Sure doesn’t sound that way. Your business is not everything someone does. How’d you like a camera on you 24/7 and then let the most outraged of the I’m outraged! contingent of internet denizens howl about each and every one of your perceived impurities? Sounds like the Twilight Zone episode where that kid could put people in the cornfield for a bad thought. Replace kid with internet mob and you have current reality.
My guess is that it’s precisely due to the fact that loss of a job/career has for decades been the default penalty for committing a PC offense. Witness Michael Richards, Kevin Spacey and Louis C.K. as but a few examples. Had they merely dealt drugs or shot or stabbed or killed someone, the PC crowd would be advocating their early release from prison and lobbying for their right to vote. But use a racially biased word or come on too strong to the wrong person and you deserve to lose the career you’ve worked all your adult life for and to be ostracized from society. It’s ridiculous, but that’s where we’ve been for some time now.
If only what you just wrote had any relevance.
It’s extraordinarily ridiculous and I have a hard time believing that so many people actually feel that way. It’s completely irrational.
That’s not a good thing, what that person did to you, and I’m glad you weren’t affected much by it. It does make me wonder though, if that person is (let’s say) running for office twenty years later, do you say anything about it to anyone? Does it affect your perception of that person being suitable to serve the public as an authority figure? Do you let it go, because it was no big deal?
I don’t expect you to have all the answers so I won’t expect any, but nothing could be more relevant to the wider topic than this.
Who are these people who “used a racially biased word” or “came on too strong to the wrong person” that you’re comparing to Michael Richards, Kevin Spacey and Louis CK?
If the man ran as a communist I still wouldn’t make it public. I don’t think it matters to the point that someone should be disqualified from employment. Hell, I feel that way about alleged murderers. Should OJ Simpson be deprived of ever been able to be a productive member of society after his trial? People need to be able to function in society. Even after alleged or proven transgressions.
With regards to viewing as an authority figure. I don’t really trust anyone in power. I think all people, regardless of position, have flaws and are fallible. I don’t expect perfection.
C’mon now. You are misreading that quoted post completely.
Yeah, don’t play dumb - you know we’re talking about Colin Kaepernick.
I agree! I’ve been astounded for years that so many people are so afraid of being called names or companies afraid of losing a little bit of business that they so readily capitulate to this nonsense. Luckily most of it happens only electronically. I have little doubt that people would be getting lynched for some of this stuff were the offenderatti congregated all in one place.
The story from the OP would seem to contradict your spin:
Incorrect. By her own admission she told no one until weeks after the incident had taken place:
She goes on to attempt to explain why she told no one else (and presumably why she waited several weeks to tell her husband):
[ibid]
Left unexplained is how Al Franken could have affected her career as a broadcaster.
The photo Franken thought was a good idea was a stupid, unfunny, sexist idea. He owes Tweeden an apology. He has given her an apology and she has accepted it.
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/360709-woman-who-accused-franken-says-she-accepts-his-apology
If Franken, as Tweeden alleges, put his tongue in her mouth when all she’d agreed to was a stage kiss, then he should face some sort of greater penalty than merely having to apologize to Tweeden. So far, we have only Tweeden’s word on this.
A full investigation is called for. Franken showed poor judgment in posing for that photo. If some corroborative evidence is found in support of the tongue allegation, that is clearly a serious matter that will lead to negative consequences for Franken.
The investigation would certainly have been more conclusive had Tweeden told someone immediately about the kiss allegation. She didn’t know about the photo immediately and obviously couldn’t have told anyone about it. But her credibility is not helped by the delay in mentioning the kiss allegation, nor by her puzzling claim that Franken had power over her career path.
Have you seen discussion here and elsewhere of the facts that victims of assault extraordinarily commonly do not immediately report an assault to anyone, and that fear of career reprisal is an extraordinarily common reason not to report immediately, and already rejected them out of hand in making your credibility determination? Or would you like to reject them now?
I missed the part where she claimed that “Franken had power over her career path.” She said she “was worried about the potential backlash and damage going public might have on my career as a broadcaster”, but that doesn’t necessarily have to be backlash or damage from Franken personally. I have no difficulty imagining she was worried about gaining a reputation as the sort of woman that made sexual harassment allegations, and how that might affect her reception with the public or potential employers’ evaluations of her as she applied for future positions, irrespective of what Franken might do or not do.
ETA: Is this still a “puzzling” claim to you?
If you have actual concern about sexual assault and violation of consent, how can you possibly continue to support Trump?
My bolding and I appreciate you answering. I get the impression that accountability here is not that important. This to me is the wrong way to handle people who prey on others, but for the same reason, i.e. people need to be able to function in society. Without being predators.
I don’t really trust anyone in power either, but we (all) are tasked with doling it out to other people on a regular basis. So that said, it may not matter that much to you if someone has a habit of fondling teenagers, but it does matter to me. We just have different priorities.
This prospective Senate Ethics inquiry? Is it typical to call witnesses? Are they sworn, under oath? If a witness refuses to testify, can they be compelled? If the Dems on the committee want her to testify, but the majority R’s do not, then…what?
Because Al has clearly stuck his foot in it, now. Let’s do it, he says.
Scenario one: Al is guilty as all git out, and welcomes the opportunity for public flagellation and a masochistic orgy of humiliation. Hey, people are weird, could be.
Numero two-o, its a trap. Perhaps it is part of a program of public repentance? Or, maybe it isn’t. Maybe its a crafty and cunning maneuver.
Anyway, crux of the biscuit, three questions. Are witnesses called, are they sworn under penalty of perjury, and can they refuse?
ETA: By the way, where’s the photographer?
Accountability? Sure. If I had a problem with a particular incident I’d have dealt with it then. I don’t think accountability means everyone with a possible transgression in life needs to fear eventually being a pariah. Your accusation that I think people should be able to fondle teenagers habitually without consent is over the top. I can’t help that nuance and a gradient of responses doesn’t strike you as rational behavior in an imperfect world.
Here’s my bottom line. Most of America didn’t need to find out that Roy Moore was a sexual predator to establish the fact that he’s a cunt – most of us figured that out anyway. However, it took Roy Moore’s predatory past to make his own supporters at least stop and question whether he was really and truly a man of the Bible, or whether he was, like so many conservatives, using the Bible and fake religiosity to win votes.
Al Franken is still, in many ways, an attractive moderate progressive. He’s not a racist. He’s not a misogynist. He supports policies that support working class families and ordinary people. There’s a lot to like about Al Franken. That doesn’t mean Franken’s behavior shouldn’t be examined – it should be. I support the woman whom he offended more than I support Franken in this instance. But I’ve never been a single issue person and I’ve never reacted to a single example of wrongdoing. If it is established that this is a pattern of behavior, then I would be among those who advocates his dismissal from the Senate. But short of that, I think we need to evaluate people in total.
I imagine that this post would be heartily endorsed by Gloria Steinem if she were aware of it.