1) That's not true - he probably wouldn't have been fired at all, let alone so precipitately, for those kinds of accusations of that level of bad behavior years ago and far from his workplace. The employer would be vulnerable to lawsuit for wrongful dismissal. 2) That's not the only problem with what happened: it's not only the treatment of Franken at issue, but also the incompetence of the way it was handled and the harm done in consequence, with the risk of much more. The notion that considerations of collateral damage, serious harm or risk to others, when deciding on responses or punishments or even the timing of them, are immoral in themselves and in principle - that any degree of bad sexual behavior must be punished without regard for the effects of that punishment on others, or morality and ethics have been abandoned - seems irresponsible at best, and frankly delusional in many common circumstances. It's beginning to be impossible to tell what anyone is actually talking about when they declare something unacceptable. There isn't much visible disagreement over what is and is not acceptable, after all, barring the drivebys from paddoboy and the like. I have agreed with every such assessment I have read so far, at least. But that doesn't begin to settle anything. And this entire tangent belongs in some other thread - imho. Why I held off. There's plenty to discuss relevant to the thread topic and the women's March, without rehashing other threads.
wrong but this is hypothetical. if he had repeatedly sexually harassed and groped eight women, he would be fired at any reputable company. even one, in some cases. this is because this type of behavior is unprofessional. if it isn't stopped or handled, the victim could file a lawsuit against the employer/company. statute of limitations, yes bullshit.
That's nice, because I sit where I believe the majority of reasonable citizens sit in believing and demanding that all citizens have the right to walk the street without being sexually harrassed. Again I don't see wolf whistling as sexually harrassing despite your claims. Ask away all you like, but you are certainly not the be all and end all of opinion on equal rights as opposed to women's rights. Many women today, some silently, see the small number of feminazis over-playing theeir hand on this matter. I would ask yourself the same question actually and then explain how you would supposedly implement your extreme policies. No you have the bull by the wrong end. In actual fact it is you claiming sexual harrassment, based on flimsy evidence and hear say. It is you claiming that a wolf whistle by any male, will lead to sexual harrassment, just as MR stupidly claims a UFO is of Alien origin. Committed a crime? Their crime may have possibly sent someone to jail or even the death penalty. I believe if found out, they deserve the same penalty as the person they falsely accused may have received if found guilty. Am I being too harsh? I'll leave you and Taissa be now Bells. Out of politeness I was just answering your questions. But as you should know, what you express here, and what I express here will in time be lost in cyber space and have absolutely no effect on the general populace. ps: Sorry, you did mention somewhere about my comparing this subject matter with the minor road and traffic issues I raised...It was an analogy: meaning that the minor road and traffic infringements which we all do from day to day, is just that...a comparison with the minor effect that wolf whistling has compared to real sexual harrassment....To compare it to cosmology, similar to the background metric we call spacetime and gravity as analogous to a stretched rubber sheet and bowling ball. Same difference.
Because if I move all of the posts in paddo's drive by horror tangent into his thread that is now closed (since really, that is where it belongs) before he responds or finishes responding, he'll probably accuse me abusing my mod powers and really, I've kind of had enough. So I'll let him get it all out, so we are clear and then I'll move it all to that thread and hopefully somewhere, somehow, it can be flung into the burning sun that is the Cesspool.
Brief notes: Analogy: Jackson Katz, who I have already noted disapprovingly, recently gained some prominence for his discussion of passive voice about the phrase "violence against women"; my counterpoint in that question is simply that as we go from Bill Cosby and drugging women in one cycle to workplace harassment among the rich and famous in another, or lists of prevention advice after a spectacular incident, maybe some DV/stalking shootings ... okay, so, being a continuum implies contiguity and continuity; trying to keep cut the spectrum into separate sections can be a problem. Indeed, the functional risk is that by perpetually rolling through these categories made disparate by erasing the term "violence against women"—for not being hard enough on men, as the argument goes—the difficult discussion you note hears ever more wailing and bawling about how we're always hearing about women. The process needs to be changed, but so do fundamental components about it. Remember the bizarre secret system Congress invented for itself was response to Bill Clinton's exploitative behavior, and I recall some page abuse scandals. For instance: You made some demands that other people acknowledge some idea of spectrum or whatever; do you intend to give any consideration to predatory behavior? We can change the process all we want, but the fact of the problem requires at least as much address and attention as the process we apply to it. Danger is as danger does. Is it possible? You know there's a pfft! in there. I mean, come on, dude, ignorance used to be regularly offered up as an excuse. Meanwhile, perhaps you have an example in mind? We don't get to write our own mitigating factors. Seriously, you're not funny. To put it quite simply, I don't believe you. You made bogus demands for satisfaction. Your behavior, functionally speaking, works to refocus discussion toward your preferred ground, regardless of how you want to describe it. No, you're being lazy. You came in with an attitude and are pursuing a particular end. At some point, people are going to need more than arrogant demands according to what seems convenient to say↑. I mean, you're willing to complain about what might be harsh↑, but do you really think the bullshit you showed Birch wasn't harsh? By the time you get around to— —you're going to need to remind me, again, just what it is you think you have to say. Because— —hiding behind that kind of sloth is pretty damn flaccid. Consider an abstract question: What sexual harassment do you wish to protect? Yes, that would be harsh. The less abstract is to look back at "not so much" and how "it seems that all transgressions" ... so, yeah, let's talk about transgressions. I'm pretty clear on where my line is about transgressions. They're transgressions. Make an actual argument. What do you want for what transgressions?
Not likely, for the accusations and behavior involved. For example, when the Vulcans of Saint Paul, Minnesota were coerced by public opinion to desist from their Winter Carnival custom of grabbing women on the street and planting charcoal-enhanced kisses on them, their membership was known - to this day there are employees of Saint Paul firms who are on record as having seized and kissed multiple unwilling women in front of witnesses. None of them are or have ever been in any danger of being fired on that account. And these were not mere allegations made by anonymous or agenda-driven objectors - there is documentary evidence, photos, proof. You seem to be altering, significantly, the circumstances detailed in the Franken accusations. Irrelevant. No legalities are involved. No. Not bullshit. Central and significant issues of reason and competence - especially in governing. The women being subjected to it continually and threateningly for years on end beg to differ.
consider this from a moral angle. this is hypothetically, remember? for his behavior, he would have been fired today by a reputable company and not waiting for eight women to stack up either. he resigned. there is no cruel and unusual or harsher than his conduct repercussion meted out. this behavior is usually not tolerated in professional environments (of course there are exceptions). people have a job to do and you don't need employees stressed or work in hostile environment which affects their performance and lowers morale and you don't need the threat of lawsuits either besides just the basic unethics of harassment.
No, he would almost certainly not. Very few employers would fire somebody based on the accusations and behaviors made public about Franken, and if they did they would be opening themselves up to being sued. But the consequences to others, via the incompetent handling by the Democratic Party, are still looming, and are potentially disastrous.
if they did that on the job, yes, they would. especially corporate. that is if their human resources department does not handle it to mitigate further harassment before it gets to that point after a complaint has been filed. there are rules for professional behavior on the job, and how these issues are handled. private businesses, up to the owner.
But they didn't. This was specifically Franken's case, remember - we are considering the accusations and behaviors made public about Franken, who was employed as a US Senator and worked in an office building in Washington, DC, in 2017 when he was accused.
Well no. I use a toilet. Along with really soft multi ply toilet paper, that feels like happy clouds on my arse. And I have not attacked you. You, on the other hand cannot say the same.
And fairly clearly wrong. It's maybe not easy to take a cold-blooded look at the nature and circumstances of the actual allegations against Franken relative to the employer and employment involved, especially if committed to defending the incompetence of the DNC's response, but any corporation with a legal team handy would be getting better advice. And that's if they were looking for an excuse to fire him - if he were a valuable employee, the subject probably wouldn't come up except as an informal query to HR to see if there were any internal complaints or issues they hadn't mentioned at the last performance review. And people say these discussions are humorless.
It only takes one for people opposed to the movement in general to justify themselves. They do the same thing with immigration and black lives matter.
If their lawyers were competent, they would point out the danger of not firing him, since if anything similar or worse then happened, the employer would be liable for millions in damages.
A GOP candidate for the State Missouri has provided a stunning example just why the women's march and feminism is so important in American political discourse. Presenting Courtland Sykes, who jumped onto the political scene this past week with a scree about women and women's rights that needs to be seen to be believed. Perhaps he has seen a niche over these last few months, you know, the men who are having issues about women, women's rights and yeah, just women. Mr Sykes feels so confident in his views, that it appears as though he has released his statement on his Facebook page, to get that message out there over social media, because apparently people had been asking him about women's rights. Look, this is bad enough and reads enough like an utter joke that my first thought was that it is not outside the realm of possibility that he has been hacked. Then I clicked over to his Facebook page and he has introduced this as his views on women's rights. This has been out long enough that if he was hacked, someone would have picked up on this already. They haven't. Then I considered his target audience. Is he serious? Does he think this is a winning strategy? Given what we have seen from one particular individual this past week, perhaps Mr Sykes is serious and he is desperate to tap into what he sees is male rage and those who believe women finding their voice is an attack on their manhood. And yes, he is a Trumpian. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! While we can be grateful he did not go on about how girls need to shave their armpits (that would have been the cherry on top of this putrid bit of pudding), but really... What the actual hell? As for Chanel, his bride to be... At Harvard, Sykes met his fiancée, Chanel Rion, a pro-Trump artist. Sykes’ campaign website includes a section lauding her work. “Chanel has become widely known as the best political illustrator in the country for constitutional conservative and anti-leftist causes and as President Trump’s most talented and stalwart graphic warrior against leftism,” the website states. Rion’s professional website includes a cartoon promoting the baseless conspiracy theory that Democratic staffer Seth Rich was murdered by Hillary Clinton. Fox News currently faces a lawsuit from Rich’s family for a now retracted report on the case. Other cartoons show Clinton in prison garb, portray Muslims as a threat to the United States and depict former FBI Director James Comey, who Trump fired, as a snake. Another cartoon labels U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who survived years of torture during the Vietnam War, as a traitor because of his vote against a Trump-backed health care bill. “She wanted her illustrations to be a reflection of how she saw the other side,” Sykes said about his fiancée’s cartoons, noting that she gained popularity during the 2016 election. But when pressed on the cartoons’ content, he replied, “I won’t speak for Chanel. These illustrations are 100 percent hers.” I wonder how adept she is at getting dinner on the table by 6:00pm? And what happens if she does not? Now if you'll excuse me, it's time to go and comb my Medusa hair and find a tall building to let rip a banshee like scream from.
Now you're being silly. The sure liability for lawsuit if they fired him on grounds like that is on top of the sure cost of firing a good employee - that is going to outweigh the bizarre fantasy of being held liable for millions in damages if the guy grabs somebody's ass somewhere and the victim finds out where he works.
