happen is some of his co-workers think that he's a jerk and that's about it and arguably that's all that should happen. So it's not an incident that should involve the courts. The courts are reserved for the major cases of misconduct - when someone is to be sued or criminally punished. For lesser violations, the courts should not be involved. If someone is being a jerk, then just getting a bit embarrassed regarding their behavior is punishment enough and they shouldn't get worse and therefore should not be in court over it.

  9. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,250
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Shouldn't there be a thread on sexual harassment?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    While I respect your right to make a general argument against my arguments in one piece instead of going point-by-point, you are forwarding argument that I have clearly rebutted in my prior post so you seem to be ignoring some of my points when you don't go point-by-point. So I will have to repeat an argument I made in the last post. First I will copy and paste an argument.

    There are a variety of negative consequences for those who are accused of harassment.
    1. Embarrassment - people find out about the harassment and then think less of the accused.
    2. Getting fired - one's boss terminates their employment due to the accusations.
    3. Civil suit - if found guilty in a civil court, they accused can forfeit money
    4. Criminal prosecution - If found guilty, he could go to jail.

    Now 3 & 4 are indeed matters of the court. They require a court to assess innocent or guilt and likewise the punishment given will be given by a court. 1 & 2 are not matters of the court nor should they be. It is not a matter for the courts if people say things about the accused and it's typically not a matter for the court if a person is fired from their job. There can be instances where the accused may sue in a court of law for slander or wrongful termination of employment but typically these are not issues for the court.

    And therefore embarrassment and firings are not matters for the court as typically haven't been prior to this nor should they be (barring specific circumstances) and therefore people are not circumventing the courts when the accused is subject to embarrassment or being fired.
    No one is arguing that items 1 & 2 should be matters of the court. However, if you have behavior which could be actionable in court and you choose to avoid court, and choose to publicly embarrass that person, then you are circumventing the court system. Let's say you are being harassed at work. You would reasonably complain to HR. Should HR fail to conduct a legitimate investigation and/or fail to take action to prevent the behavior from occurring again (which may include firing the accused), then the company is liable for allowing a hostile workplace. Now, the person who was harassed could choose to simply put someone on blast via Twitter and choose to not take the company to court. It is a choice. However, making this choice is a clear circumvention of the justice system since the accused cannot possibly defend themselves properly. If Kevin Spacey is completely innocent or even mostly innocent, shouldn't it matter? How can Spacey, as an example, properly defend himself from an accusation that occurred 20 years ago. Let's say the story is generally true but we are missing key facts or context. Does not this make a difference?

    * I am not defending Spacey here, just using his case as an example.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't see anything wrong with accusing someone who did something wrong of doing something wrong. The notion that one has to keep their mouth shut about someone else abusing or harassing them unless they are in a court of law makes little sense to me. If someone is sexually harassed by their co-worker, it's fine to go to the boss and tell him. If someone is acting like a jerk, it's fine to tell others that they guy is acting like a jerk. And doing absolutely nothing about bad behavior unless one is testifying in a courtroom is generally refraining from calling out bad behavior and therefore enabling bad behavior. I mean don't you think if someone is being jerk, it should be pointed out?
    Someone acting like a jerk is a far cry from claiming someone conducted criminal conduct. Don't you think? Its one thing calling out a waiter on Twitter for providing bad service. Such a claim is unlikely to have any long-term or meaningful impact on that person's life. It certainly isn't going to follow him from job to job throughout his career. Since you are making the case that people are merely pointing out jerk behavior, wouldn't it be absolutely absurd to call out a waiter for bad service you got 20 years ago?

    These people who were harassed had to make choices. Many/most chose to not take these cases to court. I don't believe it is a good thing that the crimes went unpunished. However, in our justice system, that is how it works. You fail to take your claim to court or press charges, then you don't get to find other ways to ruin their life.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Since I argued no such thing, I will just say that this is engaging in the straw man fallacy.

    What I'm saying is that if someone is acting like a jerk, there are natural consequences to such behavior and one of those consequences is that people might start thinking that he's a jerk. And I'm fine with such things happening. I in no way advocated punishing someone in a manner that is typically rendered by the courts such as a fine, imprisonment, or capital punishment.

    I'm saying it's fine if a jerk get treated by others like he's a jerk.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I think it is justice. If someone behaves like a jackass, it's fair that people think he's a jackass. I'd say it's not fair (not justice) if someone behaves like a jackass and suffers no consequences for his bad behavior
    In fact, you are saying such a thing. You are saying that if someone acts like a jackass, then even if its too late to litigate, that person should still suffer consequences. Being publicly outed on Twitter and then being the recipient of mob justice isn't natural consequences. Those are man-made consequences. Before you argue that this isn't mob justice, Conyers just agreed to step down amid public pressure. No trial. No presumption of innocence. No ability to face one's accuser. Something fair may not be just. It may be a fair result that Conyers has been taken down. It isn't justice because the process which led to it was not fair. Frankly, without an actual court case we'll never know if the result was fair.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then it's not an either-or situation. We can have laws against sexual harassment and I'm guessing we do to some extent. But that in no way means that one cannot or should not be embarrassed or fired for their actions. In fact, if the violation is not too severe, the punishment should not go beyond those things. I mean if a guy just makes a crude comment at work and some women take offense and it's determined that it's not really a firing offense, then all that's going to happen is some of his co-workers think that he's a jerk and that's about it and arguably that's all that should happen. So it's not an incident that should involve the courts. The courts are reserved for the major cases of misconduct - when someone is to be sued or criminally punished. For lesser violations, the courts should not be involved. If someone is being a jerk, then just getting a bit embarrassed regarding their behavior is punishment enough and they shouldn't get worse and therefore should not be in court over it.
    Once you have publicly humiliated someone, you have no control over the punishment. The entire process is handed over to the public. The public determines the amount of outrage they wish to demonstrate. They call for the action/punishment to be meted out. Franken and Conyers have both been publicly harangued to step down even though they have been accused of different forms of harassment with differences in severity. The accusers have little to no say. Furthermore, both men will be tainted with this for the rest of their lives which happens to be a worse penalty for Franken than Conyers since Franken is relatively young and Conyers is apparently showing early signs of dementia. How's that for justice and fairness?

    I don't think every instance of harassment must go through the courts and I have not argued this. In many instances, as I suggested earlier, a trip to HR may be enough. I do believe you are conflating being a jerk with sexual harassment. Women aren't coming out and publicly shaming Conyers for being a jerk. They are claiming he sexually harassed them. Sure. If someone is a jerk, go tell it to social media. We are talking about criminal accusations and/or accusations which caused injury and harm. Let's not equivocate this with calling someone a jerk or jackass. As such, for the accusations we are actually discussing, a courtroom is exactly where these things should be handled. The people being accused aren't being a bit embarrassed. They are losing their careers, their standing in the community, and their families. These are big accusations with big stakes and I don't think 240 characters or a media interview suffices.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  10. #10
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Shouldn't there be a thread on sexual harassment?

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    I don't want to get into the position of blaming women for being harassed. That isn't my argument at all. Bottom line is that there are men (and probably women too) who used their positions to trade for sex for access. Worse than trading, they physically coerced women into sex and other forms of degradation. Again, though, and this goes to my point. These things have two sides and being accused is not the same as being guilty. Furthermore, there are levels to this. And it is a lot harder to properly put someone's behavior into perspective or with context when people are choosing the path of least resistance and leaking information to the media or declaring that someone is guilty via their Twitter account.
    Yea, I'm with you. I think my strongest language is in regards to how it will come back and why. If we are assigning blaim, It is first on our immoral culture for consuming the products that ultimately lead to these situation. While some of the women are some what responsible, there are plenty that are true victims, so I'm not trying to paint them all as causing the situation. Though, there is a line at some point right.. where if you take your cloths off, your consenting to something.


    On a different point.. I watch Franken resign today, and they kept showing the picture of him with his hands on the chest of a sleeping woman. I just didn't feel the outrage on that, she was in battle gear, and it wasn't like he was touching her actual breasts. .. Unless her breasts resembled bullet proof vest plating. I mean, I get that it was disrespectful, but it was clearly done as a joke... I just can't bring myself to put it in the same category as some of these other allegations.
    Also, they paraded around some woman who said he touched the side of her boob while posing for a picture. Indeed he clearly had his arm around her in the picture. It just didn't seem to me to be on the level of sexual harassment or sexual assault.

    Am I just asking for too much here? These examples just don't seem to be ones that one should lose a job over.
    To serve man.

  11. #11
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,060
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Shouldn't there be a thread on sexual harassment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    No one is arguing that items 1 & 2 should be matters of the court. However, if you have behavior which could be actionable in court and you choose to avoid court, and choose to publicly embarrass that person, then you are circumventing the court system. Let's say you are being harassed at work. You would reasonably complain to HR. Should HR fail to conduct a legitimate investigation and/or fail to take action to prevent the behavior from occurring again (which may include firing the accused), then the company is liable for allowing a hostile workplace. Now, the person who was harassed could choose to simply put someone on blast via Twitter and choose to not take the company to court. It is a choice. However, making this choice is a clear circumvention of the justice system since the accused cannot possibly defend themselves properly.
    I think it can only be considered circumventing the court if the consequences are something that it's typically up to the legal system to administer. A primary example, would be for a lynch mob to execute someone accused of a crime instead of letting the court decide whether to administer that kind of punishment. But if the consequences are not something that is typically administered by the court, then it's not circumventing the court for an individual to administer it. An example of that would be a boss firing someone from a private company. It's not up to the court if the person should be fired or not an therefore it is not circumventing the court to fire someone. And the same goes for a private individual accusing another private individual of wrongdoing or people thinking less of the person when they find out about his wrongdoing.

    Likewise even accusing someone of a criminal act, like sexual assault, and having them fired and embarrassed is not circumventing the courts because the punishment, being fired/embarrassed, is not something that the court metes out as punishment.

    Only administering extralegal fining, jailing, or executions (or whatever else a court may proscribe as punishment) qualify as circumventing the courts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If Kevin Spacey is completely innocent or even mostly innocent, shouldn't it matter? How can Spacey, as an example, properly defend himself from an accusation that occurred 20 years ago.
    He can deny the allegations. He can also sue the accuser for slander. So in a case of false accusation, there can be a place for the courts.

    But whether one chooses to accuse another is typically not a matter for the courts nor should it be. Are you suggesting that a person can never say anything negative about another person until after the judge and/or jury has determined whether what the person has to say is true or not?



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Someone acting like a jerk is a far cry from claiming someone conducted criminal conduct. Don't you think? Its one thing calling out a waiter on Twitter for providing bad service. Such a claim is unlikely to have any long-term or meaningful impact on that person's life. It certainly isn't going to follow him from job to job throughout his career. Since you are making the case that people are merely pointing out jerk behavior, wouldn't it be absolutely absurd to call out a waiter for bad service you got 20 years ago?

    These people who were harassed had to make choices. Many/most chose to not take these cases to court. I don't believe it is a good thing that the crimes went unpunished. However, in our justice system, that is how it works. You fail to take your claim to court or press charges, then you don't get to find other ways to ruin their life.

    First off, we are not necessarily talking about crimes. Sexual harassment is not typically an arrestable offense so criminal courts and not typically an option. And if the allegations are true, then I see absolutely nothing wrong about telling other people about them. I mean we agree that those who harass/assault deserve punishment equal to their offenses, right? So if they aren't going to receive punishment in court, then punishment outside of court is the only option and if it comes down to either public punishment or no punishment at all, then, assuming one agrees that the person should be punished, then public punishment is what SHOULD happen.

    Getting punishment for one's offenses is justice. Getting no punishment for one's offenses is not justice. So short of the punishment itself being very unjust (and I see nothing particularly unjust about someone's offenses being publicly exposed), this kind of punishment is just fine.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    In fact, you are saying such a thing. You are saying that if someone acts like a jackass, then even if its too late to litigate, that person should still suffer consequences. Being publicly outed on Twitter and then being the recipient of mob justice isn't natural consequences. Those are man-made consequences. Before you argue that this isn't mob justice, Conyers just agreed to step down amid public pressure. No trial. No presumption of innocence. No ability to face one's accuser. Something fair may not be just. It may be a fair result that Conyers has been taken down. It isn't justice because the process which led to it was not fair. Frankly, without an actual court case we'll never know if the result was fair.
    I have no idea on what basis you are claiming that what happened to Conyers was not fair.

    Nor was he outed on twitter nor did he suffer "mob justice". I heard about what happened to him on the news, not twitter and I doubt twitter is what broke the story or that the story would not have been made public without twitter. And I don't agree with using the term "mob justice" as I consider it being when the mob (as in a group of common folk who typically have no authority to render punishment) administers the punishment. He was not punished by any mob nor has it been proven that he would not have suffered the consequences if the allegations were not made public - his peers might have asked him to resign even if the situation remained relatively private.

    And I see no reason to agree that we need the court to decide this if it is to be considered fair. If he did those things (and it looks like he did), then being exposed and resigning seems perfectly fair to me. I don't see anything about it that's unfair nor do I see why a court needs to be involved for it to be fair.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Once you have publicly humiliated someone, you have no control over the punishment. The entire process is handed over to the public. The public determines the amount of outrage they wish to demonstrate. They call for the action/punishment to be meted out. Franken and Conyers have both been publicly harangued to step down even though they have been accused of different forms of harassment with differences in severity. The accusers have little to no say. Furthermore, both men will be tainted with this for the rest of their lives which happens to be a worse penalty for Franken than Conyers since Franken is relatively young and Conyers is apparently showing early signs of dementia. How's that for justice and fairness?
    It sounds like justice and fairness to me.

    In other words, the punishment they are receiving seems appropriate for their wrongdoing. I say it's justice when the punishment fits the crime.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I don't think every instance of harassment must go through the courts and I have not argued this. In many instances, as I suggested earlier, a trip to HR may be enough. I do believe you are conflating being a jerk with sexual harassment. Women aren't coming out and publicly shaming Conyers for being a jerk. They are claiming he sexually harassed them. Sure. If someone is a jerk, go tell it to social media. We are talking about criminal accusations and/or accusations which caused injury and harm. Let's not equivocate this with calling someone a jerk or jackass. As such, for the accusations we are actually discussing, a courtroom is exactly where these things should be handled.
    You seem to be operating on the notion that from that 1-4 list that I forwarded earlier, we can't choose more than 1 of them and it's an injustice if a person suffers the other three. I see no reason to agree with that. As an example, Brock Turner (rapist) was criminally convicted (although it's generally agreed that his sentence was too light) and he also has publicly exposed and sanctioned. And he will likely be denied some employment opportunities because of his notoriety. So he's suffered 1,2, & 4. And I see absolutely no basis to conclude that he has suffered an injustice because he was punished in ways beyond the legal system (especially since the legal penalty was unjustly lenient). If one deserves the punishment(s) that they receive, then it's justice. The method by which the justice was delivered doesn't really mater much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The people being accused aren't being a bit embarrassed. They are losing their careers, their standing in the community, and their families. These are big accusations with big stakes and I don't think 240 characters or a media interview suffices.
    If their sins are worthy of such a punishment, then it's justice if they lose their careers, standing, and families. The method of delivering the justice doesn't rend it an injustice.

    ---------- Post added at 08:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yea, I'm with you. I think my strongest language is in regards to how it will come back and why. If we are assigning blaim, It is first on our immoral culture for consuming the products that ultimately lead to these situation. While some of the women are some what responsible, there are plenty that are true victims, so I'm not trying to paint them all as causing the situation. Though, there is a line at some point right.. where if you take your cloths off, your consenting to something.
    If you take your clothes off, you are consenting to letting someone see you naked and nothing else. You are in no way consenting to sexual assault or sexual harassment and if someone does assault harass someone, the only person to blame is the harasser/assaulter.

    I hope we all agree on this. What one is wearing (or not wearing) is NEVER a valid excuse for sexual assaulting someone.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    On a different point.. I watch Franken resign today, and they kept showing the picture of him with his hands on the chest of a sleeping woman. I just didn't feel the outrage on that, she was in battle gear, and it wasn't like he was touching her actual breasts. .. Unless her breasts resembled bullet proof vest plating. I mean, I get that it was disrespectful, but it was clearly done as a joke... I just can't bring myself to put it in the same category as some of these other allegations.
    Also, they paraded around some woman who said he touched the side of her boob while posing for a picture. Indeed he clearly had his arm around her in the picture. It just didn't seem to me to be on the level of sexual harassment or sexual assault.

    Am I just asking for too much here? These examples just don't seem to be ones that one should lose a job over.
    Actually, I don't think he was touching her at all in the "breast" picture as you can see the shadows of his hands on her uniform (if one is actually touching, there would be no shadow). So I think he was putting his hands near her and making it look like he was copping a feel. Still disrespectful nonetheless.

    But the point is we (as in you and I and the public in general) don't know the full extent of the allegations. So it's entirely possible that there really was enough bad behavior to warrant his resignation and he decided to resign before it all became public. I'm not saying that that is the case but it could be a valid explanation of what happened.
    Last edited by mican333; December 11th, 2017 at 02:48 PM.

  12. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,250
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Shouldn't there be a thread on sexual harassment?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I think it can only be considered circumventing the court if the consequences are something that it's typically up to the legal system to administer. A primary example, would be for a lynch mob to execute someone accused of a crime instead of letting the court decide whether to administer that kind of punishment. But if the consequences are not something that is typically administered by the court, then it's not circumventing the court for an individual to administer it. An example of that would be a boss firing someone from a private company. It's not up to the court if the person should be fired or not an therefore it is not circumventing the court to fire someone. And the same goes for a private individual accusing another private individual of wrongdoing or people thinking less of the person when they find out about his wrongdoing.

    Likewise even accusing someone of a criminal act, like sexual assault, and having them fired and embarrassed is not circumventing the courts because the punishment, being fired/embarrassed, is not something that the court metes out as punishment.

    Only administering extralegal fining, jailing, or executions (or whatever else a court may proscribe as punishment) qualify as circumventing the courts.
    This does not make sense. If someone accuses someone else of breaking the law, then using anything other than the legal system is a circumvention of the legal process. The punishment is irrelevant. The accusation is what matters. This is what is being prosecuted via social media and public opinion.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    He can deny the allegations. He can also sue the accuser for slander. So in a case of false accusation, there can be a place for the courts.

    But whether one chooses to accuse another is typically not a matter for the courts nor should it be. Are you suggesting that a person can never say anything negative about another person until after the judge and/or jury has determined whether what the person has to say is true or not?
    You are serving up a straw man here. I specifically offered an example where it would be appropriate to say something negative via social media. Furthermore, once the accusation is out and someone has lost their job/career, fat good it does to sue for slander.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, we are not necessarily talking about crimes. Sexual harassment is not typically an arrestable offense so criminal courts and not typically an option. And if the allegations are true, then I see absolutely nothing wrong about telling other people about them. I mean we agree that those who harass/assault deserve punishment equal to their offenses, right? So if they aren't going to receive punishment in court, then punishment outside of court is the only option and if it comes down to either public punishment or no punishment at all, then, assuming one agrees that the person should be punished, then public punishment is what SHOULD happen.

    Getting punishment for one's offenses is justice. Getting no punishment for one's offenses is not justice. So short of the punishment itself being very unjust (and I see nothing particularly unjust about someone's offenses being publicly exposed), this kind of punishment is just fine.
    How do you know what we are necessarily talking about? Accusations of sexual harassment have run the gamut of the mundane (i.e. he said something inappropriate) to the absolutely criminal (i.e. rape). Again, once the allegations have been made public, then there is no control over the punishment or public response. It becomes subject to the emotions of the mob. This is not justice. If they aren't going to receive punishment in court, maybe its because the court determined the person did nothing wrong. A court hears two sides of an argument. The public may choose to ignore one side or the other. Your very position indicates a bias where you assume that the accuser is right.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I have no idea on what basis you are claiming that what happened to Conyers was not fair.

    Nor was he outed on twitter nor did he suffer "mob justice". I heard about what happened to him on the news, not twitter and I doubt twitter is what broke the story or that the story would not have been made public without twitter. And I don't agree with using the term "mob justice" as I consider it being when the mob (as in a group of common folk who typically have no authority to render punishment) administers the punishment. He was not punished by any mob nor has it been proven that he would not have suffered the consequences if the allegations were not made public - his peers might have asked him to resign even if the situation remained relatively private.

    And I see no reason to agree that we need the court to decide this if it is to be considered fair. If he did those things (and it looks like he did), then being exposed and resigning seems perfectly fair to me. I don't see anything about it that's unfair nor do I see why a court needs to be involved for it to be fair.
    If you do not understand my take on Conyers, then you need to reread my argument. I think I was pretty clear. I said, specifically, that what happened to Conyers may be fair, but it isn't justice. I then explained how I arrived at this conclusion. It was the mob who called for Conyers to step down. Hence, mob justice. If you remember, the DNC leadership (i.e. Pelosi and others) tried to defend and insulate Conyers from the accusations with Pelosi saying he was an icon when asked directly if he should step down. So, if the decision to step down was not made by the DNC or Democratic leadership or members of the Congress, but by the common folk, then it is, by your definition, mob justice.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post

    It sounds like justice and fairness to me.

    In other words, the punishment they are receiving seems appropriate for their wrongdoing. I say it's justice when the punishment fits the crime.
    That's awesome. You are now judge and jury. Justice??? Not so much.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You seem to be operating on the notion that from that 1-4 list that I forwarded earlier, we can't choose more than 1 of them and it's an injustice if a person suffers the other three. I see no reason to agree with that. As an example, Brock Turner (rapist) was criminally convicted (although it's generally agreed that his sentence was too light) and he also has publicly exposed and sanctioned. And he will likely be denied some employment opportunities because of his notoriety. So he's suffered 1,2, & 4. And I see absolutely no basis to conclude that he has suffered an injustice because he was punished in ways beyond the legal system (especially since the legal penalty was unjustly lenient). If one deserves the punishment(s) that they receive, then it's justice. The method by which the justice was delivered doesn't really mater much.
    [QUOTE=mican333;556844]
    You mean, private citizens may decide not to hire a convicted rapist? Convicted. In a court where Brock had the luxury of providing a defense against his accuser. That he may live with the consequences of his conviction after prison seems both fair and just. Would you consider it fair and just, however, if the court had found him not guilty? Would you believe it fair if, despite being found not guilty, he found jobs hard to acquire and was run out of town by folks who didn't want to live next to someone merely accused of rape?


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If their sins are worthy of such a punishment, then it's justice if they lose their careers, standing, and families. The method of delivering the justice doesn't rend it an injustice.

    Again, hail to the new judge and jury. Why do we even need a court system? Hell, let's just litigate everything via public opinion. Evidence? Facing one's accuser? Right to direct cross examination? Right to see the evidence? Screw it. That is so 20th century. Long live the King. Long live Twitter.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  13. #13
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,060
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Shouldn't there be a thread on sexual harassment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    This does not make sense. If someone accuses someone else of breaking the law, then using anything other than the legal system is a circumvention of
    the legal process.
    Only if they are giving the kind of punishment reserved for the legal system. Just saying that someone broke the law is not rendering punishment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The punishment is irrelevant.
    When it comes to the legal process, giving the appropriate punishment for the alleged crime is the whole point of the justice system.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The accusation is what matters. This is what is being prosecuted via social media and public opinion.
    It's not prosecution in any legal sense. Really, using legal terms to describe extralegal actions is engaging in equivocation.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You are serving up a straw man here. I specifically offered an example where it would be appropriate to say something negative via social media. Furthermore, once the accusation is out and someone has lost their job/career, fat good it does to sue for slander.
    If the slander suit is successful, it can do a lot of good. For one, it lets the public know that the accusations are false, thus restoring one's reputation to some extent. If it is understood that the accusations are false, it will make future employment easier. And if there are significant monetary damages given, there will be a financial benefit which might more than make up for whatever problems one might have in finding employment.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    How do you know what we are necessarily talking about? Accusations of sexual harassment have run the gamut of the mundane (i.e. he said something inappropriate) to the absolutely criminal (i.e. rape). Again, once the allegations have been made public, then there is no control over the punishment or public response. It becomes subject to the emotions of the mob. This is not justice.
    When it comes to receiving punishment, a good definition is that the punishment is appropriate for the crime. And I get the impression that you are think that the justice system is the only appropriate place to mete out punishment. Whether that is your position or not, it is not correct. As an example, a parent grounding a child for picking on his sister is justice (as in the punishment was appropriate for the offense) and the fact that the court was not involved did not effect that. Likewise if a person commits sexual harassment and suffers embarrassment from the general public finding out, then that is justice (assuming one agrees that the embarrassment is a fitting consequence for the offense). So what you are describing could very well qualify as justice (again, assuming one agrees that public embarrassment is a suitable consequence).



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If they aren't going to receive punishment in court, maybe its because the court determined the person did nothing wrong.
    But it's much, much more likely that they aren't going to receive punishment in court because the court will never offer a ruling on the situation. As you said, the situation could range from mundane to criminal and in the case of what seems to be the worst of the recently accused, most of Harvey Weinstein's accusations weren't at the level of criminal. I recently read Salma Hayak's article on how Weinstein treated her and none of it rose to the level of criminality but it was generally pretty bad. So her accusations will never make it to court because it's not something for the court to rule on.

    And more to the point, assuming that her stories are true, there is nothing wrong with her sharing them with the public. Again, it's nothing for the courts to handle so this is in no way "circumventing the court". If we take the rather odd position, that the only appropriate place to accuse someone of doing something wrong is in a court of law, then by that logic Salma should never ever tell anyone about what Weinstein did.

    But that's ridiculous IMO. There's nothing wrong with someone who was wronged by someone else telling whoever might listen about what happened. If some guy hit on your wife in front of you, I see nothing wrong with you telling other people about what a jerk he was being. Or would you not tell anyone about this guy unless it was in a court of law?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If you do not understand my take on Conyers, then you need to reread my argument. I think I was pretty clear. I said, specifically, that what happened to Conyers may be fair, but it isn't justice.
    If it's fair, I fail to see how it's not justice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I then explained how I arrived at this conclusion. It was the mob who called for Conyers to step down. Hence, mob justice. If you remember, the DNC leadership (i.e. Pelosi and others) tried to defend and insulate Conyers from the accusations with Pelosi saying he was an icon when asked directly if he should step down. So, if the decision to step down was not made by the DNC or Democratic leadership or members of the Congress, but by the common folk, then it is, by your definition, mob justice.
    By definition of mob justice, it is NOT mob justice. Mob justice is when the mob exacts violent retribution on someone who is accused of a crime instead of letting the justice system mete out the punishment, such as a lynching.

    Conyers didn't even suffer any legal consequences, let alone suffer punishment at the hands of the mob.

    And if you want to expand the definition of mob justice to include mere public opinion having a significant influence on whether someone steps down from office, then "mob justice" is not particularly troubling and therefore who cares if it qualifies as "mob justice".


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    That's awesome. You are now judge and jury. Justice??? Not so much.
    Holy Hyperbole, Batman! One does not need to be "judge and jury" to offer their opinion on what is or is not justice on an ODN thread. In fact, you just said it's not justice so I guess you are being the judge and making an official ruling for everyone to abide by. All hail Judge Ibelsd!

    So getting back to being somewhat serious, they both seem to be suffering the appropriate consequences for their wrong doing. That's my opinion anyway. So going by the truism that the punishment should fit the crime, in my opinion they are receiving justice. Heck, you yourself said that what happened to Conyers was fair. That means that it's justice - just not justice that is delivered by a judge and jury (which wouldn't be the ones to mete out that kind of punishment anyway).




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You mean, private citizens may decide not to hire a convicted rapist? Convicted. In a court where Brock had the luxury of providing a defense against his accuser. That he may live with the consequences of his conviction after prison seems both fair and just. Would you consider it fair and just, however, if the court had found him not guilty? Would you believe it fair if, despite being found not guilty, he found jobs hard to acquire and was run out of town by folks who didn't want to live next to someone merely accused of rape?
    It depends if he committed rape or not. If he committed rape, but was found not guilty in spite of that (and being found not guilty does not mean that one is innocent, just that a certain legal burden of evidence was not provided in court), and then suffered other punishments, then I would have no problem since he's suffering some consequence for the crime he committed.

    If he did not commit rape but was accused of it and despite the not guilty verdict he still suffered negative consequences, then that is definitely unjust and I would hope that his accuser faces some form of punishment.

    But obviously, false accusations are wrong so let's not factor this into the debate. If someone is accused of doing something that they actually did, I don't see a reason to be too upset with the extra-legal consequences that they might suffer (like Brock is suffering beyond his brief incarceration)


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Again, hail to the new judge and jury. Why do we even need a court system? Hell, let's just litigate everything via public opinion. Evidence? Facing one's accuser? Right to direct cross examination? Right to see the evidence? Screw it. That is so 20th century. Long live the King. Long live Twitter.
    Since your response is just a bunch of ridiculous hyperbole (no reasonable reading of my argument would figure that it says that we should not have a legal system) that in no way offers a valid rebuttal to my argument, I'll just repeat it. If you have an actual rebuttal, present it. If not, then it stands.

    If their sins are worthy of such a punishment, then it's justice if they lose their careers, standing, and families. The method of delivering the justice doesn't render it an injustice.
    Last edited by mican333; January 3rd, 2018 at 06:51 AM.

  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,250
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Shouldn't there be a thread on sexual harassment?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Only if they are giving the kind of punishment reserved for the legal system. Just saying that someone broke the law is not rendering punishment.
    Exactly under what justification are you making this claim? We cannot say someone broke the law without the court finding as such. To do otherwise breaches the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty. Someone can be found guilty of a crime and serve no punishment whatsoever. Per your logic, not being punished must be reserved for the legal system.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    When it comes to the legal process, giving the appropriate punishment for the alleged crime is the whole point of the justice system.
    Really? And to think I thought it was about determining guilt in a fair/just manner. Your entire argument puts the cart before the horse. There is no punishment if no crime occurred. Whether a crime occurred is the first prong of our justice system. Punishment only occurs if guilt is determined. However, in your mind, the court is not needed to determine guilt, only to mete out punishment. This is, of course, absurd on its face.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's not prosecution in any legal sense. Really, using legal terms to describe extralegal actions is engaging in equivocation.
    I concur that social media should not be used to prosecute and yet, that is how it is being used. The judge and jury are certainly not official members of our legal system. However, they have been given the power to assign guilt and consequences.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If the slander suit is successful, it can do a lot of good. For one, it lets the public know that the accusations are false, thus restoring one's reputation to some extent. If it is understood that the accusations are false, it will make future employment easier. And if there are significant monetary damages given, there will be a financial benefit which might more than make up for whatever problems one might have in finding employment.
    It lets the public know assuming that it is broadcast with as much fervor as the original accusation. While #metoo is all over the place, I am not exactly seeing #oops or #innocent getting the same traction. Really, this turns the entire innocent until proven guilty on its head. We are going to accept that the accusation is true (i.e. the accused is guilty) unless he sues in court and wins.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    When it comes to receiving punishment, a good definition is that the punishment is appropriate for the crime. And I get the impression that you are think that the justice system is the only appropriate place to mete out punishment. Whether that is your position or not, it is not correct. As an example, a parent grounding a child for picking on his sister is justice (as in the punishment was appropriate for the offense) and the fact that the court was not involved did not effect that. Likewise if a person commits sexual harassment and suffers embarrassment from the general public finding out, then that is justice (assuming one agrees that the embarrassment is a fitting consequence for the offense). So what you are describing could very well qualify as justice (again, assuming one agrees that public embarrassment is a suitable consequence).
    For a crime? Yes. The justice system is the only appropriate place to mete out punishment. When punishment is handled outside a courtroom without a formal finding of guilt, then it is nothing more than vigilantism. Much like prosecution is a legal term, so is justice. Parents do not impose justice when the punish their children. However, parents may instill a view of fairness in their children by imposing proper punishments.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But it's much, much more likely that they aren't going to receive punishment in court because the court will never offer a ruling on the situation. As you said, the situation could range from mundane to criminal and in the case of what seems to be the worst of the recently accused, most of Harvey Weinstein's accusations weren't at the level of criminal. I recently read Salma Hayak's article on how Weinstein treated her and none of it rose to the level of criminality but it was generally pretty bad. So her accusations will never make it to court because it's not something for the court to rule on.

    And more to the point, assuming that her stories are true, there is nothing wrong with her sharing them with the public. Again, it's nothing for the courts to handle so this is in no way "circumventing the court". If we take the rather odd position, that the only appropriate place to accuse someone of doing something wrong is in a court of law, then by that logic Salma should never ever tell anyone about what Weinstein did.

    But that's ridiculous IMO. There's nothing wrong with someone who was wronged by someone else telling whoever might listen about what happened. If some guy hit on your wife in front of you, I see nothing wrong with you telling other people about what a jerk he was being. Or would you not tell anyone about this guy unless it was in a court of law?
    Assuming... that is the foundation of your entire argument. We should assume the accusations are true and, therefore, all that follows from them is righteous and just. We should assume nothing. Assuming is not the cornerstone of our justice system.

    Furthermore, you are constructing a straw man. I clearly indicated that publicly making a claim about someone is ok. I used bad service at a restaurant as an example. So, sure, if my accusation is that someone is being a jerk. Fine. No problem. Sexual assault, battery, and rape or actual crimes. I am pretty sure Weinstein has been accused of all of these via social media and the news. These should be settled in a courtroom.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If it's fair, I fail to see how it's not justice.
    I offered an explanation. I will continue as you have not rebutted this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    By definition of mob justice, it is NOT mob justice. Mob justice is when the mob exacts violent retribution on someone who is accused of a crime instead of letting the justice system mete out the punishment, such as a lynching.

    Conyers didn't even suffer any legal consequences, let alone suffer punishment at the hands of the mob.

    And if you want to expand the definition of mob justice to include mere public opinion having a significant influence on whether someone steps down from office, then "mob justice" is not particularly troubling and therefore who cares if it qualifies as "mob justice".
    Violence is not the only outcome of mob justice. Anytime we allow the majority to impose punishment, we are adhering to mob justice. Conyers was run out of his job. The Democrat leadership and the DNC tried to insulate him from the accusations. However, the majority (i.e. the mob) demanded that he step down.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Holy Hyperbole, Batman! One does not need to be "judge and jury" to offer their opinion on what is or is not justice on an ODN thread. In fact, you just said it's not justice so I guess you are being the judge and making an official ruling for everyone to abide by. All hail Judge Ibelsd!

    So getting back to being somewhat serious, they both seem to be suffering the appropriate consequences for their wrong doing. That's my opinion anyway. So going by the truism that the punishment should fit the crime, in my opinion they are receiving justice. Heck, you yourself said that what happened to Conyers was fair. That means that it's justice - just not justice that is delivered by a judge and jury (which wouldn't be the ones to mete out that kind of punishment anyway).
    Hyperbole? You have decided who is innocent and whose stories we should assume are true. You have indicated that you believe the punishments from the accusations are fair. You have decided a court room isn't required. I don't think I'm using hyperbole at all.

    Again, something can be fair and not just.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post

    It depends if he committed rape or not. If he committed rape, but was found not guilty in spite of that (and being found not guilty does not mean that one is innocent, just that a certain legal burden of evidence was not provided in court), and then suffered other punishments, then I would have no problem since he's suffering some consequence for the crime he committed.

    If he did not commit rape but was accused of it and despite the not guilty verdict he still suffered negative consequences, then that is definitely unjust and I would hope that his accuser faces some form of punishment.

    But obviously, false accusations are wrong so let's not factor this into the debate. If someone is accused of doing something that they actually did, I don't see a reason to be too upset with the extra-legal consequences that they might suffer (like Brock is suffering beyond his brief incarceration)
    The system we, as Americans, have decided to use in order to determine guilt and innocence is the court. You walk into court innocent. If you are found "not guilty" then you are still innocent. So, if someone is found not guilty, but the majority (i.e. mob) decides to impose punishment anyhow, then justice has not been properly served. I am not claiming that the courts are infallible. However, that is the system we have agreed upon.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Since your response is just a bunch of ridiculous hyperbole (no reasonable reading of my argument would figure that it says that we should not have a legal system) that in no way offers a valid rebuttal to my argument, I'll just repeat it. If you have an actual rebuttal, present it. If not, then it stands.

    If their sins are worthy of such a punishment, then it's justice if they lose their careers, standing, and families. The method of delivering the justice doesn't render it an injustice.
    [/QUOTE]
    I think it is very reasonable to question what purpose the justice system serves under your belief system. If you believe we do not need a justice system to determine guilt, injury, and punishment, then what purpose does it serve? You have very clearly stated it is ok to punish someone who was found not guilty if he actually committed the crime. You have also argued that it is ok for the majority to assign guilt and punishment outside of the courtroom. When is it not ok for the majority to punish someone? Obviously, you'd say when he didn't actually commit a crime (or non-criminal heinous act). However, you have seemingly left it in the majority's hands to determine guilt and innocence. And who exactly checks the majority when they are wrong or rashly impose a punishment on an innocent person? Is there an appeals process for the majority? No. I'm afraid not. This is just democratic populism masked as some sort of common sense under the guise of justice. However, it is neither common sense nor justice.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  15. #15
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,060
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Shouldn't there be a thread on sexual harassment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Exactly under what justification are you making this claim? We cannot say someone broke the law without the court finding as such. To do otherwise breaches the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty. Someone can be found guilty of a crime and serve no punishment whatsoever. Per your logic, not being punished must be reserved for the legal system.
    So i can't say you, Ibelsd, committed murder? But I can say that. Hey everyone, Ibelsd committed murder! (Obviously I'm saying that only as a debate example and do not forward that, you, Ibelsd, actually committed murder).

    My claim in no way subjects you to any kind of legal punishment. You did not go to jail or even receive a fine because of my claim and you wouldn't even if I was sincere. And even if people believed me and started avoiding you and it harmed your employment prospects, you still aren't being subjected to legal punishment such as jail time. Obviously it would be unfair and wrong for my false claim actually caused you harm but it's still not a legally-applied punishment and therefore my accusation would not qualify as circumventing the legal system.

    You seem to continuously conflating two thing:
    1. Legal punishment - The kind of punishment that a court will give upon conviction of a crime
    2. Extralegal punishment - the kind of punishment that a person might receive outside of a court of law - the kind of punishment that the "public" or as you put it "mob" might give.

    And since the difference between these two things is very relevant to the debate, I will be separating them and not using one word for both of them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Really? And to think I thought it was about determining guilt in a fair/just manner. Your entire argument puts the cart before the horse. There is no punishment if no crime occurred. Whether a crime occurred is the first prong of our justice system. Punishment only occurs if guilt is determined. However, in your mind, the court is not needed to determine guilt, only to mete out punishment. This is, of course, absurd on its face.
    Your assessment of my position is absurd on its face. This argument will be ignored for the straw man that it is.

    Rendering an appropriate punishment CLEARLY INVOLVES assessing the guilt/punishment of the accused in a fair manner so in no way did I argue that the court should not be part of the process


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I concur that social media should not be used to prosecute and yet, that is how it is being used. The judge and jury are certainly not official members of our legal system. However, they have been given the power to assign guilt and consequences.
    But then have not been give the power to render legal punishment nor have they been doing so via social media.

    But I see nothing wrong with the people giving a form of extralegal punishment to those who are deserving of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    It lets the public know assuming that it is broadcast with as much fervor as the original accusation. While #metoo is all over the place, I am not exactly seeing #oops or #innocent getting the same traction. Really, this turns the entire innocent until proven guilty on its head. We are going to accept that the accusation is true (i.e. the accused is guilty) unless he sues in court and wins.
    That's not necessarily true. A lot of people didn't think Roy Moore was guilty despite numerous credible accusations.

    And "innocent until proven guilty" is part of the legal system which is not part of the public accusations.

    And yes, it completely sucks if someone who didn't do anything gets publicly accused of something for he suffers even if he did nothing wrong. But that in no way supports the notion that those who actually did something wrong should not be publicly accused of it. Are you arguing that all of the Harvey Weinsteen's accusers should have kept quiet if what they suffered didn't rise to the level of an arrestable offense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    For a crime? Yes. The justice system is the only appropriate place to mete out punishment. When punishment is handled outside a courtroom without a formal finding of guilt, then it is nothing more than vigilantism.
    Appropriate extralegal punishment can, and should, be meted outside of the court room. A parent punishing his child would qualify as extralegal punishment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Much like prosecution is a legal term, so is justice. Parents do not impose justice when the punish their children. However, parents may instill a view of fairness in their children by imposing proper punishments.
    Justice regarding punishment is that the punishment is fitting for the offense. A parent giving a child the appropriate punishment for the child's wrongdoing is justice regardless of the motivation.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Assuming... that is the foundation of your entire argument. We should assume the accusations are true and, therefore, all that follows from them is righteous and just.
    I think you need to stop telling me what my argument is You are continuously getting it wrong when you do that. I never once argued that any accusation should be considered to be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Furthermore, you are constructing a straw man. I clearly indicated that publicly making a claim about someone is ok. I used bad service at a restaurant as an example. So, sure, if my accusation is that someone is being a jerk. Fine. No problem. Sexual assault, battery, and rape or actual crimes. I am pretty sure Weinstein has been accused of all of these via social media and the news. These should be settled in a courtroom.
    Whether he should be sent to jail for criminal offenses is what should be settled in the courtroom.

    But what about the accusations of mere sexual harassment that doesn't rise to the level of criminality? That's not something that the courts will hear.

    Should those that he sexually harassed but didn't commit any criminal offenses against speak out? Or should they keep their mouth shut? And if they keep their mouth shut, then how is Harvey going to receive any kind of punishment for his wrongdoings agains those people?



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I offered an explanation. I will continue as you have not rebutted this point.
    Then I will offer a rebuttal. Justice is a punishment fitting the crime which would also be known as a fair punishment. Therefore if the punishment is fair, then justice is served.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Violence is not the only outcome of mob justice. Anytime we allow the majority to impose punishment, we are adhering to mob justice.
    Not by any definition of mob justice that I've seen. So support or retract this claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Hyperbole? You have decided who is innocent and whose stories we should assume are true. You have indicated that you believe the punishments from the accusations are fair. You have decided a court room isn't required. I don't think I'm using hyperbole at all.
    I never argued that a courtroom is not required for the proper administration of legal justice. And I'm merely offering my own opinion and made no effort to impose it on anyone else. That's a far, far cry actually being a judge and jury. Calling someone judge and jury for stating their own personal opinion is indeed hyperbole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Again, something can be fair and not just.
    Support or retract this assertion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The system we, as Americans, have decided to use in order to determine guilt and innocence is the court. You walk into court innocent. If you are found "not guilty" then you are still innocent. So, if someone is found not guilty, but the majority (i.e. mob) decides to impose punishment anyhow, then justice has not been properly served. I am not claiming that the courts are infallible. However, that is the system we have agreed upon.
    We agreed upon the courts to give legal punishment. You have not shown that the mob is giving anyone the kind of legal punishment that they receive upon conviction in a court of law.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I think it is very reasonable to question what purpose the justice system serves under your belief system.
    Which of course requires you to accurately state my belief system. If you think that I'm advocating giving someone legal punishment without a court trial, you are not addressing my beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If you believe we do not need a justice system to determine guilt, injury, and punishment, then what purpose does it serve? You have very clearly stated it is ok to punish someone who was found not guilty if he actually committed the crime.
    It's fine with me if such a person receive extralegal punishment but I fully believe that they should not receive legal punishment if found not guilty in a court of law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You have also argued that it is ok for the majority to assign guilt and punishment outside of the courtroom.
    no I didn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    When is it not ok for the majority to punish someone?
    It is never okay for the people to render legal punishment without a trial or when the person has committed no offense worthy of punishment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Obviously, you'd say when he didn't actually commit a crime (or non-criminal heinous act). However, you have seemingly left it in the majority's hands to determine guilt and innocence.
    Obviously, not in any legal sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    And who exactly checks the majority when they are wrong or rashly impose a punishment on an innocent person? Is there an appeals process for the majority? No. I'm afraid not. This is just democratic populism masked as some sort of common sense under the guise of justice. However, it is neither common sense nor justice.
    It's justice if the punishment fits the crime and it's injustice when it doesn't.

    And I'm not even excusing the public. I didn't say the public should or should not do anything in particular. But I am saying that if a person gets harassed, they should speak out about it. What the public might do in reaction to learning of the allegation doesn't really change that.

    If someone is harassed in a non-criminal fashion, they can speak out or shut up. I'm not saying that doing either will render perfect justice but speaking up is generally the better option. This whole "trial by mob" was introduced into the debate by YOU. I agree that if the accused is a public figure, the people will be involved and we can observe what happens but I never said they should do anything in particular. I can observe what has happened and say whether I'm fine with it or not and generally, I don't see too much that's worrying.
    Last edited by mican333; January 8th, 2018 at 05:51 PM.

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,250
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Shouldn't there be a thread on sexual harassment?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So i can't say you, Ibelsd, committed murder? But I can say that. Hey everyone, Ibelsd committed murder! (Obviously I'm saying that only as a debate example and do not forward that, you, Ibelsd, actually committed murder).

    My claim in no way subjects you to any kind of legal punishment. You did not go to jail or even receive a fine because of my claim and you wouldn't even if I was sincere. And even if people believed me and started avoiding you and it harmed your employment prospects, you still aren't being subjected to legal punishment such as jail time. Obviously it would be unfair and wrong for my false claim actually caused you harm but it's still not a legally-applied punishment and therefore my accusation would not qualify as circumventing the legal system.

    You seem to continuously conflating two thing:
    1. Legal punishment - The kind of punishment that a court will give upon conviction of a crime
    2. Extralegal punishment - the kind of punishment that a person might receive outside of a court of law - the kind of punishment that the "public" or as you put it "mob" might give.

    And since the difference between these two things is very relevant to the debate, I will be separating them and not using one word for both of them.




    Your assessment of my position is absurd on its face. This argument will be ignored for the straw man that it is.

    Rendering an appropriate punishment CLEARLY INVOLVES assessing the guilt/punishment of the accused in a fair manner so in no way did I argue that the court should not be part of the process




    But then have not been give the power to render legal punishment nor have they been doing so via social media.

    But I see nothing wrong with the people giving a form of extralegal punishment to those who are deserving of it.



    That's not necessarily true. A lot of people didn't think Roy Moore was guilty despite numerous credible accusations.

    And "innocent until proven guilty" is part of the legal system which is not part of the public accusations.

    And yes, it completely sucks if someone who didn't do anything gets publicly accused of something for he suffers even if he did nothing wrong. But that in no way supports the notion that those who actually did something wrong should not be publicly accused of it. Are you arguing that all of the Harvey Weinsteen's accusers should have kept quiet if what they suffered didn't rise to the level of an arrestable offense?



    Appropriate extralegal punishment can, and should, be meted outside of the court room. A parent punishing his child would qualify as extralegal punishment.



    Justice regarding punishment is that the punishment is fitting for the offense. A parent giving a child the appropriate punishment for the child's wrongdoing is justice regardless of the motivation.






    I think you need to stop telling me what my argument is You are continuously getting it wrong when you do that. I never once argued that any accusation should be considered to be true.



    Whether he should be sent to jail for criminal offenses is what should be settled in the courtroom.

    But what about the accusations of mere sexual harassment that doesn't rise to the level of criminality? That's not something that the courts will hear.

    Should those that he sexually harassed but didn't commit any criminal offenses against speak out? Or should they keep their mouth shut? And if they keep their mouth shut, then how is Harvey going to receive any kind of punishment for his wrongdoings agains those people?





    Then I will offer a rebuttal. Justice is a punishment fitting the crime which would also be known as a fair punishment. Therefore if the punishment is fair, then justice is served.





    Not by any definition of mob justice that I've seen. So support or retract this claim.




    I never argued that a courtroom is not required for the proper administration of legal justice. And I'm merely offering my own opinion and made no effort to impose it on anyone else. That's a far, far cry actually being a judge and jury. Calling someone judge and jury for stating their own personal opinion is indeed hyperbole.



    Support or retract this assertion.




    We agreed upon the courts to give legal punishment. You have not shown that the mob is giving anyone the kind of legal punishment that they receive upon conviction in a court of law.




    Which of course requires you to accurately state my belief system. If you think that I'm advocating giving someone legal punishment without a court trial, you are not addressing my beliefs.



    It's fine with me if such a person receive extralegal punishment but I fully believe that they should not receive legal punishment if found not guilty in a court of law.



    no I didn't.



    It is never okay for the people to render legal punishment without a trial or when the person has committed no offense worthy of punishment.



    Obviously, not in any legal sense.



    It's justice if the punishment fits the crime and it's injustice when it doesn't.

    And I'm not even excusing the public. I didn't say the public should or should not do anything in particular. But I am saying that if a person gets harassed, they should speak out about it. What the public might do in reaction to learning of the allegation doesn't really change that.

    If someone is harassed in a non-criminal fashion, they can speak out or shut up. I'm not saying that doing either will render perfect justice but speaking up is generally the better option. This whole "trial by mob" was introduced into the debate by YOU. I agree that if the accused is a public figure, the people will be involved and we can observe what happens but I never said they should do anything in particular. I can observe what has happened and say whether I'm fine with it or not and generally, I don't see too much that's worrying.
    First, let's be clear, I have never argued that someone cannot do something. I have argued that certain people should not do something. Where people are making legal claims via social media or through the press, I am arguing that it is both inappropriate and damaging to the general cause. You have focused on the public's inability to exact a legal punishment. However, this is separate from the concept of guilt and innocence, itself. Furthermore, you have not even addressed how conflating legal claims and general claims of inappropriate behavior cause the entire movement to be second-guessed. We have already seem some backlash as the #metoo movement has been called a witch hunt. Since there are no rules as to who may be outed and under what circumstances, the latest accused is Aziz Ansari who may be guilty of nothing more than bad manners. And this would be fine if the hash tag wasn't also associated with actual sexual criminals. So, now, are we saying Ansari's behavior rises to the level of a crime or is rape demoted to bad manners? If you are going to claim neither (which certainly will), then what is the meaning of #metoo in the first place? And we see that it simply loses meaning altogether. It will die out with a whimper as we see it is currently doing (as I predicted when I started this thread). Let me requote myself:

    "Here is my prediction. Just as women can gain public sympathy, they can also gain public scorn. It will take just a few cases where women have been found to have made false allegations or exaggerations to bring this whole thing crashing down and put women right back where they were before. However, if things are handled through the courts, then it won't matter. Crimes should be punished on a case by case basis in a courtroom and the lack of public overreaction will provide less reason for an overcorrection later."

    And let me now quote an opinion piece I read over the weekend:
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...-movement.html
    "The Ansari case could well mark the unofficial end of the #MeToo movement. Other than his celebrity, it doesn’t fit with the other accusations."

    And this was my claim from the beginning. So, for all your attempts to parse definitions of crime and punishment your rebuttal is largely a straw man. As I noted before, we already have a legal system to handle cases of rape and sexual assault. We don't need a hashtag as well. There is no reason Ansari should have his date litigated in the public square and be compared to serial rapists and other types of sexual deviants. However, such an event was predictable. Hell, I predicted it. The end result is just as predictable. The status quo will continue.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  17. #17
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,060
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Shouldn't there be a thread on sexual harassment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    First, let's be clear, I have never argued that someone cannot do something. I have argued that certain people should not do something. Where people are making legal claims via social media or through the press, I am arguing that it is both inappropriate and damaging to the general cause.
    And I believe I have rebutted all arguments concerning this. You are now just repeating your original argument as opposed to countering my most recent rebuttals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You have focused on the public's inability to exact a legal punishment. However, this is separate from the concept of guilt and innocence, itself.
    And I said otherwise?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Furthermore, you have not even addressed how conflating legal claims and general claims of inappropriate behavior cause the entire movement to be second-guessed. We have already seem some backlash as the #metoo movement has been called a witch hunt.
    So what? I've read comments on Facebook regarding some of the harassment claims and some of them engage in out-right victim blaming. I'm not trying to paint all of the backlash as victim blaming but just because someone is against a current movement does not mean that they are right.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Since there are no rules as to who may be outed and under what circumstances, the latest accused is Aziz Ansari who may be guilty of nothing more than bad manners.And this would be fine if the hash tag wasn't also associated with actual sexual criminals. So, now, are we saying Ansari's behavior rises to the level of a crime or is rape demoted to bad manners? If you are going to claim neither (which certainly will), then what is the meaning of #metoo in the first place? And we see that it simply loses meaning altogether.
    There is no boss of the MeToo movement who decides what event can and cannot have the hashtag applied. But IN GENERAL it is reserved for sexual assault and sexual harassment.

    But if you wanted to, you could likewise assign it to something completely off-topic, like a sports event and there is no boss to stop you. But that doesn't significantly detract from the true purpose of MeToo.

    And I'm unaware of the Ansari situation being part of the MeToo. I mean did whoever wrote the story apply the hashtag herself? And if she did, then the story does not if the typical MeToo story and perhaps dilutes it SLIGHTLY. Any notion that this slightly off-topic story getting the hashtag removes all meaning and purpose to MeToo sound ridiculous on its face and therefore I reject the notion short of some serious support.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    It will die out with a whimper as we see it is currently doing (as I predicted when I started this thread). Let me requote myself:

    "Here is my prediction. Just as women can gain public sympathy, they can also gain public scorn. It will take just a few cases where women have been found to have made false allegations or exaggerations to bring this whole thing crashing down and put women right back where they were before. However, if things are handled through the courts, then it won't matter. Crimes should be punished on a case by case basis in a courtroom and the lack of public overreaction will provide less reason for an overcorrection later."


    And like I said, most of the public harassment accusations are not a criminal matter and therefore not a matter of the courts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    And let me now quote an opinion piece I read over the weekend:
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...-movement.html
    "The Ansari case could well mark the unofficial end of the #MeToo movement. Other than his celebrity, it doesn’t fit with the other accusations."
    And I've addressed the flawed reasoning of that editorial above.

    Again, ONE off-topic use of MeToo does not sink the whole thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    And this was my claim from the beginning. So, for all your attempts to parse definitions of crime and punishment your rebuttal is largely a straw man.
    No it's not. You have apparently argued that all of these matters should be handled by the courts so it's perfectly valid to rebut that most of the allegations are not a matter for the courts to handle.

    Either they are addressed outside of the court or they are not addressed at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    As I noted before, we already have a legal system to handle cases of rape and sexual assault. We don't need a hashtag as well. There is no reason Ansari should have his date litigated in the public square and be compared to serial rapists and other types of sexual deviants.
    I am unaware of such a comparison on a large scale (one can always allow for a small minority of extremists saying something extreme).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    However, such an event was predictable. Hell, I predicted it. The end result is just as predictable. The status quo will continue.
    No, the status quo will not continue. A change has occurred and any prediction that we will reverse course and go back to how it was before is completely unsupported and runs contrary to evidence. I agree that the MeToo movement will die out because the conditions that warranted the movement will change. But the change wrought will be pretty much permanent and we won't go back to as it was prior to MeToo.

    Because of MeToo (the concept more than the hashtag) women will from now on be much more likely to report sexual harassment when it happens and therefore one of the effects is that would-be harassers will just not harass since they figure they are likely to be outed if they do and those that do harass will be more likely to lose their job and lose it quickly than in the past. I'm not saying that harassment will completely disappear but it will decrease and the decrease will be a permanent one.

    And while many of the exposures of men like Weinstein and Rose were made public, the accusations were not primarily public but something that happened within the organizations that they belonged to. I'll focus on Rose. The women he harassed went to the bosses of the company, the bosses found the claims credible and fired Rose. THEN the media learned of what happened and reported it. So while in the case of famous men, it does become a publicized issue, it is not something that is "litigated" in the public. The public did not make some kind of ruling. We just heard about it.

    But no, we are not going back to the status quo of before. We will have a new status quo where sexual harassment in the workplace will be much less common. And this is thanks, in part, to the MeToo movement.
    Last edited by mican333; January 16th, 2018 at 04:26 PM.

  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,250
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Shouldn't there be a thread on sexual harassment?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I believe I have rebutted all arguments concerning this. You are now just repeating your original argument as opposed to countering my most recent rebuttals.
    You appeared to be moving the goal posts a bit.

    For example:
    So i can't say you, Ibelsd, committed murder? But I can say that.

    Implying that I am drawing a line of what someone can or cannot say. So long as we are clear, then I'll leave it alone.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I said otherwise?
    You argument has focused entirely on outcome.

    My claim in no way subjects you to any kind of legal punishment.

    So, yes. You have said otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So what? I've read comments on Facebook regarding some of the harassment claims and some of them engage in out-right victim blaming. I'm not trying to paint all of the backlash as victim blaming but just because someone is against a current movement does not mean that they are right.
    There is a difference between someone's idle post on Facebook and a syndicated columnist on a major news website. I'm not just quoting a random person off the street. The difference? No one is quoting the random post on Facebook and devoting airtime to it. However, the article I referenced is being discussed on cable news.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    There is no boss of the MeToo movement who decides what event can and cannot have the hashtag applied. But IN GENERAL it is reserved for sexual assault and sexual harassment.
    Reserved by whom? You cannot claim something is decentralized and lack authority and then claim it is somehow being reserved for a specific purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But if you wanted to, you could likewise assign it to something completely off-topic, like a sports event and there is no boss to stop you. But that doesn't significantly detract from the true purpose of MeToo.
    This bordering on a straw man since I am not claiming #metoo is being radically subverted. I am claiming that its lack of direction (not having an authority) and its lack of a specific definition renders it ripe for misuse and maliciousness.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I'm unaware of the Ansari situation being part of the MeToo. I mean did whoever wrote the story apply the hashtag herself? And if she did, then the story does not if the typical MeToo story and perhaps dilutes it SLIGHTLY. Any notion that this slightly off-topic story getting the hashtag removes all meaning and purpose to MeToo sound ridiculous on its face and therefore I reject the notion short of some serious support.
    It is a single story and does dilute it. And it is just one example. It isn't the only example. Reject whatever you want. Saying uh-uh does not make it so.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And like I said, most of the public harassment accusations are not a criminal matter and therefore not a matter of the courts.
    1) Can you support this claim?
    2) Whether claims are 50/50 or 60/40 isn't really the issue. The issue is that the two (criminal and non-criminal) are being conflated under a single banner.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I've addressed the flawed reasoning of that editorial above.

    Again, ONE off-topic use of MeToo does not sink the whole thing.
    How many? How many uses gives it significance? Plus, this isn't the first or only questionable claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No it's not. You have apparently argued that all of these matters should be handled by the courts so it's perfectly valid to rebut that most of the allegations are not a matter for the courts to handle.

    Either they are addressed outside of the court or they are not addressed at all.
    Legal accusations should be addressed by the courts. Making an accusation and hiding behind a twitter tag isn't justice.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I am unaware of such a comparison on a large scale (one can always allow for a small minority of extremists saying something extreme).
    You are aware. You have admitted it. You acknowledge that #metoo outs people for both criminal and non-criminal acts. Your only rebuttal was the percentage split between the two. The Answari case may be among the most extreme examples, but it just amplifies the flaw of the entire movement.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, the status quo will not continue. A change has occurred and any prediction that we will reverse course and go back to how it was before is completely unsupported and runs contrary to evidence. I agree that the MeToo movement will die out because the conditions that warranted the movement will change. But the change wrought will be pretty much permanent and we won't go back to as it was prior to MeToo.
    A change has occurred? A few dozen people got outted for a range of behavior (rape to bad manners). Are women going to stop offering sexual acts to men in power? Are men in power suddenly going to turn down such offers or expect offers in the future? Are people suddenly going to stop being afraid to speak out in an industry where they'll be blackballed? Will blackballing "difficult" persons stop happening? Perhaps. Maybe, in the short run. However, #metoo and its associated acts don't pinpoint the root cause of the problem nor really offer ideas on how to correct it. Once we get over, 'men are bad,' what's left? And when men are tired of being made scapegoats, what then? Prosecute the behaviors that can be prosecuted. That's a long term solution. Will that actually happen? Sure. Until the next woman chooses the money and non-disclosure agreement.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Because of MeToo (the concept more than the hashtag) women will from now on be much more likely to report sexual harassment when it happens and therefore one of the effects is that would-be harassers will just not harass since they figure they are likely to be outed if they do and those that do harass will be more likely to lose their job and lose it quickly than in the past. I'm not saying that harassment will completely disappear but it will decrease and the decrease will be a permanent one.
    Actually, this happened because a reporter chose to publish a story, not because of a hashtag. And... whether the changes are permanent is still to be determined. However, without really fixing the root cause, it is unlikely.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And while many of the exposures of men like Weinstein and Rose were made public, the accusations were not primarily public but something that happened within the organizations that they belonged to. I'll focus on Rose. The women he harassed went to the bosses of the company, the bosses found the claims credible and fired Rose. THEN the media learned of what happened and reported it. So while in the case of famous men, it does become a publicized issue, it is not something that is "litigated" in the public. The public did not make some kind of ruling. We just heard about it.

    But no, we are not going back to the status quo of before. We will have a new status quo where sexual harassment in the workplace will be much less common. And this is thanks, in part, to the MeToo movement.
    Unfortunately, the lesson learned from #metoo is that men will be screwed (figuratively) either way. Again, we will see a backlash and whatever gains have been made will be unmade. We are already starting to see the backlash. Give it some time. Next year there will be a story about how nothing much has changed.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  19. #19
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,060
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Shouldn't there be a thread on sexual harassment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You argument has focused entirely on outcome.

    My claim in no way subjects you to any kind of legal punishment.

    So, yes. You have said otherwise.
    Focusing on something does not mean that it's separate from something else. So until you show me where I actually said otherwise, I will ignore this argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    There is a difference between someone's idle post on Facebook and a syndicated columnist on a major news website. I'm not just quoting a random person off the street. The difference? No one is quoting the random post on Facebook and devoting airtime to it. However, the article I referenced is being discussed on cable news.
    Which does not mean that the article is right in any way. People can complain on facebook and people can complain on a nationally-syndicated news article. Again, so what?




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Reserved by whom? You cannot claim something is decentralized and lack authority and then claim it is somehow being reserved for a specific purpose.
    Yes I can. A wide group of decentralized people can agree that it's reserved for something. And since others can, if they choose, use for for purposes other than what it is intended for, this group has no authority to make sure it's used for its reserved purpose.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    This bordering on a straw man since I am not claiming #metoo is being radically subverted. I am claiming that its lack of direction (not having an authority) and its lack of a specific definition renders it ripe for misuse and maliciousness.
    It does have a specific definition. And if someone blatantly misuses it, then their use will generally not be recognized. Seriously, post something completely off-topic, like the score of a football game, and see what happens. It's pretty obvious that nothing will happen.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    It is a single story and does dilute it. And it is just one example. It isn't the only example. Reject whatever you want. Saying uh-uh does not make it so.
    I didn't say "uh-uh." I said it dilutes it SLIGHTLY, not that it doesn't dilute it at all. If you put a drop of water into a bottle of vodka, you have diluted it slightly but then it's still pretty much still a bottle of vodka.

    And if you want to argue that there are numerous other "dilutions" that have made a SERIOUS impact on MeToo to the point where it is not longer a recognizable, to continue the metaphor, "bottle of vodka", then you will need to support that assertion. Otherwise, I acknowledge a very slight and likely insignificant dilution.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    1) Can you support this claim?
    2) Whether claims are 50/50 or 60/40 isn't really the issue. The issue is that the two (criminal and non-criminal) are being conflated under a single banner.
    1. Do I need to support that sexual harassment is not generally a criminal offense? I'm just going to assume that you know enough about the law to know this.
    2. Support or retract that the two are being conflated. I mean Charlie Rose has been fired for sexual harassment but I see no one conflating his actions with criminal sexual assault.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    How many? How many uses gives it significance? Plus, this isn't the first or only questionable claim.
    How many? ONE. That's all you offered in this debate and therefore it is only one that I am considering in this debate. If you want to say there's so many more that it has a real impact, then the burden is on you to establish how many is significant and that that significant number has been reached.

    It's YOUR argument that off-topic accusations have significantly diluted MeToo and therefore it's your burden to provide the data to support it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Legal accusations should be addressed by the courts. Making an accusation and hiding behind a twitter tag isn't justice.
    Your opinion is noted. I've addressed this issue plenty in prior posts.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You are aware. You have admitted it. You acknowledge that #metoo outs people for both criminal and non-criminal acts. Your only rebuttal was the percentage split between the two.
    I see no flaw in a movement addressing both criminal and non-criminal acts.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    A change has occurred? A few dozen people got outted for a range of behavior (rape to bad manners). Are women going to stop offering sexual acts to men in power? Are men in power suddenly going to turn down such offers or expect offers in the future?
    What? You think THAT's the issue here?

    I haven't seen a single woman come forward and complain about offering a man in power consensual sex and him accepting. I know of one actress who did advance her career by accepting Harvey Weinstein's sexual advances. And she's not amongst his accusers. The women who are complaining are the one's who DID NOT want to have sex with him and refused his advances.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Are people suddenly going to stop being afraid to speak out in an industry where they'll be blackballed? Will blackballing "difficult" persons stop happening? Perhaps. Maybe, in the short run. However, #metoo and its associated acts don't pinpoint the root cause of the problem nor really offer ideas on how to correct it.
    Actually, it does pinpoint the problem and offers a very effective solution.

    Problem - Men in power sexually harassing and abusing women and getting away with it because often women are reluctant to accuse their abusers.
    Solution - embolden women to accuse their harassers by letting them know that many other women have faced the same situation.

    And that is what MeToo has done. Women who have stayed quiet about abuse in the past now speak out and now are more likely to speak out about future abuse. Therefore a boss who might be inclined to harass a female employee is less likely to do so because she isn't as likely to not accuse him if he does. And if he does harass her, he is now more likely to be called out regarding it. This is the primary effect of the MeToo movement and it will have a lasting effect.

    The notion that after a while women will again start to feel too intimidated to report harassment from superiors is without support and intuitively feels very unlikely. Usually such gains are permanent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Once we get over, 'men are bad,' what's left?
    The primary message of MeToo is not "men are bad". It's "Dont be afraid to speak out if harassed or assaulted". Your criticism seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstand of "metoo".

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    And when men are tired of being made scapegoats, what then?
    That question sneaks in the unsupported premise that men are being made scapegoats. Until it is supported in some fashion, I will ignore it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Prosecute the behaviors that can be prosecuted.
    The only behaviors that can be prosecuted are criminal activities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    That's a long term solution. Will that actually happen? Sure. Until the next woman chooses the money and non-disclosure agreement.
    As we can see in so many cases, there is no non-disclosure agreement. Really, please stick to the actual cases. Let's choose Charlie Rose as a primary example.

    He continuously harassed women underlings until someone, likely inspired by the MeToo movement, finally complained and then he got fired for violating work policies on harassment. So the effect is that Rose is no longer in a position to subject women to further harassment and those who might act like Rose did now how a serious disincentive to do so and if they do, they are now more likely to be called out and disciplined.

    I'd say that's a good thing.

    Actually, this happened because a reporter chose to publish a story, not because of a hashtag. And... whether the changes are permanent is still to be determined. However, without really fixing the root cause, it is unlikely.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Unfortunately, the lesson learned from #metoo is that men will be screwed (figuratively) either way. Again, we will see a backlash and whatever gains have been made will be unmade. We are already starting to see the backlash. Give it some time. Next year there will be a story about how nothing much has changed.
    Whatever you say, Nostradamus. But I will need to see some real support for a future prediction before I will take it seriously.
    Last edited by mican333; January 23rd, 2018 at 10:23 AM.

  20. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,250
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Shouldn't there be a thread on sexual harassment?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Focusing on something does not mean that it's separate from something else. So until you show me where I actually said otherwise, I will ignore this argument.




    Which does not mean that the article is right in any way. People can complain on facebook and people can complain on a nationally-syndicated news article. Again, so what?






    Yes I can. A wide group of decentralized people can agree that it's reserved for something. And since others can, if they choose, use for for purposes other than what it is intended for, this group has no authority to make sure it's used for its reserved purpose.





    It does have a specific definition. And if someone blatantly misuses it, then their use will generally not be recognized. Seriously, post something completely off-topic, like the score of a football game, and see what happens. It's pretty obvious that nothing will happen.





    I didn't say "uh-uh." I said it dilutes it SLIGHTLY, not that it doesn't dilute it at all. If you put a drop of water into a bottle of vodka, you have diluted it slightly but then it's still pretty much still a bottle of vodka.

    And if you want to argue that there are numerous other "dilutions" that have made a SERIOUS impact on MeToo to the point where it is not longer a recognizable, to continue the metaphor, "bottle of vodka", then you will need to support that assertion. Otherwise, I acknowledge a very slight and likely insignificant dilution.





    1. Do I need to support that sexual harassment is not generally a criminal offense? I'm just going to assume that you know enough about the law to know this.
    2. Support or retract that the two are being conflated. I mean Charlie Rose has been fired for sexual harassment but I see no one conflating his actions with criminal sexual assault.





    How many? ONE. That's all you offered in this debate and therefore it is only one that I am considering in this debate. If you want to say there's so many more that it has a real impact, then the burden is on you to establish how many is significant and that that significant number has been reached.

    It's YOUR argument that off-topic accusations have significantly diluted MeToo and therefore it's your burden to provide the data to support it.





    Your opinion is noted. I've addressed this issue plenty in prior posts.






    I see no flaw in a movement addressing both criminal and non-criminal acts.





    What? You think THAT's the issue here?

    I haven't seen a single woman come forward and complain about offering a man in power consensual sex and him accepting. I know of one actress who did advance her career by accepting Harvey Weinstein's sexual advances. And she's not amongst his accusers. The women who are complaining are the one's who DID NOT want to have sex with him and refused his advances.



    Actually, it does pinpoint the problem and offers a very effective solution.

    Problem - Men in power sexually harassing and abusing women and getting away with it because often women are reluctant to accuse their abusers.
    Solution - embolden women to accuse their harassers by letting them know that many other women have faced the same situation.

    And that is what MeToo has done. Women who have stayed quiet about abuse in the past now speak out and now are more likely to speak out about future abuse. Therefore a boss who might be inclined to harass a female employee is less likely to do so because she isn't as likely to not accuse him if he does. And if he does harass her, he is now more likely to be called out regarding it. This is the primary effect of the MeToo movement and it will have a lasting effect.

    The notion that after a while women will again start to feel too intimidated to report harassment from superiors is without support and intuitively feels very unlikely. Usually such gains are permanent.



    The primary message of MeToo is not "men are bad". It's "Dont be afraid to speak out if harassed or assaulted". Your criticism seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstand of "metoo".



    That question sneaks in the unsupported premise that men are being made scapegoats. Until it is supported in some fashion, I will ignore it.



    The only behaviors that can be prosecuted are criminal activities.



    As we can see in so many cases, there is no non-disclosure agreement. Really, please stick to the actual cases. Let's choose Charlie Rose as a primary example.

    He continuously harassed women underlings until someone, likely inspired by the MeToo movement, finally complained and then he got fired for violating work policies on harassment. So the effect is that Rose is no longer in a position to subject women to further harassment and those who might act like Rose did now how a serious disincentive to do so and if they do, they are now more likely to be called out and disciplined.

    I'd say that's a good thing.

    Actually, this happened because a reporter chose to publish a story, not because of a hashtag. And... whether the changes are permanent is still to be determined. However, without really fixing the root cause, it is unlikely.





    Whatever you say, Nostradamus. But I will need to see some real support for a future prediction before I will take it seriously.
    https://nypost.com/2018/02/03/a-male...oo-is-brewing/
    "Consider what’s happening in the capital of Florida. Female staffers and lobbyists have found “many male legislators will no longer meet with them privately,”

    I am not going to respond point by point to your post. It is not productive and your first sentence is just twisting and spinning where you take your position and then claim it was never your position. Furthermore, the point of the OP is that MeToo will end badly for women because of its amorphous nature and the above article demonstrates how this is actually occurring.

    Later in the article is this nugget:
    “I’m getting the feeling that we’re going back 20 years as female professionals,” said Green, who owns her company. “I fully anticipate I’m going to be competing with another firm that is currently owned by some male, and the deciding factor is going to be: ‘You don’t want to hire a female lobbying firm in this environment.’ ”

    And there is also this:
    "Writing in The American Interest, Claire Berlinski calls the #MeToo movement “a frenzied extrajudicial warlock hunt that does not pause to parse the difference between rape and stupidity”

    This final point has been one of my key arguments and certainly rebuts your central premise that the MeToo movement has been guided by some sort of central principles or authority.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Harassment
    By Brittany in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: May 9th, 2006, 01:29 AM
  2. Sexual Harassment
    By JOEBIALEK in forum Politics
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: July 13th, 2005, 07:40 AM
  3. Bill O'Reilly hit with sexual harassment suit.
    By Booger in forum Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 15th, 2004, 01:39 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 13th, 2004, 06:52 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •