|
|
Post by MiketheMechanic on Nov 29, 2017 17:46:30 GMT
Garrison Keillor fired for alleged improper behaviorMINNEAPOLIS — Garrison Keillor, the former host of “A Prairie Home Companion,” says he’s been fired by Minnesota Public Radio over allegations of improper behavior. Keillor told The Associated Press of his firing in an email. In a follow-up statement, he says he was fired over “a story that I think is more interesting and more complicated than the version MPR heard.” He didn’t give details of the allegation. Minnesota Public Radio didn’t immediately respond to messages. Keillor retired last year from his longtime radio show, but still produced “The Writer’s Almanac” for syndication. link
|
|
|
|
Post by High Plains Drifter on Nov 30, 2017 4:32:55 GMT
I know murder has no limitation, but what about all this celebrity nonsense. People are losing their careers & being blacklisted over stories with no proof. If there were text messages, letters, & notes, why weren't they saved? Last woman who went after a celebrity keep the DNA covered blue dress as proof. So why are these women not doing the same? If you're going to squeal on someone keep the proof.
|
|
|
|
Post by shannondegroot on Nov 30, 2017 15:53:02 GMT
Russell Simmons says he's removing himself from his businesses following screenwriter Jenny Lumet's sexual assault allegations.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweetpea on Nov 30, 2017 16:29:28 GMT
I know murder has no limitation, but what about all this celebrity nonsense. People are losing their careers & being blacklisted over stories with no proof. If there were text messages, letters, & notes, why weren't they saved? Last woman who went after a celebrity keep the DNA covered blue dress as proof. So why are these women not doing the same? If you're going to squeal on someone keep the proof. Proof is not as easy as it may seem. Look at rape-even this is he said/she said a great deal of the time unless you happen to have video/phone rolling. Why? Because he can say it was consensual, she likes it rough, etc. Even Charlie Rose said "I thought it was mutual" when it came to his accusers. However, there can be more said when there is more than one, because this shows a repetitive act. This goes for all those well known people. When you pit someone powerful against the accuser(no matter if it' someone famous or an assistant), it is still he said/she said. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 30, 2017 16:39:43 GMT
I know murder has no limitation, but what about all this celebrity nonsense. People are losing their careers & being blacklisted over stories with no proof. If there were text messages, letters, & notes, why weren't they saved? Last woman who went after a celebrity keep the DNA covered blue dress as proof. So why are these women not doing the same? If you're going to squeal on someone keep the proof. Proof is not as easy as it may seem. Look at rape-even this is he said/she said a great deal of the time unless you happen to have video/phone rolling. Why? Because he can say it was consensual, she likes it rough, etc. Even Charlie Rose said "I thought it was mutual" when it came to his accusers. However, there can be more said when there is more than one, because this shows a repetitive act. This goes for all those well known people. When you pit someone powerful against the accuser(no matter if it' someone famous or an assistant), it is still he said/she said. I don't know if anyone was claiming that "proof" is easy, but there needs to be evidence at any rate. We can't forego the need for evidence and punish people anyway, just because it's not so easy for there to be evidence. Will that allow some situations to pass unpunished? Yes. That's part of the price we have to pay for not punishing people merely on claims, which can easily lead to innocent people being punished (for vendettas of some sort, or whatever the reason might be). One of the upshots of this is that people should avoid putting themselves in situations where something might happen that they'd object to and that's illegal if they don't desire it, where they wouldn't have evidence of it happening. That would help cut down on the number of incidents that would slide by unpunished otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by sweetpea on Nov 30, 2017 16:49:28 GMT
Proof is not as easy as it may seem. Look at rape-even this is he said/she said a great deal of the time unless you happen to have video/phone rolling. Why? Because he can say it was consensual, she likes it rough, etc. Even Charlie Rose said "I thought it was mutual" when it came to his accusers. However, there can be more said when there is more than one, because this shows a repetitive act. This goes for all those well known people. When you pit someone powerful against the accuser(no matter if it' someone famous or an assistant), it is still he said/she said. I don't know if anyone was claiming that "proof" is easy, but there needs to be evidence at any rate. We can't forego the need for evidence and punish people anyway, just because it's not so easy for there to be evidence. Will that allow some situations to pass unpunished? Yes. That's part of the price we have to pay for not punishing people merely on claims, which can easily lead to innocent people being punished (for vendettas of some sort, or whatever the reason might be). One of the upshots of this is that people should avoid putting themselves in situations where something might happen that they'd object to and that's illegal if they don't desire it, where they wouldn't have evidence of it happening. That would help cut down on the number of incidents that would slide by unpunished otherwise. Oh I know that. I was specifically referring to "the blue dress" part. We could avoid these situations. But in the case of Lauer or Rose where you're an assistant in their office, you don't expect they're going to show you their ding dong instead of the script. It's much easier to avoid when you know they're perverts  . |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 30, 2017 17:00:07 GMT
I don't know if anyone was claiming that "proof" is easy, but there needs to be evidence at any rate. We can't forego the need for evidence and punish people anyway, just because it's not so easy for there to be evidence. Will that allow some situations to pass unpunished? Yes. That's part of the price we have to pay for not punishing people merely on claims, which can easily lead to innocent people being punished (for vendettas of some sort, or whatever the reason might be). One of the upshots of this is that people should avoid putting themselves in situations where something might happen that they'd object to and that's illegal if they don't desire it, where they wouldn't have evidence of it happening. That would help cut down on the number of incidents that would slide by unpunished otherwise. Oh I know that. I was specifically referring to "the blue dress" part. We could avoid these situations. But in the case of Lauer or Rose where you're an assistant in their office, you don't expect they're going to show you their ding dong instead of the script. It's much easier to avoid when you know they're perverts . I don't actually now any of the details in these cases. Is that supposedly what both Lauer and Rose did? Pull out their schlongs in the office? It might be overly cynical of me, but I think that women are being naive if they expect that any male might not do something like that, especially in a situation where they might be alone with them. Some men aren't going to do that--it's definitely not something I'd do (I mean I'd not literally pull out my schlong, and I'm not going to grope anyone or anything like that, either, in a situation where there's not obvious, explicit interest/it's not mutual), but you can't expect that any arbitrary male isn't going to do that sort of stuff. And while I wouldn't do that, I definitely do hit on women, flirt with them, ask them out, etc., and I might be a bit persistent with it depending on the person. I think that most men--assuming they're hetero, at least--are at least potentially interested in most women romantically. Women need to realize that, and not assume that it's not the case for any man towards them, even if they've worked with them for a long time, even if they've been supposedly platonic friends for a long time, etc. That isn't going to change just because we make it socially or legally more difficult. It's built into us biologically. |
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Nov 30, 2017 17:12:06 GMT
Proof is not as easy as it may seem. Look at rape-even this is he said/she said a great deal of the time unless you happen to have video/phone rolling. Why? Because he can say it was consensual, she likes it rough, etc. Even Charlie Rose said "I thought it was mutual" when it came to his accusers. However, there can be more said when there is more than one, because this shows a repetitive act. This goes for all those well known people. When you pit someone powerful against the accuser(no matter if it' someone famous or an assistant), it is still he said/she said. I don't know if anyone was claiming that "proof" is easy, but there needs to be evidence at any rate. We can't forego the need for evidence and punish people anyway, just because it's not so easy for there to be evidence. Will that allow some situations to pass unpunished? Yes. That's part of the price we have to pay for not punishing people merely on claims, which can easily lead to innocent people being punished (for vendettas of some sort, or whatever the reason might be). One of the upshots of this is that people should avoid putting themselves in situations where something might happen that they'd object to and that's illegal if they don't desire it, where they wouldn't have evidence of it happening. That would help cut down on the number of incidents that would slide by unpunished otherwise. The fact that so many people jump on the pitchfork bandwagon without one piece of evidence IS proof that proof is very easy to find. Or conjure. |
|
|
|
Post by DanaShelbyChancey on Nov 30, 2017 18:01:59 GMT
Testimony by the victim is evidence. All this wouldn't be happening if people would just keep their hands to themselves and not talk about anything but work in the work place. It is a shame it has to come to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweetpea on Nov 30, 2017 19:22:06 GMT
Oh I know that. I was specifically referring to "the blue dress" part. We could avoid these situations. But in the case of Lauer or Rose where you're an assistant in their office, you don't expect they're going to show you their ding dong instead of the script. It's much easier to avoid when you know they're perverts . I don't actually now any of the details in these cases. Is that supposedly what both Lauer and Rose did? Pull out their schlongs in the office? It might be overly cynical of me, but I think that women are being naive if they expect that any male might not do something like that, especially in a situation where they might be alone with them. Some men aren't going to do that--it's definitely not something I'd do (I mean I'd not literally pull out my schlong, and I'm not going to grope anyone or anything like that, either, in a situation where there's not obvious, explicit interest/it's not mutual), but you can't expect that any arbitrary male isn't going to do that sort of stuff. And while I wouldn't do that, I definitely do hit on women, flirt with them, ask them out, etc., and I might be a bit persistent with it depending on the person. I think that most men--assuming they're hetero, at least--are at least potentially interested in most women romantically. Women need to realize that, and not assume that it's not the case for any man towards them, even if they've worked with them for a long time, even if they've been supposedly platonic friends for a long time, etc. That isn't going to change just because we make it socially or legally more difficult. It's built into us biologically. It's been reported that they did. But like I said, it's not proof just by someone saying it(not that I think the women are lying, it's just the legality of it). Flirting, yes I get that(although Geraldo is now getting it for saying just that). But in work situations, people shouldn't have to deal with it-unless your both single, it's obvious, etc. With Lauer, it was a case of a superior with his assistant. That's creepy & unnerving to even me, who is pretty tough growing up with 6 older brothers. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 30, 2017 20:35:16 GMT
But in work situations, people shouldn't have to deal with it . . . If you ask me, people shouldn't even have to work, but we've not developed robotics well enough yet.  |
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Nov 30, 2017 22:03:48 GMT
But in work situations, people shouldn't have to deal with it . . . If you ask me, people shouldn't even have to work, but we've not developed robotics well enough yet. People shouldn't have to pay for food, medical care or for homes. But we do. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Dec 1, 2017 1:06:39 GMT
If you ask me, people shouldn't even have to work, but we've not developed robotics well enough yet. People shouldn't have to pay for food, medical care or for homes. But we do. Right, so "should we have to do x" probably isn't a good gauge for whether x should be treated as forbidden. |
|
|
|
Post by thornberry on Dec 3, 2017 4:26:26 GMT
But in work situations, people shouldn't have to deal with it . . . If you ask me, people shouldn't even have to work, but we've not developed robotics well enough yet. We have come a long way with robotics, but we still insist that everyone have a 40-hour per week job even though jobs are getting scarcer. Why not reduce the hours and employ more people? |
|
|
|
Post by DanaShelbyChancey on Dec 3, 2017 14:17:24 GMT
I don't actually now any of the details in these cases. Is that supposedly what both Lauer and Rose did? Pull out their schlongs in the office? It might be overly cynical of me, but I think that women are being naive if they expect that any male might not do something like that, especially in a situation where they might be alone with them. Some men aren't going to do that--it's definitely not something I'd do (I mean I'd not literally pull out my schlong, and I'm not going to grope anyone or anything like that, either, in a situation where there's not obvious, explicit interest/it's not mutual), but you can't expect that any arbitrary male isn't going to do that sort of stuff. And while I wouldn't do that, I definitely do hit on women, flirt with them, ask them out, etc., and I might be a bit persistent with it depending on the person. I think that most men--assuming they're hetero, at least--are at least potentially interested in most women romantically. Women need to realize that, and not assume that it's not the case for any man towards them, even if they've worked with them for a long time, even if they've been supposedly platonic friends for a long time, etc. That isn't going to change just because we make it socially or legally more difficult. It's built into us biologically. It's been reported that they did. But like I said, it's not proof just by someone saying it(not that I think the women are lying, it's just the legality of it). Flirting, yes I get that(although Geraldo is now getting it for saying just that). But in work situations, people shouldn't have to deal with it-unless your both single, it's obvious, etc. With Lauer, it was a case of a superior with his assistant. That's creepy & unnerving to even me, who is pretty tough growing up with 6 older brothers. Oh yes, the "boys will be boys" defense! Think about this: ask any man out there "are you a strong decisive guy, or are you a slave to your urges?" He would say "I be heap big he-man, in total control of myself!" Yet we nod and say "understandable" when men do these things, as if they have no choice but to act when their glands say 'attack!' And "women are the weaker sex" so we have no choice but to put up with it? Let the perpetrators control themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Dec 4, 2017 2:13:05 GMT
I don't actually now any of the details in these cases. Is that supposedly what both Lauer and Rose did? Pull out their schlongs in the office? It might be overly cynical of me, but I think that women are being naive if they expect that any male might not do something like that, especially in a situation where they might be alone with them. Some men aren't going to do that--it's definitely not something I'd do (I mean I'd not literally pull out my schlong, and I'm not going to grope anyone or anything like that, either, in a situation where there's not obvious, explicit interest/it's not mutual), but you can't expect that any arbitrary male isn't going to do that sort of stuff. ... I think that most men--assuming they're hetero, at least--are at least potentially interested in most women romantically. Women need to realize that, and not assume that it's not the case for any man towards them, even if they've worked with them for a long time, even if they've been supposedly platonic friends for a long time, etc. That isn't going to change just because we make it socially or legally more difficult. It's built into us biologically. Come on, now. It's not naive or unreasonable for people to expect and demand to be treated in a professional manner in the workplace. Professional manner means that a person can expect that they will not be groped or flashed. It means that their job won't be held over their head to get them to engage in sexual activity. It means that--if the relationship is not one of boss/subordinate or similar imbalance of power--a romantic or sexual interest can be verbally expressed, depending on the type of workplace, but that should be the end of it if the person being pursued indicates that she or he is not interested, especially if she or he is known to already be in a relationship (eg, married!). More specifically, it means that if a woman in the workplace is approached by a male coworker and she indicates that she is not interested in developing a romantic or sexual relationship with him, going forward he should not treat her differently than he treats others in the workplace that he has no sexual/romantic interest in. That's what maintaining a professional relationship is. If a (hetero) man would not grab a male coworker (or an elderly female coworker) by the butt, or expose himself to the male coworker, or make lewd remarks to/around him, then he should not do any of those things to a woman with whom he is working either. It's not considered naive to expect that someone won't try to break into your house, or hold you up at gunpoint when you're walking down the street, or assault you because they think you are an alien who is trying to steal their brain. Yes, there are plenty of sociopaths and mentally ill people in the world, and it's entirely possible that you might have the bad fortune of becoming the victim of an encounter with one. But we wouldn't make an excuse for their bad behavior and call you naive for being a victim. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Dec 4, 2017 12:24:07 GMT
It's not naive or unreasonable for people to expect and demand to be treated in a professional manner in the workplace. It's naive to not expect men to be as sexual as they are (which I detailed above). We're talking about something that's biologically built into them. It's naive to not expect that there are some people who will do those things. That's is why you take precautions against them, why you prepare yourself to be able to deal with them, etc. In the case of male sexuality and its expression, we're not talking about some small subset of men. Were talking about the vast majority of them. The vast majority of men are going to have sexual thoughts about people they encounter of the gender they're attracted to, unless they find the person in question extremely unattractive. And the vast majority of men are going to look for opportunities to act on those thoughts in some way. It's naive to expect otherwise. You can pretend that the facts aren't what they are, but that's naive. |
|
|
|
Post by DanaShelbyChancey on Dec 4, 2017 15:08:43 GMT
It's not naive or unreasonable for people to expect and demand to be treated in a professional manner in the workplace. It's naive to not expect men to be as sexual as they are (which I detailed above). We're talking about something that's biologically built into them. It's naive to not expect that there are some people who will do those things. That's is why you take precautions against them, why you prepare yourself to be able to deal with them, etc. In the case of male sexuality and its expression, we're not talking about some small subset of men. Were talking about the vast majority of them. The vast majority of men are going to have sexual thoughts about people they encounter of the gender they're attracted to, unless they find the person in question extremely unattractive. And the vast majority of men are going to look for opportunities to act on those thoughts in some way. It's naive to expect otherwise. You can pretend that the facts aren't what they are, but that's naive. So this means, women who are harassed against their wishes just have to put up and shut up, and expect it? That it is ok, the guy can't help himself? I had a job for 22 years and none of the men ever harassed me. Would you say I must be extremely unattractive, hideous? I don't believe I am seen that way by anyone, I just think the men didn't harass me. Simple as that. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Dec 4, 2017 17:52:45 GMT
It's naive to not expect men to be as sexual as they are (which I detailed above). We're talking about something that's biologically built into them. It's naive to not expect that there are some people who will do those things. That's is why you take precautions against them, why you prepare yourself to be able to deal with them, etc. In the case of male sexuality and its expression, we're not talking about some small subset of men. Were talking about the vast majority of them. The vast majority of men are going to have sexual thoughts about people they encounter of the gender they're attracted to, unless they find the person in question extremely unattractive. And the vast majority of men are going to look for opportunities to act on those thoughts in some way. It's naive to expect otherwise. You can pretend that the facts aren't what they are, but that's naive. So this means, women who are harassed against their wishes just have to put up and shut up, and expect it? That it is ok, the guy can't help himself? First, I want you to understand that that's not what I wrote. I'm not giving an opinion on that one way or the other at the moment. I want you to understand what I wrote. All I wrote is that women are naive if they go about their business expecting that any random man they interact with is not going to behave in various ways a la making sexual advances. What I quoted, what I was responding to in my comment in question, was this: "But in the case of Lauer or Rose where you're an assistant in their office, you don't expect they're going to show you their ding dong instead of the script. It's much easier to avoid when you know they're perverts." And all I wanted to say was that women are naive if they're expecting any arbitrary man to not be a pervert towards them, at least in certain situations. Men are going to behave that way when they're interacting with women no matter how socially taboo we make it, including making it illegal. People regularly do socially taboo and illegal things. And this is something that men are driven to do as much as any drug addict is driven to acquire and imbibe their drug of choice. So women would more easily avoid situations they do not want to be in by assuming that any arbitrary man probably wants to have sex with them, and probably will hit on them (that's most men), possibly will try to touch/grope/etc. them (thats fewer, but you're not going to be able to predict which ones), and so on, in certain situations (such as being alone with the man in question). That's what I was focusing on. Not whether I think certain things should be legal or illegal. I want people to be able to understand what I write, as I write it. |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Dec 9, 2017 16:48:00 GMT
I think its important to make something clear... I DONT feel sorry for Weinstein. He abused his power and he deserves what he's getting.
What I am trying to express is surprise at how quickly people that expressed adoration for him threw him under the bus when the tides changed.
To be perfectly clear I do believe the people coming out against him and I do believe that people who have gone through such experiences should come out and should be taken seriously. I just wish that more than rumor and accusation was part of the equation too. In many of these cases there's nothing more than an accusation and an entire life is destroyed.
While the one side needs to be seriously taken into consideration, so does the other angle too. What if a person is accused is actually innocent? In this climate the accused has NO recourse. And that's not fair either.
|
|
.
