People’s levels of tolerance are very subjective. Many don’t even pretend to apply it consistently in every case. You’ve noted that yourself.
As harsh as it may seem, it seems better to draw very absolute lines so we don’t keep getting bogged down in the vagaries of who finds what “tolerable”.
I would say it’s more like cognitive dissonance. Once Democrats rallied round Bill Clinton, they would naturally convince themselves that all allegations against Clinton are politically driven accusations from trailer park trash, and in their mindsets Clinton is the true “victim” here. Once that’s what you believe, that’s what you believe. (Perhaps that’s what you meant by “inertia”.)
But I also think there’s a sort of phenomenon you see in American politics and public life generally, in that if you can survive allegations against you and come out alive, then those allegations significantly diminish in importance going forward. It’s like once everyone took their best shot and said everything there was to say, that issue is old news and we move on to other things. Clinton’s impeachment was huge success for him and after that point his sexual transgressions had been dealt with and were yesterday’s news.
It would be unreasonable to set the bar that low for things that happened in the past. The revolution is happening now. We are looking at events from the past through a new perspective and understanding. If things are culturally accepted in the past, we can’t ex post facto condemn the person in the present.
Look at the popular teen movies of the 70’s and 80’s to see extensive examples of what we now consider sexual harassment. They both reflected and reinforced the culture of sexual harassment at the time.
Going forward, it will be reasonable to hold people to a higher standard. While there will always be the 12-year-old who pops a classmate’s bra strap, what will change is how society reacts. Instead of laughing it off as boys will be boys behavior, it will be made clear that type of behavior is not acceptable. Then if he still does the same kind of stuff in his 20’s, feel free to condemn him for it.
My inclination is to see hims stay because I agree with his politics and I believe that he was sincere in his apology. More importantly, his accuser accepted his apology.
So, if we know everything there is to know about Franken’s transgression, is that the high water mark that we set for judging all transgressions going forward? We’re going to have to, right?
I don’t think “agree with his politics” should be part of the equation. You ask for a high water mark, but if you are making it political, it sounds like you want two separate high water marks, depending on the politics of the accused.
I’m reluctant to draw a bright line, but I suspect my “high water mark” is bit higher than what Franken did. I think it’s more of a case-by-case basis.
There’s no particular reason why you have to tolerate any particular failing at the highest levels. The question is whether you single out this one failing, or look at it as among the general class of jerkish behavior. If you want to rule out anyone who ever acted like a jerk “even a little bit”, then you will have very few people left and not necessarily the most talented ones at that. I imagine the way you look at it is that sexual harassment in particular is some unique category of its own and needs to be considered on its own, but that’s not necessarily compelling.
One huge difference is that racism and bigotry directly impact governing - they’re not a personal failing. Sexual harassment is a personal matter. (Yes, I appreciate that some feel misogyny is a necessary component of sexual harassment, but I don’t agree with that and the above is based on the premise that it’s incorrect.)
You could make an argument that since sex is a stronger motivating factor in human behavior than anger is, sexual assaults need to punished more severely than just physical assaults in order to have a deterrent effect.
I don’t think it’s just a personal matter – there’s government involvement in sexual harassment and other mistreatment in the military and other sectors, for example. But it’s also a society-wide matter, and as big a problem (or similar in scope) to racism and bigotry. Even if we got rid of racism and bigotry in all government policy and institutions, I would hope we would still treat racism as anathema among high office, since it’s so pernicious and powerful, with such a long history of harm to the country. I think the same goes for sexual mistreatment.
This is in contrast to entirely consensual behavior, like adultery between adults, or other jerkish behavior (say, being an asshole to a waiter, or yelling at kids to get off your lawn, or insulting someone on twitter, etc.).
I wasn’t clear.
While I agree with his politics, I’m not sure that using his specific transgression as the high water mark for everyone, regardless of politics, is acceptable because it continues to perpetuate a climate of misogyny but sets an “Al Franken” level of tolerance.
Why do we need to treat this on a case-by-case basis? Case-by-case basis is how we ended up with an assaulter-in-chief.
AFAICT, people who are sexual harassers are not in principle in favor of sexual harassment; they just like doing it themselves. It’s not an ideology akin to racism.
“We” don’t need to. I was expressing my personal opinion. I am reluctant to draw a bright line. Feel free to do so if you’re comfortable with that.
OK, dammit.
I’ve got four potentially warnable reports from this thread in the last hour. I’m considering shutting it down because you people can’t behave yourselves.
I’ve decided not to do so. However, from this point on any shots at other posters - even the mildest - will be met with warnings and doom upon the violator.
In short, keep it civil or face the consequences.
Not an ideology, but I think it’s fair to presume that harassers/assaulters will be less diligent in ferreting out and getting justice for harassment and assault in the military and elsewhere.
Do not make personal disparaging comments of this nature in this forum.
This reference is out of bounds for this forum.
Do not appear to insult other posters in this forum. If you were to say that another poster is morally bankrupt that would be a personal insult. I’m going to interpret this a different way.
Not sure if sarcasm, but if you have comments about moderation they go in ATMB.
This is clearly a sensitive subject. Please remain civil.
[/moderating]
eta: ninja’d by JC.
As a matter of human behavior, I believe that the certainty of punishment is far more important than the severity of punishment. Indeed, a severe punishment is usually one that is less certain to be applied because we have higher thresholds for applying it. So, very often, a severe punishment is actually a worse deterrent than a milder punishment that is applied with more certainty.
There are other considerations beyond deterrence, obviously. But looking at things through that lens, it’s a reason to favor building a norm of an ethics investigation which, regardless of the result, is likely to be something congressman hate because it damages their re-election prospects. A sufficiently strong norm that there is an ethics inquiry for credible allegations is something that is actually likely to be enforced with some regularity, whereas that will never be the case with resignation. So while it is a less severe sanction than resignation or expulsion, it may ultimately have more deterrent effect.
Yes. As another foreigner, that’s what I find strange about the US. The strange mix of extreme sexual openness on the one hand, with expecting a boy scout level of prudishness and wholesomeness. Being promiscious and prudish are own their own not bad things, but Americans seem to oscillate between one and the other weekly.
No disrespect, but going after Bill in this issue is not a winner. The worst they were able to pin on him was the Lewinsky, debacle. which while problematic due to the massive power diffrential, was consensual and initiated by Ms Lewinsky, as she herself has maintained.
More to the point, unlike allegations against nearly everyone else, the ones against Bill were investigated with a fine tooth comb by people who were very much not well disposed to the Clintons. People who were looking for any excuse to send him down, and who came to the conclusion that they could not use them. For instance, here. I mean they literally discussed the shape, contours and skin tone of his dick for fucks sake.
You had one of the most thoughtful posts last year on the whole Trump Access Hollywood mess. You pointed out correctly, and against the general consensus of the board, that Trump did not admit to sexual assault in the tape. I think thats needed here as well.
I am late to this conversation, having been out of town.
I would describe myself as liberal to very liberal.
Al Franken should resign. His actions were not acceptable. His continued presence will be a distraction.
Fine. Please share your insight on the benefit of treating this on a case-by-case basis. I’m comfortable with my bright line because I believe it will help avoid a public opinion trial for each future case. Tell me why you think leaving a grey margin is a better approach.
How about we just move it to the Pit?
It’s definitely in the wrong forum, however you cut it. I have no idea what it’s doing in Elections. The Moore stuff is in Elections only because I coincidentally bumped the thread about the Alabama election just before the story broke. I have no idea why the OP chose this forum, but if I had to make a WAG, it would be because the Moore stuff was already here.
I don’t have any “insight” to share other than I think whenever I draw a bright line, there will be new circumstances in some case that I had not yet considered. I’m not claiming any superiority to my approach; it’s just that I don’t feel like I’ve given it enough time to formulate a complete and consistent system with which to judge people. Maybe sometime in the future I will.