Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 redleger wrote:
I have a question based around the suspendings and firings over allegations of sexual assault. What if the allegations turn up to be false, or not proveable? Does the suspension get revoked, how about the job, do they get it back? I support due process and hammering sexual predators, but it seems like if we are going to normalize firing those accused of wrong doing without proof, it could easily become an abuse-able irrevocable power. How is this being minimized?

That's a fair point, we should be wary of going to a world where an accusation alone is enough.

That's why right now I think the step we need to make is to moving to a middle ground where we don't have to doubt or question the accuser while also not automatically convicting the accused. That sounds impossible but we do it all the time. You go and report an assault there's no expectation that your accusation will get the accused fired, arrested and convicted, but at the same time your claim isn't doubted, and your actions leading up to the assault won't be questioned and implied as somehow deserving of what happened.

That's the place we need to get to with sexual abuse allegations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
You should learn what an analogy is.

Any reform is a power shift, any power shift creates new masters to replace, reinforce or co-exist with the old.
Exceptions exist, but only under stringent public control under the auspices of uncorrupt people. You think that is likely in a massive, secretive and lucrative Hollywood industry.

You should learn what crap analogies are, and why you shouldn't make them.

I actually went to write a longer answer, but decided the whole premise was so ridiculous that a single sentence making fun of the argument was probably better for everyone. That was probably a mistake on my part, because now I'm stuck having to write the whole thing out anyway.

So, to get to it, the problem you made is in assuming that there will always be some unaccountable level of power. That just as communism made the mistake* of replacing one powerful group of elites with another powerful group of elites, in the same way reform of corporate culture would require installing a new powerful elite. But communism wasn't the only way to break the old monarch/mercantilist model, and in fact communism was the minority attempt, only notable for being a horribly failed method. Far more common, and consistently successful was a shift to liberal democracy, which removed the old, unaccountable forms of power not by replacing them with new powerful elites, but by replacing them with a ruling class that is held accountable through elections. That method in turn also proved successful in breaking down economic power, as the new elected leaders were given incentives to break down power groups.

That latter example is far closer to what will be, what can be attempted here. What is being discussed is changing culture so that even those with tremendous organisational power can be held accountable for their actions.




*Communism made a lot of mistakes, this is just one of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 redleger wrote:
OK, so I think I understand that your point is literally, not hypothetically as the question was, the fact that they can be fired for anything is a travesty and that more government regulation is required to prevent states that allow employers to fire anyone for any reason is the problem. I get that, do not agree with even more government intrusion into business, but it is a fair point that women can in this hypothetical scenario do it carte blanche so to speak since in those states there is no requirement to do otherwise than take the easy road and fire the employee under suspicion/accused.

Am I understanding that correctly?

The issue is that when you can fire someone without having to give a plausible reason why, it becomes much easier to fire someone for any reason you please, including as a punishment for accusing a favoured staff member of sexual assault.

I don't love all the hoops that are often put in place before you can fire someone, but 'at will' is not the answer. It makes it almost impossible to prove illegal firings, including firing someone for speaking out about individual predators or cultures of sex abuse.

It's likely to do with the contracts that hold their employment.

Such legalese as acting in a manner that doesn't bring negative attention to the company and the like. I thought that was pretty standard in high profile jobs.

Don't punch women in an elevator. Don't fight dogs. Don't live a lifestyle that causes dozens of women to come forth and accuse you of sexual harassment/assault. That type of stuff.

But since someone decided to beat on the union drum, there seems to be a lot of press talking about how the SAG failed in its responsibilities to protect those it was supposed to protect.

 djones520 wrote:
It's likely to do with the contracts that hold their employment.

Such legalese as acting in a manner that doesn't bring negative attention to the company and the like. I thought that was pretty standard in high profile jobs.

Don't punch women in an elevator. Don't fight dogs. Don't live a lifestyle that causes dozens of women to come forth and accuse you of sexual harassment/assault. That type of stuff.

But since someone decided to beat on the union drum, there seems to be a lot of press talking about how the SAG failed in its responsibilities to protect those it was supposed to protect.

If they were aware that these things were happening with regularity, which I have no clue how they were not aware of it, then they did fail to protect them. Either restructure/rehire from the top down as far as union leadership goes or dissolve it and reform a new one, making sure none of the old higher ups within the union are given the opportunity to gain leadership positions again.

Regardless, the legalese of at-will states is pretty clear. You have no protections. Do not pass go. I said good day sir. yadda yadda yadda

Anthony Rapp, an actor in Star Trek Discovery, has now made an allegation against Kevin Spacey. It occurred when Rapp was 14 and Spacey 26, in 1986. Spacey carried Rapp to his bed and lay on him, Rapp says Spacey was clearly initating something then Rapp pushed him off and left.

In his response, Spacey said he doesn't recall the incident and apologises for what happened. He then publically came out, saying he now lives as a gay man, previously having been bisexual.

So that's probably going to win most 'worst time to come out' contests for quite a while.

Yowza, words cannot express how boneheaded that move was.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Yowza, words cannot express how boneheaded that move was.

Well it's probably the second dumbest thing Kevin Spacey has done. The dumbest would be when he tried to initiate sex with a 14 year old.

 sebster wrote:
Anthony Rapp, an actor in Star Trek Discovery, has now made an allegation against Kevin Spacey. It occurred when Rapp was 14 and Spacey 26, in 1986. Spacey carried Rapp to his bed and lay on him, Rapp says Spacey was clearly initating something then Rapp pushed him off and left.

In his response, Spacey said he doesn't recall the incident and apologises for what happened. He then publically came out, saying he now lives as a gay man, previously having been bisexual.

So that's probably going to win most 'worst time to come out' contests for quite a while.

Two things:
1. Both Spacey and Rapp's statement indicate Spacey was drunk at the time. This does not excuse the act, but it may factor in to how some people judge it.
2. "Worst time to come out", yes, but what else could he do in response to an accusation of gay sexual harassment?

I don't know what to think about this one. Do we condemn people today for something they did while intoxicated 30 years ago? I condemn the act, but I don't know what to think about the person today.

I was wondering when Spacey would be brought into this. Anyone I know that had dealings with him describe him as a slimey guy, trying to coerce them into having sex with him.

I think most people aren't going to think the fact that Spacey is gay is relevant to the fact he apparently tried to hook up with a minor child. I'm not really sure why, in 2017, he think's he'll be able to deflect that in that way.

Yeah, his PR guy should probably find a new career after that.

 Ouze wrote:
I think most people aren't going to think the fact that Spacey is gay is relevant to the fact he apparently tried to hook up with a minor child. I'm not really sure why, in 2017, he think's he'll be able to deflect that in that way.

EIther
a) Desperation
b) He hired Sean Spicer

https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/10/kevin-spacey-blasted-for-using-his-sexuality-to-cover-for-sexual-misconduct-claim/#sthash.znhZHWfh.uxfs

It's probably something to do with the fact that being gay in the 80s and even 90s was a very different thing than it is today. Going after a young man who is technically a minor is nothing compared to having your professional and personal life blown up by simply being outed as gay.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Do we condemn people today for something they did while intoxicated 30 years ago? I condemn the act, but I don't know what to think about the person today.

Depends who they are. Nobody wants to deride David Bowie and Jimmy Page for having long term relationships with children in the 70s, for instance, but it would bury anyone today. Similarly, I don't think this will particularly harm Spacey since it's 30 years gone. It'd kill a political career stone dead, irrespective of chronology, though.

nfe wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Do we condemn people today for something they did while intoxicated 30 years ago? I condemn the act, but I don't know what to think about the person today.

Depends who they are. Nobody wants to deride David Bowie and Jimmy Page for having long term relationships with children in the 70s, for instance, but it would bury anyone today. Similarly, I don't think this will particularly harm Spacey since it's 30 years gone. It'd kill a political career stone dead, irrespective of chronology, though.

If this was an isolated incident, maybe.

It rarely is though...

 djones520 wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Do we condemn people today for something they did while intoxicated 30 years ago? I condemn the act, but I don't know what to think about the person today.

Depends who they are. Nobody wants to deride David Bowie and Jimmy Page for having long term relationships with children in the 70s, for instance, but it would bury anyone today. Similarly, I don't think this will particularly harm Spacey since it's 30 years gone. It'd kill a political career stone dead, irrespective of chronology, though.

If this was an isolated incident, maybe.

It rarely is though...

Like I say, Jimmy Page is still a near-universally-lauded rock superhero and he kept a 14 locked in his house for year, so...

Wanda Sykes said "don't try to hide behind the rainbow", which I thought was well-put.

One aspect about this that is especially unfortunately is that by trying to shield himself in this way, he dredges up long debunked myths that gay people are likely to be pedophiles.

 djones520 wrote:
It rarely is though...

Yeah if there is anything this increased awareness has reiterated, that is it.

 Ouze wrote:
Wanda Sykes said "don't try to hide behind the rainbow", which I thought was well-put.

One aspect about this that is especially unfortunately is that by trying to shield himself in this way, he dredges up long debunked myths that gay people are likely to be pedophiles.

Especially since it wasn't pedophilia.

 Ouze wrote:
I think most people aren't going to think the fact that Spacey is gay is relevant to the fact he apparently tried to hook up with a minor child. I'm not really sure why, in 2017, he think's he'll be able to deflect that in that way.

From what the people who have been around him tell me, he had a number of things he did that were repulsive. He was described to me in ways such as slimey, nasty, and just an all around repellant individual.

Relapse wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I think most people aren't going to think the fact that Spacey is gay is relevant to the fact he apparently tried to hook up with a minor child. I'm not really sure why, in 2017, he think's he'll be able to deflect that in that way.

From what the people who have been around him tell me, he had a number of things he did that were repulsive. He was described to me in ways such as slimey, nasty, and just an all around repellant individual.

So... you're saying in Horrible Bosses, he wasn't really acting.

 djones520 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I think most people aren't going to think the fact that Spacey is gay is relevant to the fact he apparently tried to hook up with a minor child. I'm not really sure why, in 2017, he think's he'll be able to deflect that in that way.

From what the people who have been around him tell me, he had a number of things he did that were repulsive. He was described to me in ways such as slimey, nasty, and just an all around repellant individual.

So... you're saying in Horrible Bosses, he wasn't really acting.

Probably the same way with House of Cards.

nfe wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Do we condemn people today for something they did while intoxicated 30 years ago? I condemn the act, but I don't know what to think about the person today.

Depends who they are. Nobody wants to deride David Bowie and Jimmy Page for having long term relationships with children in the 70s, for instance, but it would bury anyone today. Similarly, I don't think this will particularly harm Spacey since it's 30 years gone. It'd kill a political career stone dead, irrespective of chronology, though.

Netflix have canned House of Cards, so I was wrong on that front!

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I think most people aren't going to think the fact that Spacey is gay is relevant to the fact he apparently tried to hook up with a minor child. I'm not really sure why, in 2017, he think's he'll be able to deflect that in that way.

EIther
a) Desperation
b) He hired Sean Spicer

I'd argue that b) is a subset of a).

Yeah that was a really odd way of attempting to deflect that, basically ensuring that it would rile up the crowd he was attempting to mollify. Had he made the aplogogy without the coming out expose, it would have been more effective.

That said, without wanting to minimize anyone's experiences, shutting down a successful show over an unsupported allegation of an incident from more than 30 years ago feels a bit...twitchy. Unless there's more to it Im unaware of.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah that was a really odd way of attempting to deflect that, basically ensuring that it would rile up the crowd he was attempting to mollify. Had he made the aplogogy without the coming out expose, it would have been more effective.

That said, without wanting to minimize anyone's experiences, shutting down a successful show over an unsupported allegation of an incident from more than 30 years ago feels a bit...twitchy. Unless there's more to it Im unaware of.

This is perfectly fine and perfectly legal. The whole innocent until proven guilty only goes for a court of law, a business such as Netflix is not held to the same standards. Freedom and all that.

Few thoughts on Spacey...

a) At least he out&out apologized... which is way more than what the other jackwagons has done.

b) Holy gak, he tried to hook up with a 14 yo!

c) Dude tried to use the rainbow shield . Jesus wept... way to go to strengthen gay/pedo stereotypes. My gay friends are pissed!

d) if that happened 30 years ago... don't be shocked to hear other peeps come forward, as these things aren't generally 'isolated events'.

The Spacey thing was an open secret. I have friends who say he hit on them. they were even somewhat warned beforehand to watch out for him, and they were just extras.

I have to wonder if House of Cards wasn't just about done anyway. I stopped watching it a few years ago - I think I only ever watched the first 2 seasons - but as I understand it, he played an ambitious politician, and he eventually wound up POTUS, right? Not sure where you go from there - Tom Clancy painted himself into the exact same corner many years ago with Jack Ryan.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The Spacey thing was an open secret. I have friends who say he hit on them. they were even somewhat warned beforehand to watch out for him, and they were just extras.

TBH I thought he had come out like, 20 years ago.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah that was a really odd way of attempting to deflect that, basically ensuring that it would rile up the crowd he was attempting to mollify. Had he made the aplogogy without the coming out expose, it would have been more effective.

That said, without wanting to minimize anyone's experiences, shutting down a successful show over an unsupported allegation of an incident from more than 30 years ago feels a bit...twitchy. Unless there's more to it Im unaware of.

This is perfectly fine and perfectly legal. The whole innocent until proven guilty only goes for a court of law, a business such as Netflix is not held to the same standards. Freedom and all that.

I don't believe I stated or implied anything to the contrary. Netflix absolutely can do whatever it wants.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah that was a really odd way of attempting to deflect that, basically ensuring that it would rile up the crowd he was attempting to mollify. Had he made the aplogogy without the coming out expose, it would have been more effective.

That said, without wanting to minimize anyone's experiences, shutting down a successful show over an unsupported allegation of an incident from more than 30 years ago feels a bit...twitchy. Unless there's more to it Im unaware of.

This is perfectly fine and perfectly legal. The whole innocent until proven guilty only goes for a court of law, a business such as Netflix is not held to the same standards. Freedom and all that.

I don't believe I stated or implied anything to the contrary. Netflix absolutely can do whatever it wants.

So are you saying that this doesn't feel a bit...twitchy?

I mean he didn't admit that he did anything wrong.


But innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore, there is no point denying it.


It does seem a poor response to the allegations though, very bad PR.