Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 12-06-2018, 11:39 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Like I said never been in one of those mythical work environments.
Perhaps that is why you are scared of false accusations?
  #252  
Old 12-06-2018, 11:52 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
You believe all sorts of things “without evidence” on a daily basis.
Also, testimony, including the testimony of an accuser, is legally a form of evidence. What JB99 meant is that he doesn't believe the statement of an accuser without supporting evidence.

Which of course, as you point out, is nonsense: people routinely believe unsupported accusations, from "Some asshole cut me off in traffic this morning" to "My sister cheated me out of half my inheritance", as long as the accusations seem credible to them.

But in the case of women accusing men of sexual misconduct, some men have decided to set up an artificial criterion of personal belief that officially defaults to disbelief in the absence of supporting evidence. This has the advantage of allowing them to go on ignoring a lot of sexual misconduct.
  #253  
Old 12-07-2018, 12:51 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Perhaps that is why you are scared of false accusations?
Disapproval of mob “justice” is not fear.
  #254  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:20 AM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,239
So you're worried that a woman will falsely accuse you of assaulting her, and a mob will form and they'll lynch you?

That's your fear?

How much time out of the day do you worry about this? More than two hours a day might be excessive.
  #255  
Old 12-07-2018, 02:03 AM
nelliebly nelliebly is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 941
[QUOTE=JB99;21364378]I’m sorry to say this but... duh. If something has no evidence, that makes it pretty hard to believe in it. That definitely makes it hard to justify firing or prosecuting someone.

Nobody's asking you to fire anybody. And unless you're a judge, you're not throwing anyone in jail, either. But this "Sorry, when it comes to sexual harassment, if there's no proof, I don't buy it" attitude is disingenuous. If a buddy tells you his lunch was stolen from the fridge, do you say, "Produce evidence you put that pastrami sandwich in the fridge, Frank, and that someone took it, or I won't believe you"? Doubtful.

Look, an employee telling a supervisor or HR she (or he) was sexually harassed is NOT in and of itself going to result in someone getting fired. First there's an investigation.

Quote:
For conduct to amount to sexual harassment, it must be unwanted. Most sexualised attention at work is self-evidently 'unwanted'. Some colleagues may not realise that you find their behaviour offensive. However, certainly as soon as you have made your feelings clear, by explaining how their actions make you feel, there can be no question in anybody's mind that the behaviour is unwanted. As a result, any further continuation of the behaviour is likely to constitute unlawful sexual harassment.
At my workplace, we employees were told to tell the offender in no uncertain terms to knock it off; take screen shots of any offensive texts, photos, emails, or PM's; document.

But what happens when someone sexually harasses a colleague or subordinate, is told to stop, and doesn't. What then? He claims she never told him to stop. (He wasn't stupid enough to do it when others were around.) You don't believe her without evidence; in other words, you say it didn't happen, and she's a liar, even though it did and she's not. And the harasser gets away with it That's what #Metoo is about: for all of us who had to put up and shut up, here was the chance to share with others, to be believed after years of put up and shut up.

I keep hoping--and I mean this sincerely--that the "I believe nothing without evidence" folks here never have wives/daughters/sisters/friends that get sexually harassed or, God forbid, sexually assaulted, because some of you apparently won't believe them unless they have incontrovertible evidence. Odds are, though, someone you care about has already been sexually harassed or assaulted. They're just not going to tell YOU about it. Guess why.
  #256  
Old 12-07-2018, 02:15 AM
nelliebly nelliebly is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 941
Missed the edit window. Here's the link for the quoted material:

https://worksmart.org.uk/work-rights...ual-harassment
  #257  
Old 12-07-2018, 02:21 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
So you're worried that a woman will falsely accuse you of assaulting her, and a mob will form and they'll lynch you?

That's your fear?

How much time out of the day do you worry about this? More than two hours a day might be excessive.
Well if you think accusations should be sufficient to rile up a mob and demand loss of job or enrollment at a university just say you’re in favor of mob justice. No need to be silly about it.

Are there cases where real criminals don’t get the consequences they deserve? Absolutely. But this thread isn’t about that. It’s about cost/benefit analysis at work.

Last edited by octopus; 12-07-2018 at 02:22 AM.
  #258  
Old 12-07-2018, 02:32 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
But what happens when someone sexually harasses a colleague or subordinate, is told to stop, and doesn't. What then? He claims she never told him to stop. (He wasn't stupid enough to do it when others were around.) You don't believe her without evidence
Note, of course, that not believing the accuser without evidence is effectively equivalent to believing the harasser, equally without evidence.

The default position, for people maintaining this attitude, is not actually a neutral suspension of belief: it's defaulting to a belief that misconduct did not happen, and that solid supporting evidence is required in order to change that default belief.

Considering how often sexual misconduct does happen in the workplace, it's odd that so many people's position on the subject defaults to maintaining the firm belief that sexual misconduct didn't happen, unless and until they're confronted with evidence so incontrovertible that they can't possibly go on disbelieving it.

I mean, that is not really where the smart money would place its bets about the chance of sexual misconduct occurring.

Last edited by Kimstu; 12-07-2018 at 02:33 AM.
  #259  
Old 12-07-2018, 02:33 AM
rat avatar's Avatar
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 5,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Well if you think accusations should be sufficient to rile up a mob and demand loss of job or enrollment at a university just say you’re in favor of mob justice. No need to be silly about it.

Are there cases where real criminals don’t get the consequences they deserve? Absolutely. But this thread isn’t about that. It’s about cost/benefit analysis at work.
If an orderly form of redress for this illegal behavior was available this "mob justice" you are afraid of wouldn't exist.

It is the denial of due process and the disenfranchisement of groups that typically leads to this type of media exposure.

It may be hard for you to accept but announcing to the world that you were sexually assaulted typically doesn't end up being a positive thing for the victim. But when it is the only option due to a refusal to address a problem some individuals will pay that price.

Developing policies, rules and laws based on rape myths does nothing to prevent this issue.
  #260  
Old 12-07-2018, 02:35 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Are there cases where real criminals don’t get the consequences they deserve? Absolutely. But this thread isn’t about that. It’s about cost/benefit analysis at work.
I repeat: Why isn't this alleged "cost/benefit analysis" applied to the costs of what women have to endure from the far greater incidence of men actually committing sexual misconduct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu
If men shouldn't have to put up with a small risk of women falsely accusing them, why should women have to put up with a much larger risk of men assaulting or harassing them? Let's get the men segregated into their blue-collar-ghetto jobs, under competent female supervision of course, and leave the positions of power and authority to the women who are statistically far more likely to be able to keep their hands off non-consenting co-workers and employees.

And furthermore, when all the men are safely segregated in the lower-status maintenance/service/etc. jobs and all the women are safe in the boardrooms and operating rooms and so forth, it will be much more difficult for a woman to falsely accuse a man of sexually misbehaving with her. Win-win!

There is no logically consistent reason why men who advocate shunning and excluding women from an integrated workforce, due to the potential danger of their making false accusations, shouldn't be even more on board with shunning and excluding men because of the far greater dangers their behavior poses.
  #261  
Old 12-07-2018, 02:59 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by rat avatar View Post
If an orderly form of redress for this illegal behavior was available this "mob justice" you are afraid of wouldn't exist.

It is the denial of due process and the disenfranchisement of groups that typically leads to this type of media exposure.

It may be hard for you to accept but announcing to the world that you were sexually assaulted typically doesn't end up being a positive thing for the victim. But when it is the only option due to a refusal to address a problem some individuals will pay that price.

Developing policies, rules and laws based on rape myths does nothing to prevent this issue.
Yeah, if the police won’t do their job or prosecutors won’t do their job than get the mobs. Maybe this Epstein https://www.miamiherald.com/latest-n...222719885.html character is a prime example. But as a general principle due process should be followed first. Not let’s jump straight to doxing and boycotts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
I repeat: Why isn't this alleged "cost/benefit analysis" applied to the costs of what women have to endure from the far greater incidence of men actually committing sexual misconduct?
I’m sure there are. I mean aren’t there other threads discussing what should be done for women or men even that are sexually harassed/assaulted? This is a discussion about 2nd order effects.

Which quite often are ridiculed when they are brought up as something to consider.

Last edited by octopus; 12-07-2018 at 03:00 AM.
  #262  
Old 12-07-2018, 05:28 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Well if you think accusations should be sufficient to rile up a mob and demand loss of job or enrollment at a university just say you’re in favor of mob justice. No need to be silly about it.

Are there cases where real criminals don’t get the consequences they deserve? Absolutely. But this thread isn’t about that. It’s about cost/benefit analysis at work.
Once again: what am I or other MeToo supporters doing that you think is wrong? It's not clear to me what you're objecting to in terms of individual behavior.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #263  
Old 12-07-2018, 07:09 AM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
You don't believe her without evidence; in other words, you say it didn't happen, and she's a liar, even though it did and she's not. And the harasser gets away with it
Or : you believe her without evidence, in other words you say it did happen, and he's a terrible person, even though it didn't, and he isn't. And she gets away with it.

How do you choose between these two options and why?


Quote:
I keep hoping--and I mean this sincerely--that the "I believe nothing without evidence" folks here never have wives/daughters/sisters/friends that get sexually harassed or, God forbid, sexually assaulted, because some of you apparently won't believe them unless they have incontrovertible evidence. Odds are, though, someone you care about has already been sexually harassed or assaulted. They're just not going to tell YOU about it. Guess why.
People will naturally believe their wives/daughters/sisters/friends. I've known several people who have been sexually assaulted or raped. The problem comes when we're asked with insistance, like on this board, to believe any accusation by a complete stranger against another complete stranger and told that this is somehow what we should do by default, or else we're terrible people.

Also : what will you say if your husband/son/brother/friend tells you that he's falsely accused of sexual harassment or sexual assault, because apparently you'll believe the accusation even if there's no evidence, right?

People tend to think readily "what if my loved one was the alleged victim?", but somehow rarely wonder "what if my loved one was the alleged crimina?l". Apply also for instance, to people supporting the death penalty.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 12-07-2018 at 07:09 AM.
  #264  
Old 12-07-2018, 07:41 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Or : you believe her without evidence, in other words you say it did happen, and he's a terrible person, even though it didn't, and he isn't. And she gets away with it.

How do you choose between these two options and why?




People will naturally believe their wives/daughters/sisters/friends. I've known several people who have been sexually assaulted or raped. The problem comes when we're asked with insistance, like on this board, to believe any accusation by a complete stranger against another complete stranger and told that this is somehow what we should do by default, or else we're terrible people.

Also : what will you say if your husband/son/brother/friend tells you that he's falsely accused of sexual harassment or sexual assault, because apparently you'll believe the accusation even if there's no evidence, right?

People tend to think readily "what if my loved one was the alleged victim?", but somehow rarely wonder "what if my loved one was the alleged crimina?l". Apply also for instance, to people supporting the death penalty.
The answer is pretty easy -- we treat every allegation with compassion and seriousness, and investigate them fully (assuming that's what the accuser wants), and go from there.
  #265  
Old 12-07-2018, 08:07 AM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
I get references to an unethical prosecutor who exploited and sabotaged a rape indictment that was based on a false accusation, and who was eventually disbarred, sued and bankrupted for his conduct.

I'm not sure why you think that supports your argument.
Because it demonstrates that even under threat of bankruptcy and disbarment, prosecutors are still willing to pursue malicious prosecution for provably fictitious crimes. Likewise Sabrina Erdely, who ruined her reputation in Rolling Stone. Apparently rape and rape culture is a pervasive problem, and yet these people couldn’t find any real rapes to attack, so they had to resort to fabrication. And the big problem is that every time a story comes out about a fabricated rape claim, it makes other people less willing to give the victims the benefit of the doubt.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Note, of course, that not believing the accuser without evidence is effectively equivalent to believing the harasser, equally without evidence.

The default position, for people maintaining this attitude, is not actually a neutral suspension of belief: it's defaulting to a belief that misconduct did not happen, and that solid supporting evidence is required in order to change that default belief.

Considering how often sexual misconduct does happen in the workplace, it's odd that so many people's position on the subject defaults to maintaining the firm belief that sexual misconduct didn't happen, unless and until they're confronted with evidence so incontrovertible that they can't possibly go on disbelieving it.

I mean, that is not really where the smart money would place its bets about the chance of sexual misconduct occurring.
Have you ever heard of the “Presumption of Innocence?” It is, ostensibly, the basis of our legal system.

Someone breaks into my house and steals my TV. I tell the police, “My neighbor Steve stole my TV.” The police investigate Steve and find no evidence that he stole my TV. I may not like the outcome, but I should not be surprised that Steve escapes prosecution because there is no evidence he committed the crime.

So while I may understandably be hurt and angry and feel helpless, there are some things I would not do: I would not expect Steve’s employer to fire him, nor would I expect the neighborhood to evict Steve from his home. I would not walk around the neighborhood with a television to remind people that Steve is a TV thief. I would not write articles for Rolling Stone complaining that Steve stole my TV and also burned down my house (given that my house was, demonstrably, not burned down in the first place). I wouldn’t pick random neighbors and accuse them of TV theft just to raise awareness of the fact that TV theft does, undeniably, happen. And I wouldn’t accuse the police of being complicit in TV theft just because I didn’t get the outcome I wanted.

If a neighbor came to me and said, “Someone also stole my TV!” Then yeah, I probably would be inclined believe them. But if they can’t produce evidence, and the police investigation finds no evidence, what am I supposed to do about it? I can commiserate and support them, but no matter how strongly I believe Steve stole our TV sets, there’s not much else I can do about it.

And if I met one of Steve’s friends and said, “Steve is a TV thief,” I would not be surprised if they say, “Prove it.”
  #266  
Old 12-07-2018, 08:29 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
People tend to think readily "what if my loved one was the alleged victim?", but somehow rarely wonder "what if my loved one was the alleged crimina?l".
This is 100% the exact opposite of reality when it comes to rape victims. The vast majority of men at least tend to think "What if I was the one falsely accused?" And a good portion of women seem to stop and think "what if my male loved one was accused?" And that is what we are trying to fix, because false accusations are rare and rarely result in significant problems. It is irrational to consider that to be more important.

Maybe in some other situation, we have the opposite problem, where we think too much about the victims and not about the accused. You bring up the death penalty: that's a good one. But, in the case of rape and sexual crimes, the problem is that many people care more about the accused than the victim. That's why we get all this "it'll ruin his life" crap, ignoring that rape victim's lives are ruined a lot more.

As for someone I know being falsely accused? It's not that hard. I would of course be biased towards believing them, rather than the accuser. And I would have a rational reason for that: I know the accused better, and can be a better judge of their character. However, there would also be an emotional component, and I would thus need to try and offset that.

And how do I do that? By believing the accuser. I don't assume they are lying. I offset my natural thoughts with thoughts in the opposite direction. And then I stick with my mantra "believe, but verify."

And, well, since I'm emotionally involved, I'm really the worst person to actually be remotely in charge of consequences. I get that my emotions cloud my judgement.

So appealing to them like you did is the exact opposite of what I think is needed. What is needed is rationality.
  #267  
Old 12-07-2018, 08:35 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,248
Isn't it more like: You are sitting in your living room watching TV. As you are sitting there, your neighbor Steve enters your house and takes your TV right in front of you. You call the cops, tell them Steve stole your TV and they don't believe you unless you have something other than your word. You don't, so the cops don't do anything. Steve smirks at you every time you see him from then on.
  #268  
Old 12-07-2018, 08:41 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
Because it demonstrates that even under threat of bankruptcy and disbarment, prosecutors are still willing to pursue malicious prosecution for provably fictitious crimes. Likewise Sabrina Erdely, who ruined her reputation in Rolling Stone. Apparently rape and rape culture is a pervasive problem, and yet these people couldn’t find any real rapes to attack, so they had to resort to fabrication. And the big problem is that every time a story comes out about a fabricated rape claim, it makes other people less willing to give the victims the benefit of the doubt.
No, it establishes that a single person did so. It is anecdote, not data. It is cherrypicking to get the conclusion you want.

Quote:
Have you ever heard of the “Presumption of Innocence?” It is, ostensibly, the basis of our legal system.
It exists in our legal system, yes. But then the rest of your post had nothing to do with our legal system. You are demanding that the rest of society bow to the demands of the legal system, where we deliberately err on the side of letting 100 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person.

So, by asking us to adhere to this principle, you are asking us to let 100 rapists get away in order to save 1 falsely accused. And we utterly reject that.

And, well, so do you. You said you'd believe your neighbor if they said their TV was stolen. So you believe the accuser. Exactly like you should. But then you demand we don't when it comes to rape. You demand the presumption of innocence.

And, finally, stop trying to say that people regularly go around making false accusations of rape to raise awareness. Don't perpetuate the propaganda.

Last edited by BigT; 12-07-2018 at 08:46 AM.
  #269  
Old 12-07-2018, 08:44 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Disapproval of mob “justice” is not fear.
Fear of "mob justice" is not rational.
  #270  
Old 12-07-2018, 09:27 AM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
People will naturally believe their wives/daughters/sisters/friends.
Here's the part you don't get: they don't. Women have been historically disbelieved by husbands, partners, parents, coworkers and friends. We are where we are today because, generally no one has believed women, except perhaps other women.

Men have, in general, been fine with workplaces and communities in which their female friends and family members are groped, touched, and ogled. This is the status quo.

So, no, men don't believe women, even their loved ones. Or maybe they do and don't care.
  #271  
Old 12-07-2018, 09:33 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
Because it demonstrates that even under threat of bankruptcy and disbarment, prosecutors are still willing to pursue malicious prosecution for provably fictitious crimes. Likewise Sabrina Erdely, who ruined her reputation in Rolling Stone. Apparently rape and rape culture is a pervasive problem, and yet these people couldn’t find any real rapes to attack, so they had to resort to fabrication. And the big problem is that every time a story comes out about a fabricated rape claim, it makes other people less willing to give the victims the benefit of the doubt.
So, due to the actions of individuals, you change the way you act towards a group. "Well, there was once this guy that made this false claim, so I don't believe anyone anymore." that's not rational. That is justification and rationalization of what you already want to do, to dismiss the claims of women.

How about, every time a big story comes out about a rape, it makes other people less willing to give the perpetrators the benefit of the doubt? That's not a thing? Men who rape and lie about it do not in any way cast doubt upon the next man who claims to have not raped, but a woman lies about being raped, and that casts doubt on the next women who claims to have been raped?

Do you not see the double standard that you are vehemently defending here?

We say that every accusation should be investigated. Really, investigating a claim is the best way to get to the bottom of it. A proper investigation actually is more to the benefit of the accused than the accuser, as an investigation is more likely to turn up evidence that there was fabrication than there is to turn up evidence of non-consensual sexual contact.

We are saying that we should believe women and have a proper investigation. You keep saying that women need to prove their case before an investigation may take place.
Quote:
Have you ever heard of the “Presumption of Innocence?” It is, ostensibly, the basis of our legal system.
Presumption of innocence is what you get when you are at a trial with a jury. It is not what you get when you are being investigated. The cop that is looking for clues to tell if you stole your neighbor's TV is not operating under a presumption of evidence, they are investigating to give information to the courts for them to make that determination.
Quote:
Someone breaks into my house and steals my TV. I tell the police, “My neighbor Steve stole my TV.” The police investigate Steve and find no evidence that he stole my TV. I may not like the outcome, but I should not be surprised that Steve escapes prosecution because there is no evidence he committed the crime.
And when they go over, and see Steve smirking and watching your TV, he says, "No, he gave it to me." They come back, and say, "Sorry, but we talked to him, and it turns out, you're a liar. You gave him that TV consensually, and are now just trying to get attention/cuase problems/act out/ get revenge on him."
Quote:
So while I may understandably be hurt and angry and feel helpless, there are some things I would not do: I would not expect Steve’s employer to fire him, nor would I expect the neighborhood to evict Steve from his home. I would not walk around the neighborhood with a television to remind people that Steve is a TV thief. I would not write articles for Rolling Stone complaining that Steve stole my TV and also burned down my house (given that my house was, demonstrably, not burned down in the first place). I wouldn’t pick random neighbors and accuse them of TV theft just to raise awareness of the fact that TV theft does, undeniably, happen. And I wouldn’t accuse the police of being complicit in TV theft just because I didn’t get the outcome I wanted.
So, Steve is also a co-worker of yours, and he works with high value merchandise. You know that he stole your TV. Would you not warn your boss that Steve is a thief?

You wouldn't warn your neighbors not to let Steve into their homes unattended, and allow them to find out for themselves that he will steal their TV?

The next two sentences of yours are foam speckled hyperbole, and there is no response possible to such irrationality.

As far as the last, when the police accuse you of being a liar and just trying to get attention for accusing your neighbor of stealing your TV, you aren't going to have the slightest bit of irritation at them dismissing your claims out of hand?
Quote:
If a neighbor came to me and said, “Someone also stole my TV!” Then yeah, I probably would be inclined believe them. But if they can’t produce evidence, and the police investigation finds no evidence, what am I supposed to do about it? I can commiserate and support them, but no matter how strongly I believe Steve stole our TV sets, there’s not much else I can do about it.
And Steve sits there, watching both your TV's in full view of the neighborhood, smirking that there is nothing you can do about it.
Quote:
And if I met one of Steve’s friends and said, “Steve is a TV thief,” I would not be surprised if they say, “Prove it.”
Steve's friends are probably TV thieves themselves, and at the very least, are TV thief apologists.
  #272  
Old 12-07-2018, 10:10 AM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Sigh. Virtue signalling is not a thing. It is a term made up by the right to say that the left doesn't actually hold the values they say they hold. It's all just for show.
No, it doesn't mean that they don't believe what they say, just that they say it for show.

Since we were talking about tumblr in the other thread, a perfect example of virtue signaling IMO are the numerous blogs that start with a proclamation of support for gay rights. Supporting gay rights in our day and age is totally unremarkable, especially on a platform where a lot of users are either social activists or kinksters, both unlikely to oppose gay rights. What is surprising there is finding the blog of someone who *opposes* them. There's nothing trangressive or courageous in writing that you're supporting gay rights on Tumblr in 2018. The only point is to show that you're a good person, in agreement with pretty much everybody you're going to interact with in your support for what is a super popular view among your peers.

Write "I support gay rights" on a billboard in 1960, or write it on your blog in 2018 in Iran, and now we can talk. On tumblr (or on the Straight Dope) in the USA in 2018, it's just virtue signaling. Now, you could say that it's a positive thing to say, so why not? The thing is that there are many nice things you could write in your presentation. You could start your blog with, say, "I support the victims of the civil war in Syria" or " I support the funding of the reasearch for a malaria vaccine" or any number of other positive and nice things also showing that you have your heart at the right place. But people don't write that. Because although that's not something that will get them any hatred, it's also not something that will get them pats on the back. Contrarily to "gay rights", it's not particularly popular and trendy among their peers.

I'm sure that pretty much all people writing "I support gay rights" in their presentation actually support them. I'm even sure that a small number of them write it because, for one reason or another, they believe it's still particularly important to show your support for this particular cause. About as many as those who write "I support the victims of the civil war in Syria" because for one reason or another they think it's particularly important to show your support for this particular cause. The overwhelming majority, however, write it because it's the popular idea of the day. The first (very small) group would have written "I support gay rights" on the billboard in 1960 because it was the right thing to do. The second (very large) group would have written "jail the fags and throw away the key" on the billboard in 1960 because it was the popular thing to do. I have zero trust in people who feel the need to proclaim high and low their support for the popular idea of the day, especially when they do so in what is essentially an echo chamber.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 12-07-2018 at 10:13 AM.
  #273  
Old 12-07-2018, 11:53 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
Have you ever heard of the “Presumption of Innocence?” It is, ostensibly, the basis of our legal system.
Nobody AFAICT is suggesting modifying our legal system. This is a discussion of what people personally believe about accusations, and the strangely rigorous conditions that some people have decided to apply solely to beliefs about accusations by women concerning sexual misconduct by men.
  #274  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:09 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Once again: what am I or other MeToo supporters doing that you think is wrong? It's not clear to me what you're objecting to in terms of individual behavior.
Contributing to an environment where social media empowered witch hunts and virtual kangaroo courts can exist.
  #275  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:12 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Fear of "mob justice" is not rational.
If that is so then why is that a tactic so commonly used? Even on these forums and others we have a mob that tries to provide “justice” via enacting social costs.
  #276  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:12 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Contributing to an environment where social media empowered witch hunts and virtual kangaroo courts can exist.
What steps can be done to prevent people from posting their opinions on social media do you think?

Your problem seems to be without any possible solution short of a government takeover of social media and silencing of speech.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #277  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:16 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Contributing to an environment where social media empowered witch hunts and virtual kangaroo courts can exist.
In what way?
  #278  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:17 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
What steps can be done to prevent people from posting their opinions on social media do you think?

Your problem seems to be without any possible solution short of a government takeover of social media and silencing of speech.
That’s a tough question. I don’t think anything can be done other than an attempt to educate people on critical thinking to process information and teach people that what they say nowadays online can reach people across the globe instantly and be remembered forever.

In other words modern communication is going to be vastly more disruptive than most have imagined.
  #279  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:20 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
That’s a tough question. I don’t think anything can be done other than an attempt to educate people on critical thinking to process information and teach people that what they say nowadays online can reach people across the globe instantly and be remembered forever.

In other words modern communication is going to be vastly more disruptive than most have imagined.
So what am I or other #MeToo supporters doing/saying that is not in keeping with "critical thinking" or the principle that messages online can reach and last forever?
  #280  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:23 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
So what am I or other #MeToo supporters doing/saying that is not in keeping with "critical thinking" or the principle that messages online can reach and last forever?
As near as I can tell, you are not agreeing with the premise that false accusations are such a big problem that, coupled with the destructive nature of globe-spanning free speech, our (men's) entire way of life is threatened!
  #281  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:25 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Even on these forums and others we have a mob that tries to provide “justice” via enacting social costs.
"On these forums"?

On these forums we have posting rules. People who violate those rules suffer the "social costs" of being reprimanded, suspended or banned.

We also have a lot of freedom to express our views. People who express views that are widely regarded as repugnant and/or stupid suffer the "social costs" of being frequently mocked, despised or Pitted.

Why do you think any of this counts as "mob justice" that should be "feared"? You seem to have an unrealistic notion that violating agreed-upon community norms and saying things that many people find repugnant or stupid ought to be somehow immune from "social costs".
  #282  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:29 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,224
It's kind of a matter of collateral damage. We have a paradigm shift here. In the new paradigm, some portion of falsely accused men (how many? Nobody talking about how awful this is seems to have even tried to figure this out) who will apparently be accused falsely and suffer consequences as a result. That's bad. So why would we do this? Because in the old paradigm, the collateral damage was the vast majority of women.
__________________
If you want to vote for people who will attack the rights of me and those close to me, we cannot be friends, and I will not accept that you're a good person.
  #283  
Old 12-07-2018, 02:10 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
"On these forums"?

On these forums we have posting rules. People who violate those rules suffer the "social costs" of being reprimanded, suspended or banned.

We also have a lot of freedom to express our views. People who express views that are widely regarded as repugnant and/or stupid suffer the "social costs" of being frequently mocked, despised or Pitted.

Why do you think any of this counts as "mob justice" that should be "feared"? You seem to have an unrealistic notion that violating agreed-upon community norms and saying things that many people find repugnant or stupid ought to be somehow immune from "social costs".
I’m betting that in 10 years or so you’ll be rethinking your support for mob action in the modern age. Unintended consequences and the resulting reactive forces sometimes result in teachable moments.

Wait until all these silly youth with their inappropriate tweets, videos, photos, Facebook posts, forum posts, etc need a job that won’t tolerate an iota of embarrassing behavior. You might see a push to regulate search and storage like we see in Europe.
  #284  
Old 12-07-2018, 02:11 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
I’m betting that in 10 years or so you’ll be rethinking your support for mob action in the modern age.
Who in this thread, and by what words, has expressed "support for mob action"? I haven't seen a single post in support of "mob action".
  #285  
Old 12-07-2018, 02:17 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,303
Yeah we just keep hearing this nebulous phrase "support for mob action" but no solutions are offered as to how this so called problem could ever be solved.

How does "support for mob action" differ from "people freely expressing their opinions on current events"?

It's a manufactured boogie man so that there is something to rail against. I can't see any more substance to it, but I'm open to considering further explanations or details should any be offered.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #286  
Old 12-07-2018, 02:23 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Wait until all these silly youth with their inappropriate tweets, videos, photos, Facebook posts, forum posts, etc need a job that won’t tolerate an iota of embarrassing behavior. You might see a push to regulate search and storage like we see in Europe.
My former coworkers all knew about my Tumblr and the hypnosis files I made. Just FYI.
__________________
If you want to vote for people who will attack the rights of me and those close to me, we cannot be friends, and I will not accept that you're a good person.
  #287  
Old 12-07-2018, 03:21 PM
nelliebly nelliebly is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Yeah we just keep hearing this nebulous phrase "support for mob action" but no solutions are offered as to how this so called problem could ever be solved.

How does "support for mob action" differ from "people freely expressing their opinions on current events"?

It's a manufactured boogie man so that there is something to rail against. I can't see any more substance to it, but I'm open to considering further explanations or details should any be offered.
I believe "mob action" in this instance is simply a bitter term meaning "the majority, which opposes me."
  #288  
Old 12-07-2018, 03:57 PM
nelliebly nelliebly is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 941
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Or : you believe her without evidence, in other words you say it did happen, and he's a terrible person, even though it didn't, and he isn't. And she gets away with it.

How do you choose between these two options and why?
If Claire says Bob pinched her ass, I offer her compassion and steer her to HR. Let them investigate. I don't automatically assume Bob is a "terrible person." I believe Bob may not know boundaries, or I may believe, especially if Bob pinched MY ass, that Bob shouldn't be around coworkers if he can't keep his hands to himself. And I'd think this way even if Bob is accused of pinching Fred's ass. I also don't assume Claire's a backbiting bitch who's willing to go through a pretty unpleasant process just to get Bob fired. That seems to be what you assume, and without evidence.


Quote:
People will naturally believe their wives/daughters/sisters/friends. I've known several people who have been sexually assaulted or raped. The problem comes when we're asked with insistance, like on this board, to believe any accusation by a complete stranger against another complete stranger and told that this is somehow what we should do by default, or else we're terrible people.
You're arguing by extremes. What most of us are asking is that you don't dismiss her out of hand because she has no evidence. Your default position is without evidence, and without knowing either one, you'll dismiss the woman's complaint because there's a statistically small chance she's lying, but you'll believe the man because he must be telling the truth.

Quote:
Also : what will you say if your husband/son/brother/friend tells you that he's falsely accused of sexual harassment or sexual assault, because apparently you'll believe the accusation even if there's no evidence, right?

People tend to think readily "what if my loved one was the alleged victim?", but somehow rarely wonder "what if my loved one was the alleged crimina?l". Apply also for instance, to people supporting the death penalty.
Not sure what that last sentence means, but if my son/brother/friend says he was accused of sexual harassment, I'd I'd be surprised, because my son and brother are both careful, respectful people who were raised not to act like lascivious idiots, but that doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong. And it wouldn't make him a terrible people or make me stop loving him. Did he do this repeatedly? That's the definition of harassment: it's more than once. The first time, the victim says no and don't try that again, bub. I'd ask what if anything he did do that he might not have considered harassment. If so, I would tell him I still love him, but he did terrible things, and he's going to have to face the music for doing them. What I WOULDN'T do is dismiss her complaint out of hand.

God, if we could just get people to stop doing that, I'd be vastly relieved.
  #289  
Old 12-07-2018, 04:09 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,239
By "mob action" he means doing stuff like saying "I don't think Kavanaugh should be appointed to the Supreme Court." It means saying stuff like, "Hey, turns out Bill Cosby is a rapist". It means saying stuff like, "After listening to his ex-girlfriend's story I'm not going to listen to Chris Hardwick anymore." It means saying stuff like, "After all the stories about Louis CK jerking off in front of women, I used to like his show but I can't watch it anymore without getting creeped out."

You know, mob justice like that.

Of course the anti-anti-harassment forces here are mostly talking about stories that involve public figures, because those are the stories we can all talk about. And the thing about public figures is that in many cases their careers depend on the whims of the public or the voters, or how their bosses perceive the whims of the public or the voters. If people don't want to listen to Chris Hardwick anymore because they think he's a jerk, then how is that mob justice? If advertisers don't want to advertise on Bill O'Reilly's show any more, then how is that mob justice?

But in reality of course most harassment and assault doesn't involve public figures. Then we're not talking about mob justice, are we? Because we never hear about the guy who got reprimanded by HR for making suggestive comments to the interns. We never hear about the guy who got fired for groping the receptionist. Or if we do, it's because it happened at our workplace.

We've already had one person claim that if you can make it your whole career without getting accused of sexual harassment you're lucky. I kind of doubt that, though. Because I've been working for quite a while, and neither I nor any of my other co-workers have been accused of sexual harassment, much less multiple times. And I've never seen a woman who files sexual harassment claims against all of her male co-workers either.

The genesis of this discussion was a piece in Bloomberg about how a few Wall Street types have decided that the best way to avoid being accused of harassment by women is to exclude women. Don't hire them, don't include them in meetings, don't do business with them, don't communicate with them. Freeze them out, don't do anything with them, and then you'll never have your innocent comments about their appearance and your innocent offers of foot massages and your innocent discussions of how your wife doesn't understand you be crazily misinterpreted as some sort of sexual harassment.

Getting reprimanded by HR because your subordinate complained about you isn't mob justice, is it? Or do workers have some sort of guarantee to a job? Or can HR only reprimand you after a trial? Proof beyond a reasonable doubt? No, that's not the standard at work. You can be fired from your job because you stole from the company, even though you haven't been convicted of that theft in court. And if your case goes to trial and there's a not guilty verdict, does that mean the company is obligated to re-hire you? No they are not. You lost the trust of your bosses, and they fired you. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't enter into it. Better that 100 harassers keep their job than one innocent non-harasser get fired for harassment? Is that how things work at your company? Because I guarantee you that's not how it works at your company.

People keep demanding evidence. Dude, Alice going to HR and complaining that Bob groped her is evidence. Her statement is evidence. Of course, his statement denying it is evidence too. And then you look at both pieces of evidence, and you decide what to do. But you don't insist that there's nothing you can do because there's no evidence. This isn't even the standard in criminal cases. In many cases the only evidence is the testimony of witnesses. And this isn't dismissed as "no evidence". It is evaluated by the judge and jury, and they make their determination based on their opinion of the evidence.

Let me make this as simple as possible. You own a small business. One day your employee Alice comes to you and tells you that Bob has been following her around and threatening her unless she has sex with him.

You're saying that, since the only evidence of this is what Alice tells you, you tell Alice that there's nothing you can do? Or I guess the smart thing to do is fire Alice, since you don't believe her, and how can you employ a liar like that?

This has nothing to do with double standards for men and women, because the exact same standard holds if Bob comes to you and complains about Alice, or if Alice complains about Carol, or if Bob complains about David.

The standard used to be that you'd ignore Alice or Bob's complaints, or tell them to toughen up and handle it themselves, or fire them for being a troublemaker. And so of course very few people would bother to make such complaints, because it was more likely that the complainer would get punished than the perpetrator. Especially if the complainer is a junior employee complaining about a senior employee.

So everyone complaining about mob justice, we're mostly not talking about the consequences for celebrities and politicians and other public figures. We're talking about consequences for the people at ordinary workplaces. Should the standard at your job be that 100 harassers are better than 1 false accuser? That senior staff should be able to threaten, harass, and assault junior staff with impunity? What's your ideal standard here? That it's not your business until and unless someone gets convicted of a crime in a court of law?
  #290  
Old 12-07-2018, 04:14 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,248
That was fantastic! *applause
  #291  
Old 12-07-2018, 04:19 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu
On these forums we have posting rules. People who violate those rules suffer the "social costs" of being reprimanded, suspended or banned.

We also have a lot of freedom to express our views. People who express views that are widely regarded as repugnant and/or stupid suffer the "social costs" of being frequently mocked, despised or Pitted.

Why do you think any of this counts as "mob justice" that should be "feared"? You seem to have an unrealistic notion that violating agreed-upon community norms and saying things that many people find repugnant or stupid ought to be somehow immune from "social costs".
I’m betting that in 10 years or so you’ll be rethinking your support for mob action in the modern age. Unintended consequences and the resulting reactive forces sometimes result in teachable moments.
Can you spare a moment from your smugly unfalsifiable prophesying to answer the question I asked you? Why do you think that these "social costs" of violating rules and/or being a dick on an anonymous internet messageboard constitute a form of "mob action", much less "mob justice", that should be "feared"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus
Wait until all these silly youth with their inappropriate tweets, videos, photos, Facebook posts, forum posts, etc need a job that won’t tolerate an iota of embarrassing behavior. You might see a push to regulate search and storage like we see in Europe.
Do you mean things like Europe's General Data Protection Regulation? What would be wrong with that? Do you believe that such privacy laws would somehow eliminate the abovementioned "social costs" of violating rules and/or being a dick on the internet?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly
I believe "mob action" in this instance is simply a bitter term meaning "the majority, which opposes me."
"And is gonna be SO SO SORRY on some unspecified day when it gets opposed itself!! Hahaaa!"

I think internet anonymity has given some people an unjustified sense of entitlement about insulation from disagreement or criticism. Since they can be an anonymous jerk to strangers on the internet without getting any pushback whatsoever for it in real life, they have decided that any pushback for jerkish behavior is somehow an illegitimate or excessive form of attack.
  #292  
Old 12-07-2018, 06:37 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Benjamin Franklin is said to have written "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". I wonder if many (or any) posters in this thread would agree with this.
And the "solution" to prevent the possibility of a false accusation is to prevent any accusations?

Can we apply the same to other crimes?

Some people have been falsely accused of theft, lest this happen again, we should prevent people accusing other people of theft.

Some people have been framed for Murder, therefor we should not accept any accusation of Murder.

This was the point of the #MeToo movement. In spite of what some people think it wasn't, "all men should be convicted without evidence", it was "I should be allowed to make an accusation that will be taken seriously and investigated rather than just brushed off".

Last edited by Buck Godot; 12-07-2018 at 06:40 PM.
  #293  
Old 12-07-2018, 08:54 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
If that is so then why is that a tactic so commonly used? Even on these forums and others we have a mob that tries to provide “justice” via enacting social costs.
Yeah, that's not rational. That's paranoia.
  #294  
Old 12-07-2018, 11:47 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Yeah, that's not rational. That's paranoia.
Regardless of your labeling, people in power will still disproportionately shut out women due to this so-called “paranoia.”
  #295  
Old 12-08-2018, 07:13 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Regardless of your labeling, people in power will still disproportionately shut out women due to this so-called “paranoia.”
Haters gonna hate, huh?
  #296  
Old 12-08-2018, 07:14 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Regardless of your labeling, people in power will still disproportionately shut out women due to this so-called “paranoia.”
Then the correct response from society at large is to find out who those people in power are who are responding to irrational paranoia in harmful ways and remove them from power. What steps will you take to help that happen?
  #297  
Old 12-08-2018, 10:53 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Regardless of your labeling, people in power will still disproportionately shut out women due to this so-called “paranoia.”
They've been making excuses for shutting out women (and many others) for decades and centuries... they're probably not going to stop without a fight. This is just the latest excuse.
  #298  
Old 12-08-2018, 11:52 AM
WernhamHogg WernhamHogg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Slough
Posts: 999
So basically, it puts the lotion in the basket or it gets the hose again.
  #299  
Old 12-08-2018, 12:46 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Regardless of your labeling, people in power will still disproportionately shut out women due to this so-called “paranoia.”
And you will defend those discriminatory actions, helping them to stay in power and disproportionately shut out women.
  #300  
Old 12-08-2018, 04:07 PM
Urbanredneck Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
If Claire says Bob pinched her ass, I offer her compassion and steer her to HR. Let them investigate. I don't automatically assume Bob is a "terrible person." I believe Bob may not know boundaries, or I may believe, especially if Bob pinched MY ass, that Bob shouldn't be around coworkers if he can't keep his hands to himself. And I'd think this way even if Bob is accused of pinching Fred's ass. I also don't assume Claire's a backbiting bitch who's willing to go through a pretty unpleasant process just to get Bob fired. That seems to be what you assume, and without evidence.
.
Of course if Claire pinched Bob's ass it would just be "girls having fun" right?



If an older female manager wanted to go cougar on a hot young male intern it would just be a woman being "empowered".


Ok, maybe these are too far but I want to see equal treatment here. For example I once worked with a woman who was very "open" about asking everyone about there sex lives. She asked things of men that no male would DARE say and nothing happened to her.


So if your mad about a man saying a woman looks good in a skirt, you better show equal anger to a woman asking a young man if he's a virgin or not.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017