Brief notes:
The process needs to be changed.
It should go without saying that this change will require a national (or worldwide) discussion, with the least amount of wailing and histrionics as humanly possible. The conversation is occurring - not so sure about the second part.
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:
What though, does mean something as a comparison? We are still left at this point to throw all work place harassment in the same bucket, even if it's not equivalent to Roy Moore.
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.
... but is it possible that some of the offenders actually fail to recognize that their actions were wrong?
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.
I have absolutely zero intention of doing so. My goal is to refocus these threads towards finding common ground - not stonewalling.
Ambitious, I know...
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.
Translated: I am unable or unwilling to put forth any ideas for discussion nor do I have any input on the subject. Got 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—
Others give you a pass cause you're a little slow birch - I won't. If you keep puking up regurgitated word salad and attempting to pass it off as word from on high I will continue to label it as such.
—you're going to need to remind me, again, just what it is you think you have to say. Because—
But I do have an idea - I want to know where your line is, not mine.
—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?
