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.

At least Roy Moore lost his seat, so all those republicans who stood by a child molester sacrificed whatever decency they had for nothing.

As toxic as Moore was, a lot of people still voted for him. The Democrats won't hold that seat for long, unless Moore wins the upcoming primary in the regular election cycle. Man, that could actually happen, couldn't it? /facepalm

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All meetings between any two people of any gender be chaperoned by at least four independent observers of various gender types, to ensure there is no possibility of a false accusation.

This last few pages were certainly interesting.

I travel for work a lot. 3 years running with Gold status with United, but they have yet to beat my ass and drag me off a plane despite me being me. Anyway, I have binders full of women in my department that sometimes travel with me. We fly on the same plane, share a rental car, have dinners (and drinks! gasp!) alone if the local employees aren't free, and drive to and from our hotel together. Having a 3rd person would add 50% more to travel costs. Having separate cars is a no-go as at least one of my fellow employees can't drive, and would add to the costs. The Billy Graham rule wouldn't let that happen, I suppose.

So I assume by that line you mean you aren't the boss?

To me the Billy Graham rule only makes sense if you are in a position of reasonable power (which is relevant to the discussion at hand because we're talking about folks in power abusing that power).

I can't tell my boss that I'm not going to work alone with a woman, it's not up to me, at best my boss would stop putting me on important projects and at worst I'd get fired.

But my boss on the other hand, it's really not hard for him to arrange his time such that he's not really spending 1-on-1-closed-room time with any employees regardless of whether they're female or male. At my last job I don't think I ever engaged 1 on 1 in a closed room with my boss in a year and a half of working there, even when we were both going to a conference he'd organise his own travel and accommodation while his employees would organise theirs (which usually meant the employees rent a van and travel together and share a room; while the boss rents his own car or flies in and stays in a private room).

As a boss, that is utter tosh. How do you have coaching meetings and project meetings with your project managers without it being one-on-one? What about disciplinary or mentoring meetings?

The entire idea of this Pence/Graham rule is rubbish, stupid, and demeaning. Men are not toddlers who can not behave themselves and therefore need to segregate themselves from half of the workforce/society.

If you (The universal YOU) fear "unfounded" accusations you might want to look at the underlying dynamics of your work team (and yourself). I mean, the foundation of a functional team is trust, and if you don't think you can trust your co-workers to not accuse you falsely, you might want to go join another team, or work independently out of a remote location. Perhaps even a hermitage is the best response.

 Compel wrote:
Salma Hayek has written a bit about Weinstein too. It is, well, not comfortable reading.

I read about that in CNN this morning. I'm afraid to read her full statement, because just the bits CNN quoted were enough to disgust me.

 Breotan wrote:
As toxic as Moore was, a lot of people still voted for him. The Democrats won't hold that seat for long, unless Moore wins the upcoming primary in the regular election cycle. Man, that could actually happen, couldn't it? /facepalm

That is harder to say as the resultws show a big shift like the rest of the country between rural and city voters, education levels, etc. Like all future elections, it will depend a lot on who turns out.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
]So I assume by that line you mean you aren't the boss?

To me the Billy Graham rule only makes sense if you are in a position of reasonable power (which is relevant to the discussion at hand because we're talking about folks in power abusing that power).

Correct. There is only one case where I "outrank" the other person, but that's a researcher vs technician thing, and she doesn't report to me.

My boss (male), has 3 female employees. They have 1 on 1 meetings all of the time and have also traveled to our manufacturing plants and to conferences together in the past and will continue to do so. And no, it is NOT easy for him to change those arrangements to 3+ people. We all have our own damn projects. Mine often don't have ANYTHING to do with what they are meeting/traveling about.

I guess I'm a bit baffled by the shock or revelation that any of this is to someone. While I'm fine with it being news, I guess I'm unimpressed by the pretend "What!? No way!" face that the entire country seems to be putting on. This kind of stuff has been ever-present since humans began gathering in societies.

Let's punish the people who broke laws, molested kids, etc.: 100%. But let's not pretend this is something new or something that was hidden from public view.

Let's also separate the real victims from the hangers on. In typical witch hunt fashion you have some very real victims, then some people just trying to get in on the action and get their moment in the sun.

I do think that we're setting a pretty terrible precedent in modern times though. In our ever increasing "emotions first, facts second", the suggestion of crime or misbehavior is more damaging than actual crime or misbehavior - that's opening a huge door to tons of abuse, particularly amongst the people who are opposed to someone. You can see it when companies are toppled because of a single employee acting like a jackass, or a false report of misbehavior. This kind of nonsense which goes viral and has an impact far above what it should. I think a boss in today's America should genuinely consider how open they are to accusations, even false ones. The damage will be done before anything is proven either way. With social media and a generally poor media situation in our country it's just bad news across the board.

What moment in the sun is that exactly?

The one where people try to slander you, call you a prude, claim you are lying, accuse you of being an attention whore, and accuses you of being a slut? And in return, you get..... nothing?

Sounds great! Where do I sign-up?

Would you prefer "fifteen minutes of ill-gotten fame"?

 Elbows wrote:
Would you prefer "fifteen minutes of ill-gotten fame"?

And what does that "fame" usually get them. Nothing besides abuse. Who would want to bet their future on such odds? Might as well try to win a million dollar by running through a minefield. Sure, occasionally somebody makes it (if they are lucky) but on average it's just a lot of pain with no upside.

The occasional sociopath probably has much better ways to mess with you if they really wanted to feth with you life (and without getting dragged into the whole ordeal).

I always hear vague claims about how companies/individuals who were hung because of false accusations, yet I what actually see is companies/individuals who get off with little to no punishment against actual accusations. False accusations do happen on occasion, but really that issue is a boogeyman thrown out to discourage reform.

 Elbows wrote:
I guess I'm a bit baffled by the shock or revelation that any of this is to someone. While I'm fine with it being news, I guess I'm unimpressed by the pretend "What!? No way!" face that the entire country seems to be putting on. This kind of stuff has been ever-present since humans began gathering in societies.

The shock isn't because some of this stuff happened. The shock is because of the vast amount of this stuff that happened and how sick some of it is. Seriously, read Salma Hayek's recent account of her experience when making Frida.

Ms Hayek is just seeking her 15 minutes of ill-gotten fame! /s

Who's discouraging reform? More importantly what reform do you imagine is going to happen?

This isn't some law someone is going to repeal and suddenly Hollywood (and every other money-driven large industry) is going to shape up. People in power (and/or with money) have been doing this for thousands of years.

I suppose my consideration of what is "sick" is pretty numbed, because I'm not terribly shocked by any of what I've read. Perhaps my history has exposed me to things of a far worse nature, so my definition of "shocking" is far different than yours.

Disregarding feeder's pathetic attempt at sarcasm, my main concern is when people with minor or trivial incidents try to join the victim-train of people were actually molested/abused/etc. To me that's an insult to actual victims of actual crimes and abuse. But, by all means continue to be shocked.

 Elbows wrote:
Who's discouraging reform? More importantly what reform do you imagine is going to happen?

This isn't some law someone is going to repeal and suddenly Hollywood (and every other money-driven large industry) is going to shape up. People in power (and/or with money) have been doing this for thousands of years.

I suppose my consideration of what is "sick" is pretty numbed, because I'm not terribly shocked by any of what I've read. Perhaps my history has exposed me to things of a far worse nature, so my definition of "shocking" is far different than yours.

Disregarding feeder's pathetic attempt at sarcasm, my main concern is when people with minor or trivial incidents try to join the victim-train of people were actually molested/abused/etc. To me that's an insult to actual victims of actual crimes and abuse. But, by all means continue to be shocked.

Well that was rather pretentious.

So Morgan Spurlock has come out with a short bit about his own issues. He's the guy that made Supersize Me, an inexplicably popular documentary that turned out to be mostly bs. He's made other documentaries since then that I'm not sure anyone saw, so I don't know if he still counts as famous, but his confession is kind of interesting all the same.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqc244

And I mean interesting in the 'this is really problematic'. I mean, I don't want to dump of Spurlock, because he did this of his own volition and he has been a victim of abuse himself, so hopefully this is part of his own recovery, and an end to his own problematic behaviour. But from reading his letter, man does Spurlock still have a lot of work to do. He tells of a college incident in which he was told no at two different points, but continued to kiss the girl, and it led to sex before her crying caused him to stop. He recognises this was bad, but in a weird kind of way, where what he did isn't a bad thing he did by himself, but part of a greater social problem, "I am part of the problem". I probably wouldn't have thought too much about that, except Spurlock then describes his personal revelation that calling an employee 'hot pants' or 'sex pants' caused her to feel objectified. No fething kidding Morgan.

Probably the biggest issue is that he know declares he is part of the solution, despite having done nothing beyond write a short essay in which he kind of almost takes responsibilibty for having done bad stuff.

I mean, I feel for the guy because he was a victim of abuse, which led to a lifelong drinking problem. And he chose to make this stuff public, it wasn't like Kevin Spacey who only came forward once a victim spoke out. But at the same time, damn does this fall short of what's needed to actually start being part of the solution.

 Breotan wrote:
As toxic as Moore was, a lot of people still voted for him. The Democrats won't hold that seat for long, unless Moore wins the upcoming primary in the regular election cycle. Man, that could actually happen, couldn't it? /facepalm

Maybe, but I doubt it. It was important for many Republicans to deny what Moore did, as long as he was their senate candidate. The level of motivated reasoning was very strong. But now that Moore has lost, and is not only irrelevant to the Republican cause, but can also be blamed by many for Republicans losing a senate seat in Alabama, that protection is gone and if anything Republicans are now motivated to be hostile against Moore. I think it is more likely than not Moore will be a pariah among a majority of Republicans, including Alabama Republicans, within a year or so.

Something similar is happening with Bill Clinton right now. First it was important for Democrats to defend him because he was a Democratic president, then it was important to defend him because he linked closely to Hillary's own presidential bid. Now that's over lots of Democrats are seeing Bill Clinton with new eyes, and are starting to accept that his sexual behaviour was predatory and should not have been defended.

It's the same dynamic that's protected most of these offenders. People will never say they're okay with protecting abusers, but as long as that abuser is part of a system that people don't want to lose or endanger, then they find a way to dismiss, deny, or ignore the charges against that abuser.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
Who's discouraging reform? More importantly what reform do you imagine is going to happen?

Moore's accusers were called liars. People falsely claimed they were just telling their story for money. One Alabama Republican said the girls should be prosecuted, either for lying or for not telling their stories sooner, whatever would shut them up, basically. The Moore campaign distributed advice to its staff, telling them what strategies to use to discredit and attack the women. Conservative aligned media like The Daily Wire and Breitbart ran daily stories trying to discredit the women, and call them liars.

People in power (and/or with money) have been doing this for thousands of years.

The reality people need to come terms with is that these don't happen because money and power exist. They happen because people who know what the abuser is doing choose to do nothing or even cover up the crimes, because they don't want to risk their own money and power to help out a victim. That's something that can change, if we want it to.

Just because of the hilarity of it all, it seems that Bill Mitchell, who dismissed the accusations against Moore as "rumors" is now spreading "rumors" (and by rumors I mean lies so bald faced its either sad or baffling that he thought no one would notice), that Moore only lost because "someone" sent a bunch African Americans from Mississippi to vote for Doug Jones.

The more the world changes the more it stays the same. Some of the troll tweets in response are pretty damn funny.

 LordofHats wrote:
Just because of the hilarity of it all, it seems that Bill Mitchell, who dismissed the accusations against Moore as "rumors" is now spreading "rumors" (and by rumors I mean lies so bald faced its either sad or baffling that he thought no one would notice), that Moore only lost because "someone" sent a bunch African Americans from Mississippi to vote for Doug Jones.

The more the world changes the more it stays the same. Some of the troll tweets in response are pretty damn funny.

This wins so much:

Kyle Dreamboat‏ @KyleDreamboat wrote:If people had the means to get out of MS I'm sure they wouldn't go to AL

 Elbows wrote:
Who's discouraging reform? More importantly what reform do you imagine is going to happen?

This isn't some law someone is going to repeal and suddenly Hollywood (and every other money-driven large industry) is going to shape up. People in power (and/or with money) have been doing this for thousands of years.

I suppose my consideration of what is "sick" is pretty numbed, because I'm not terribly shocked by any of what I've read. Perhaps my history has exposed me to things of a far worse nature, so my definition of "shocking" is far different than yours.

Disregarding feeder's pathetic attempt at sarcasm, my main concern is when people with minor or trivial incidents try to join the victim-train of people were actually molested/abused/etc. To me that's an insult to actual victims of actual crimes and abuse. But, by all means continue to be shocked.

Boy, we're all so honoured you took time out of your undoubtedly busy and important day to come down here and tell all us common folk what actually constitutes real abuse.

We're ever so grateful to be graced by such a mysterious and enigmatic leader of men

 Elbows wrote:
I suppose my consideration of what is "sick" is pretty numbed, because I'm not terribly shocked by any of what I've read. Perhaps my history has exposed me to things of a far worse nature, so my definition of "shocking" is far different than yours.

Oh man, so have I! I once spent 2 1/2 hours bandaging a man with gangrene on his foot so bad you could see past the tendons to the bone. His family basically left him in a bed all day in the same position and never moved him. His foot became so infected it began rotting off. They ended up taking the leg off just below the knee, but sadly the man did not make it after the surgery. We had to report the family for neglect. The family was very upset because we threw one of his shoes away. They wanted to give them to another family member.

But yet, I can still understand how sick and disgusting all of this is without the whole "I've seen it all this isn't that bad" schtick. It sounds like you have issues compartmentalizing these horrific things you have seen which is leading to a lack of empathy. My suggestion is maybe seeing a counselor so you can get a better grasp on reality.

Saw this today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/15/us/andrea-ramsey-harassment.html

Not sure if she's the first female reported during this period of holding people accountable, but she's definitely the first one I've SEEN a story on. Also, would it count as the accusations are older? It certainly wound up ending her political career.

 Just Tony wrote:
Saw this today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/15/us/andrea-ramsey-harassment.html

Not sure if she's the first female reported during this period of holding people accountable, but she's definitely the first one I've SEEN a story on. Also, would it count as the accusations are older? It certainly wound up ending her political career.

Melanie Martinez was accused of essentially raping her roommate. It was about a week and several pages ago.

And I referenced it myself earlier. Still, more than I was expecting.

UK rape trial collapsed spectacularly this week when the police were forced to admit they had not divulged the alleged victim's mobile phone messages which showed how much she enjoyed sex with the man she later accused of rape.

False accusations do happen, but it is rare compared to the number of real rapes and assaults.

 sebster wrote:
So Morgan Spurlock has come out with a short bit about his own issues. He's the guy that made Supersize Me, an inexplicably popular documentary that turned out to be mostly bs. He's made other documentaries since then that I'm not sure anyone saw, so I don't know if he still counts as famous, but his confession is kind of interesting all the same.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqc244

And I mean interesting in the 'this is really problematic'. I mean, I don't want to dump of Spurlock, because he did this of his own volition and he has been a victim of abuse himself, so hopefully this is part of his own recovery, and an end to his own problematic behaviour. But from reading his letter, man does Spurlock still have a lot of work to do. He tells of a college incident in which he was told no at two different points, but continued to kiss the girl, and it led to sex before her crying caused him to stop. He recognises this was bad, but in a weird kind of way, where what he did isn't a bad thing he did by himself, but part of a greater social problem, "I am part of the problem". I probably wouldn't have thought too much about that, except Spurlock then describes his personal revelation that calling an employee 'hot pants' or 'sex pants' caused her to feel objectified. No fething kidding Morgan.

Probably the biggest issue is that he know declares he is part of the solution, despite having done nothing beyond write a short essay in which he kind of almost takes responsibilibty for having done bad stuff.

I mean, I feel for the guy because he was a victim of abuse, which led to a lifelong drinking problem. And he chose to make this stuff public, it wasn't like Kevin Spacey who only came forward once a victim spoke out. But at the same time, damn does this fall short of what's needed to actually start being part of the solution.

 Breotan wrote:
As toxic as Moore was, a lot of people still voted for him. The Democrats won't hold that seat for long, unless Moore wins the upcoming primary in the regular election cycle. Man, that could actually happen, couldn't it? /facepalm

Maybe, but I doubt it. It was important for many Republicans to deny what Moore did, as long as he was their senate candidate. The level of motivated reasoning was very strong. But now that Moore has lost, and is not only irrelevant to the Republican cause, but can also be blamed by many for Republicans losing a senate seat in Alabama, that protection is gone and if anything Republicans are now motivated to be hostile against Moore. I think it is more likely than not Moore will be a pariah among a majority of Republicans, including Alabama Republicans, within a year or so.

Something similar is happening with Bill Clinton right now. First it was important for Democrats to defend him because he was a Democratic president, then it was important to defend him because he linked closely to Hillary's own presidential bid. Now that's over lots of Democrats are seeing Bill Clinton with new eyes, and are starting to accept that his sexual behaviour was predatory and should not have been defended.

It's the same dynamic that's protected most of these offenders. People will never say they're okay with protecting abusers, but as long as that abuser is part of a system that people don't want to lose or endanger, then they find a way to dismiss, deny, or ignore the charges against that abuser.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
Who's discouraging reform? More importantly what reform do you imagine is going to happen?

Moore's accusers were called liars. People falsely claimed they were just telling their story for money. One Alabama Republican said the girls should be prosecuted, either for lying or for not telling their stories sooner, whatever would shut them up, basically. The Moore campaign distributed advice to its staff, telling them what strategies to use to discredit and attack the women. Conservative aligned media like The Daily Wire and Breitbart ran daily stories trying to discredit the women, and call them liars.

People in power (and/or with money) have been doing this for thousands of years.

The reality people need to come terms with is that these don't happen because money and power exist. They happen because people who know what the abuser is doing choose to do nothing or even cover up the crimes, because they don't want to risk their own money and power to help out a victim. That's something that can change, if we want it to.

I wouldn't say that Dailywire was part of that, though possibly Brietbart. Ben Shapiro, one of the main people at Daily Wire was heavily against Moore period and called others out for supporting him.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
I wouldn't say that Dailywire was part of that, though possibly Brietbart. Ben Shapiro, one of the main people at Daily Wire was heavily against Moore period and called others out for supporting him.

That's fair. On this issue The Daily Wire were good. I threw them in there without thinking back to who was bad on this particular issue, and I shouldn't have. In fact, The Daily Wire were better than most MSM publications when reporting the text under the yearbook signature, they made it clear in the headline of their article it was just the text under the signature that was added by another party, a distinction not that many other's made immediately clear.

So, Hollywood is now setting up an anti-abuse committee. Good idea. Bad execution
Because who is in these commissions? The CEOs of Disney, Warner Bros, Unviersal Music Group, Paramount, Sony, and a high-up from Netflix.

Basically, the people in power are head of the committee that's supposed to stop sexual abuse by people in power.

Note: I'm not claiming that any of these people are abusers themselves. Merely pointing out the logical inconsistency.

Bran Dawri wrote:
So, Hollywood is now setting up an anti-abuse committee. Good idea. Bad execution
Because who is in these commissions? The CEOs of Disney, Warner Bros, Unviersal Music Group, Paramount, Sony, and a high-up from Netflix.

Basically, the people in power are head of the committee that's supposed to stop sexual abuse by people in power.

Note: I'm not claiming that any of these people are abusers themselves. Merely pointing out the logical inconsistency.

No I think your right. Even if these guys were really good at it and completely fair there would always be an air of suspicion just because the watchers shouldn't be the same people supposedly being watched (like how we really shouldn't put former corporate CEO's on commissions charged with regulating said corporations... which we do a lot). They should have selected people from outside the corporate structure, but who were still part of the industry if they wanted an in house watch dog. They could have even gone mixed. Pick members from the financial end, the production end, writer's guild, stage crew union (?), and the actors guild so that all concerned parties could have equal representation. No solution is really perfect, but the one they picked is easily one of the worst options.

But on the other hand, a panel of independent arbiters with no actual power over the people being accused could result in issues being raised and then nothing happening as the people doing the watching have no way to enforce changes.

Tricky issue to set up an independent watchbody whilst ensuring it actually has teeth to enforce its findings.

You would need to have people in positions of power on board with the committee to ensure it had clout to actually force companies to act when necessary. I think Hats proposal, where you have a larger panel which includes the CEOs, Union representatives etc., would be the best, especially if you shape it so that there are more "little voices" on it than the big CEOs, so even if the CEOs try to band together (say someone is being accused of something they all did, too, and don't want it to set a precedent of the punishment being dismissal), they can be outvoted.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
But on the other hand, a panel of independent arbiters with no actual power over the people being accused could result in issues being raised and then nothing happening as the people doing the watching have no way to enforce changes.

The thing is that you don't need actual power over the people accused.

You just need to be able to make enough noise and back up your claims. These things are beaten by the powerful because their money and position offers a better support network than what is available to their accusers and they can drown out their victims. Trying the potentially guilty is the job of the justice system. What is need is not power over the guilty but a voice loud enough and with enough credibility that it can't be easily silenced.