#NotMe hashtag kicks off backlash to rash of sexual harassment claims

originally posted by: Shamrock6
But did it leave an impression on you?

I saw that exchange.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Shamrock6


Prospective Employee: "Can you tell me more about the job's duties?"

Idiot Boss: "Sure, absolutely. You'll be doing data entry, some light filing, document preparation and accepting my seed."

Prospective Employee: "And to think I would never get my dream job."

Finally, I actually got a chuckle from one of your comments.

There might be hope for this site yet.

But did it leave an impression on you?

Look at you, trying to not get all emotional about that.

Don't worry, I'm not here to break any hearts.

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Shamrock6


Prospective Employee: "Can you tell me more about the job's duties?"

Idiot Boss: "Sure, absolutely. You'll be doing data entry, some light filing, document preparation and accepting my seed."

Prospective Employee: "And to think I would never get my dream job."

Finally, I actually got a chuckle from one of your comments.

There might be hope for this site yet.

But did it leave an impression on you?

Look at you, trying to not get all emotional about that.

Don't worry, I'm not here to break any hearts.

I'm just trying to keep Augie off my lawn is all. So to speak.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

All I read from your post, is that any sort of question or statement to someone of the opposite sex is considered sexual harassment in your eyes.

originally posted by: dothedew
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

All I read from your post, is that any sort of question or statement to someone of the opposite sex is considered sexual harassment in your eyes.

You must not read terribly well then.

originally posted by: dothedew
All I read from your post, is that any sort of question or statement to someone of the opposite sex is considered sexual harassment in your eyes.

That's exactly what I meant.

Everyone should lock themselves in a box and pretend they're veals.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JBurns
There was another GOP lawmaker who was ousted for simply inquiring about surrogacy to his employees.

Are you defending this type of imposition on someone's employees or direct reports? What kind of out of touch imbecile asks his female staff to bear his children? Plus he admitted 'broaching the topic' with them.

As far as due process, it's still there, the government hasn't taken away anyone's right to a fair trial.

At the same time, women are often believed automatically, and not a few feminists claim they should be. Many feminists appear to want it to be guilty until proven innocent. Moreover, in the court of public opinion and media a court trial is not necessary to ruin careers and produce resignations, firings, or college campus extrajudicial hearings and consequences. Hence, it's a very real issue that goes beyond courts.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: JBurns

So I'm sure you see no issue with a false-accusers registry?

What’s the criteria for that?

A not guilty verdict?
Or absolute proof of a lie?

How do you get that absolute proof without a confession or a solid alibi for the accused?



There will probably be about 4 people on that register.

Surely the same criteria that leads to someone being placed on the sex offenders register would be sufficient wouldn't it? Or do you not think so?

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


What does that have to do with my reply that you quoted where the person in question admitted they serially harassed their direct reports, even offering money, to bear their children?

As I said earlier, if someone feels they have been falsely accused they have several avenues of recourse.

That's not what is at issue here. The point is not to have a discourse that privileges female accusers as automatically right, and male defendents as guilty until proven innocent. Some women lie or don't recall things accurately. Just like all humans.

That isn't "backlash against abused women," it's called due process, fairness, and common sense.

All people should be able to defend themselves against serious accusations.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


What does that have to do with my reply that you quoted where the person in question admitted they serially harassed their direct reports, even offering money, to bear their children?

As I said earlier, if someone feels they have been falsely accused they have several avenues of recourse.

Again, even if you sue for libel or slander you can already have your career ruined, or face sanctions on college campuses. This is the whole point, if public witch trials ruin people without going to court, then your recourse to legal means isn't enough and not addressing the larger issue.

Also, I wasn't referring to that case you mention but a seemingly general point you made.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: JBurns

So I'm sure you see no issue with a false-accusers registry?

What’s the criteria for that?

A not guilty verdict?
Or absolute proof of a lie?

How do you get that absolute proof without a confession or a solid alibi for the accused?



There will probably be about 4 people on that register.

Surely the same criteria that leads to someone being placed on the sex offenders register would be sufficient wouldn't it? Or do you not think so?

Yeah, let’s go with that...
Will that mean the false accusers become the beneficiary of new identities and addresses, like some on the sex offenders register?

a reply to: Shamrock6


Agreed, when you continually ask after being denied that is entirely different. I suppose I need to research this specific incident more as I was not aware this was the case (and would've saved myself the embarrassment of supporting this particular individual), but there is certainly a handful of people that have been railroaded and ruined from allegations without evidence

a reply to: Hazardous1408

What do so called "betas" have to do with anything?

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
]Again, even if you sue for libel or slander you can already have your career ruined, or face sanctions on college campuses.

And if it turns out you were innocent you can then collect for wrongful termination and/or get your job back and then sue the accuser for damages.

Also, I wasn't referring to that case you mention but a seemingly general point you made.

I didn't make a general point, I specifically mentioned the politician soliciting babies from his employees.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

I would say yes to that question, otherwise it would be a case of unevenly applied law, and a law applied unevenly is no law at all.

What an utterly wretched idea.

And what a disgusting society we live in where these 'people', and I use the term loosely, feel that a backlash against the victims of sexual assault is a great idea.

Utterly gross. They should be ashamed of themselves.

originally posted by: Autorico
a reply to: Hazardous1408

What do so called "betas" have to do with anything?

Nothing.
& everything.

I wanted to verbally abuse people mainly, and it seemed like a good choice of insult given the topic.

I regret nothing.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Name calling solves so much. As someone who would probably be considered a beta, I can tell you that I find the backlash against the accusers horrible. Although I believe the VAST majority are telling the truth, I also believe there are a few who would take advantage to smear someone.

My only issue is that if harassment happens, deal with it then and there. Don't wait 15 years and then say something. When years pass the facts of what happened can become clouded. Also, if you wait until someone runs for office then it looks like there is a political motive behind the accusation.

Sal

a reply to: JBurns