#metoo

[mymistake]

Well for starters let's recognize that nobody will solve these difficult problems unless we are able to talk about them.  It requires dialog and cooperation.  To that end we should try to make it a fair dialog.  Approach it in good faith and assume others are as well.  The members of this forum are not setting policy, not ending law enforcement, and probably not raping people either.  We may not be able to solve this problem in the near future but it would be nice to develop some mutual understanding.

 

Now currently our Western culture is evolving so that sometimes accusations alone get people fired.  Really the only question is how much should we encourage the current cultural evolution.  There are some people who have been fired without evidence and there are a few people who do not get removed regardless of how much evidence is against them.  Sexual assault is a blanket category that comes come in degrees.  The middle ground is to go case-by-case looking at individual situation as to how much evidence is available and how bad the offense was.  The middle ground neither assumes one side is right nor the other.  And there are degrees here.  Rape is worse than unwanted flirtation.  A young child victim is worse than a teen victim who is worse than an adult victim.  Committing a crime on camera is objective while (non-verbally having consent withdrawn from a previously, mutually-consenting activity) is subjective.  This stuff is complicated so let's extend each other a bit more benefit of the doubt.  Human mating habits are organic and based on chemistry.  Flirtation cannot be forced into contracts because that would kill the required mood.

 

[LogicalFallacy]

Would I be right in saying there are two broad opposing views here?

 

1) It is better to ensure potential victims of assault are kept safe by immediately punishing accused, even though the odd innocent person may get emotionally and financially ruined.

 

or 2) The presumption of innocence is paramount and it better that falsely accused  are not arbitrarily punished meaning potential criminals go on assaulting until evidence mounts.

 

 

@TrueScotsman It seems to me in one of your posts you set up a false dichotomy wherein you said that some here are only concerned about false accusations and have "zero" concern for victims.

 

Not the kind of claim I expect from you. Care to explain how you find this to be true?

 

Myself I have great concern for both issues and am beginning to realise that its very difficult in our imperfect world with flaws in human nature and our justice systems to get a solution that is 100% best for everyone. Therefore saying that because I may express some concern about the current movement undermining values I believe in does in no way imply that I do not have concern for the victims. This is a fallacy and you must know this.

[ConsiderTheSource]

4 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

Okay, what's the "middle ground."

 

I gave it to you.  You rejected it.

[Bhim]

All right, I'm caught up with this discussion finally. And might I say, it's been quite a lively discussion. @TrueScotsman, you have expounded at the greatest length on the viewpoint that is perhaps most opposed to mine, so I hope you don't mind if I respond broadly to the many points you've made. I'll try and divide this response into sections based on my best efforts to identify the various issues you've raised. It's of course biased by my desire to respond to certain points over others, so I apologize for that.

 

Employment and the application of Blackstone's Maxim in the workplace

To reiterate, Blackstone's Maxim, often called the Blackstone Formulation, is an ethic that if we must choose between setting guilty men free and punishing the innocent, it is better to set the guilty free. We all of course believe that all guilty men should be punished and no innocents should be, and as has been stated this is not a zero sum game. But realistically there's a tradeoff, and the Blackstone Maxim is a moral statement that we should trade punishments for the guilty in exchange for freedom for the innocent, whenever presented with the choice. Just speaking for myself, Blackstone's Maxim is one of the moral principles I hold most dear, I doubt I believe in any other issue as strongly. I believe you've stated that you believe in this legal principle as applied in the courts. Please tell me if you don't believe this, because then we have a larger disagreement than I thought.

 

Should this be applied to employment law? Even I would not unilaterally say yes. Because of this principle from English common law, we presume criminal defendants innocent and heavily bias trials in their favor. However in civil law, where a man's freedom does not hang in the balance, the burden is lowered to preponderance of the evidence, i.e. it must be more likely than not that a defendant is liable. I submit that this is the minimum standard to which corporate HR departments and universities are beholden. I hope we can agree on this much, because if a wrongful termination case were taken to court, it would be taken to a civil court and the burden of proof would be preponderance of the evidence.

 

Do you believe in applying preponderance of the evidence when faced with realistic scenarios? You wrote extensively on this, but let me select this statement:

 

Most rapes and assaults happen with no one around, there is no physical evidence available to corroborate the fact that I was ever raped, but I guess all the people who love evidence and totally discount witnesses are willing to let a few rapists off in order to save this fictional falsely accused white male. <emphasis Bhim's>

 

Now, I want to highlight the fact that here you have blithely disparaged the idea of evidence, and discourage skepticism of witnesses. By your own admission, most rapes and assaults are not accompanied by evidence. I don't know if this is true and perhaps Orbit or another researcher can shed light on this, but since you believe this let's assume it true. You are stating explicitly that you believe in punishment without evidence, i.e. "fire upon receipt of accusation." You seem to be mistakenly believing that the course of action in a "he said, she said" case is ambiguous. But it's not. If you believe in liability upon proof beyond preponderance of the evidence, then an accusation alone is by definition insufficient to warrant punishment.

 

I'm not entirely sure why you disparage your own ethnicity here, given your racism in other posts (more on this later). I don't quite understand the relevance of race to this discussion.

 

In the same post, you motivated your belief by appealing to legal liabilities:

 

Which means the corporation is not the rule of law, but the court of law, which both the accused and the company could be held liable for criminal charges and damages.  There is nothing authoritarian about that, it is called accountability.

 

Let's ignore the fact that companies can also be held liable for wrongful termination. Do you genuinely think that companies should capriciously fire accused harassers to protect themselves? You said yourself that people aren't statistics.

 

 

Avoiding false accusations by avoiding women in the workplace

You said:

 

I'm a white male, and I have zero fear that this will happen to me. I always respect women, and I keep it nothing but professional and don't leave myself alone with any woman besides my wife.

 

What you advocate is the Mike Pence approach. And that by itself doesn't make you wrong. But this approach is untenable. Feminists on news media have already observed that this makes behavior on the part of men it difficult for women to climb the corporate ladder, since career advancement usually takes place at after work happy hours, social events, etc. However, it makes it blatantly awkward in other situations as well. Case in point: when I was in graduate school I worked closely with a female professor in my group. We often worked late into the evening, and would be alone in the same office for hours. If I made gender an issue, this sort of work would have been impossible. Add to that the fact that we were astrophysicists, with observing duties at a telescope site in the middle of the desert, and on one occasion our shifts overlapped. This was some old lady mind you; since I was a senior graduate student and she was a new assistant professor, the age gap was probably around ten years. Based on your above statement about not leaving yourself alone with any woman besides your wife, you would certainly never be alone in the middle of the desert at night with a woman. Had I adhered to your criterion, I would not have been able to do my job. If I went so far as to refuse to do my shift with her, I would probably have damaged our working relationship. And since she was on my doctoral dissertation committee, things would have gotten downright awkward. What you're suggesting simply wouldn't have worked for me.

 

Ironically, during our downtime on site, we had a good discussion about harassment of women in academia (I brought it up), and she told me some stories about uncomfortable things she had experienced in graduate school. You'd be incorrect to assume I'm not aware that there is a problem. But just because I believe in the existence of murder doesn't mean I think everyone should be preemptively convicted on murder charges. Likewise, the existence of sexual harassment doesn't meant that "believe the victim" is a morally right approach.

 

And again, why is there a racial component to this? What does your being a white male have to do with anything? Very well, let's discuss race.

 

Your racist view concerning Indians

I want you to know two things. First, I don't consider racism by itself to be immoral. Racism is simply a pre-judgment of someone based on their experience. It's really just a natural outgrowth of human pattern recognition, which I think you've exhibited here. I don't think that racism is wrong, per se, unless you act on your racist beliefs. Secondly, please know that I don't throw this term around lightly. I don't think I've ever said that anyone on ex-C harbors is racist. I don't even call the President racist. But here it seems to fit, and let me explain with your own words. You said:

 

One would expect someone who supports Hinduism to have a system that protects men in particular, the alarming degree of sexual assault in India is a manifestation of that ugly patriarchal and caste based system that leaves millions of women silent and oppressed.  It is no better than BS that comes out of Christianity...many male Indians are adept at using principles of Classical Liberalism to defend this perpatuated (sic) situation which you will actually lie to me on this forum and misrepresent...

 

Now, the first part of this is OK. I'm not saying it's correct, it's just not racial or racist. I'm not even going to explain the lesser importance of written Scripture in Hinduism than in Christianity, because it would take us too far afield. Nor am I going to argue that Hinduism isn't "patriarchal," since that imposes a Western dichotomy that I simply don't accept. Also Hinduism isn't a race. It's the second part that we should talk about. "sexual assault in India is a manifestation of <litany of immoral philosophies>." You didn't say "sexual assault among Hindus." You said "in India." Perhaps you just view India as a convenient case study in how Hinduism affects societies when allowed a degree of dominance. In that case, race wouldn't be the fundamental issue.

 

And yet you go further in order to confirm that it is. "Many male Indians are adept <at using arguments you find flawed>." You even go further and tell me that if I disagree with you, I am lying. So then, I am Indian and male, and therefore I will lie in order to defend my misogyny. In the same post, you responded to my observation that rape rates are lower in India than in America by telling me that rapes are unreported. Because I am Indian, I am a liar even when I present facts. When you dismiss my facts and argue based on facts that don't exist (unreported rapes in this case), then you must tell me: precisely what rebuttal could I possibly give? Last century your white male ancestor would have saved me from myself by converting me to Christianity. Today you'll save me with...whatever the opposite of patriarchy is (matriarchy?).

 

Doubtless you will deny being racist. I want to make it clear that I am not attempting to lodge a complaint. As I said, I don't object to racism which isn't acted upon. Heck, even I am racist against both my own race and others. Indians do believe in a lot of dumb things, but I don't believe that our views on gender are among those. I also harbor a racial prejudice against white people with very liberal philosophies, for I find you to possess the same arrogance as Christian missionaries of old. I find that I much prefer white conservatives. But if you're worried I'll start PMing you demanding reparations, rest assured I will not. My only aim here is to point out an intellectual hole into which you appear to have dug yourself.

 

I know that white males are very sensitive about being accused of racism because your ancestors have caused much suffering in the world (and in my ancestral homeland until well into my grandfather's day), and so I tread carefully here. I am hoping that you'll step back from your undirected emotional moralizing, and perform an act of introspection. "Male Indians are adept at using principles of Classical Liberalism..." Do you really believe that? You said it, though I did not even mention my ethnicity or religion as part of my argument. What if I said "black men are adept at using a culture of victimization to justify criminal behavior?" Would you see it then? Or what if I said "white men are easily able to convince themselves of their moral superiority and of their right to impose their beliefs on other races?" Then would you detect the racial prejudice? Or what if I said, "one would expect a Jew to support capitalist philosophy?" Maybe now you see the problem.

 

Right here, you have dismissed my arguments as spurious and me as a liar, specifically because of my cultural background. Had I appealed to Hinduism or Indian tradition, I would understand your line or reasoning, but you dismissed my argument because of my race, which is textbook racism.  Indeed this is racism that I do not detect even from President Trump, who sadly will be receiving my vote again in two years because he believes in protecting accused people over their accusers.

 

Again I reiterate, I don't think there's anything wrong with simply being a racist. I find that most people are racist, and generally this is harmless. But perhaps avoid acting on your racism as you have here.

 

By all means, if you think I'm wrong feel free to tell me. If, however, I have made you reconsider your intellectual posture, perhaps take a moment to give my arguments a fair hearing before you dismiss them as the prayers of a heathen.

[mymistake]

7 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

Wait until 2, 3, 4, 5 or more persons come forward for a corporation to take any action whatsoever? Again, this doesnt I think fully represent the issue from the perspective of the woman or the company.  Lets say a single allegation comes forward and no one else has yet been assaulted, and that single allegation didn't provide physical evidence.  Then two more people at the company are assaulted, and they come to learn that the company knew about the first allegation but chose to do nothing to prevent further abuse within their organization.  

 

What do you think would happen?

 

 

Realistically we are not where you would like us to be as a society yet, so I would think there are thousands of companies that fit this description right now.  I think I understand where you are coming from.  Sometimes we have to make choices based on what kind of errors we choose to avoid.  You would rather see innocent people get blacklisted than to allow perps to operate unchecked.  That might be the right way to do it but you should own the down side.  We are going to make mistakes no matter what kind of policy our culture has.  There is no prefect solution.  They all have down sides.

[mymistake]

1 hour ago, TrueScotsman said:

I didn't say black listed, in fact I said in another post that only termination should take place as the court of law is more suited for dealing with someone long term record.  If a company fires someone for allegations of sexual misconduct they wont be liable to wrongful termination, his suit would need to be against the accuser for slander and defamation of character.  What I am advocating is basically already the case, except that HRs use a broader array of tools beyond termination to deal with these issues, but the fact remains that any allegation unaddressed leaves them liable for a lawsuit should any abuse transpire in the future.

 

 

I know you didn't say it.  But that is what would happen occasionally.  Society is not a machine.  It's messy.  When guys get fired because they are accused word will get around.  And word should get around for fields where other women or children would be at risk.  You may not want innocent people blacklisted but it is a consequence of setting the policy one way.  Just like the people on the other side don't want more sexual assault but not cracking down would allow more sexual assault.  There are unintended consequences.

 

Framed this way, perhaps your position has more merit.

[midniterider]

An employer ought to act fairly, sensibly, logically, and reasoned as well as have compassion and empathy. Each case ought to be evaluated individually. All genders deserve fair treatment. I'm not qualified to create policy and procedure for any company but my own.

 

[ToHellWithMe]

EDIT: (nevermind. redacted. i posted before reading the new responses)

[mymistake]

3 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

 The vast majority of the time the woman is telling the truth, we're talking about something that is actually quite rare, though anyone with an anecdote on it seems to have that guide their thinking.   

 

You really make the argument look weak when you frame it that way.  You are not omniscient so you don't have actual data on how often unknown events happen.

 

I've actually changed my mind on this issue but I think you are going about it the wrong way.

 

 

3 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

 . . . the best approach would be to move swiftly to contain the incident and let the courts proceed further at the initiation of the accuser.  Or if there is vehement rejection of the allegations and no other plausible connecting behavior, a leave of absence while court proceedings can commence.  

 

A leave of absence that lasts forever might be a good way to end it.  "Sorry that you can't get a court to clear you but my hands are tied."

[ToHellWithMe]

9 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

12 hours ago, Bhim said:

All right, I'm caught up [... snip]

I don't believe any of our Classically [... snip]

The first half or so of this long post was very interesting and on-topic. That is, until the india-related stuff which seemed irrelevant.

 

Just as a heads-up for those who maybe ignored the walls of text like I first did.

[midniterider]

TS mentions that businesses don't have the resources to conduct a full criminal investigation like the district attorney and a court of law does, so the accused should be immediately fired.

 

This is true, at least for smaller businesses. But I can't really speak for all corporations and firms though because I haven't worked at them all. I would bet though, that a multibillion dollar corporation probably has a very extensive HR division.

 

Now, to my point, a business does not have to have a team of investigators nor be like a court of law to make a determination. Put the accused on a temporary suspension then 'ask around' to see if any more information can be gathered. Then make a determination from there. One person can do this. They may not get any more information than an accusation and a denial but at least they tried. Then they document that for later.

 

Being a small business without many employees does not absolve that business from doing simple fact finding about an accusation. Anyone can ask other people questions, not just judges and attorneys.

 

 

 

[midniterider]

TS: "I just think it is totally out of the realm for a firm to substantiate, there are lots of evidence and who possess that evidence in an unbroken chain which has to be adhered to like in a criminal case to ensure it is fair. "

 

...

 

You feel an investigation by a firm ought to be handled like a criminal case in order for it to be fair... but claim that since they don't have the resources to commit , fairness gets tossed aside in favor of summary termination.

 

If an employer is allowed to summarily dismiss an employee then there certainly is no requirement that any employer's investigation must be conducted like a court case...or conducted at all.

 

 

[ConsiderTheSource]

On 2/1/2018 at 6:10 PM, TrueScotsman said:

Wait until 2, 3, 4, 5 or more persons come forward for a corporation to take any action whatsoever? Again, this doesnt I think fully represent the issue from the perspective of the woman or the company.  Lets say a single allegation comes forward and no one else has yet been assaulted, and that single allegation didn't provide physical evidence.  Then two more people at the company are assaulted, and they come to learn that the company knew about the first allegation but chose to do nothing to prevent further abuse within their organization.  

 

What do you think would happen?

And....you have rejected it again.

[Thurisaz]

12 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

There actually is data, and false accusations do happen, but it is less than 90% of the time, especially considering historically that women have been hesitant to report allegations.

 

Certainly true.

But are men any less hesitant to report violations? Consider... at least the concept of the female victim of sexual aggression (I use that term as including both harrassment and rape, just to make a point that I think the latter terms are used very inflationary these days ) is one firmly planted into the common mind.

 

I admit I have no hard numbers, no one seems eager to do any serious study on the other side's perspective (gee why could that be?)... but let's be honest to ourselves here, when a man says "I got harrassed (or even raped) by a woman!", don't we all wonder, at least for a moment, whether the alleged victim must've really enjoyed it, or that he should've defended himself and not have been such a sissy, or that he's lying and really was the offender himself?

 

If this shit happens to a man (whether it's a rare or common thing, let's ignore that question for the moment)... would our societies be willing to believe his claims or ridicule him (any more or less than with reversed genders)?

 

There's shit happening on both sides, to both genders. The problem is that male-on-female sexual aggression is in the public's spotlight almost immediately, while the opposite...

[Bhim]

On 2/2/2018 at 10:40 AM, TrueScotsman said:

The India stuff is irrelevant, I shouldn't have brought it up as Bhim pounced all over it to twist my words.  

 

Though by your own admission you brought it up, I agree it's irrelevant. So let's keep this brief.

 

You've protested many times that you are not racist. And yet, you imputed a specific bad faith to my line of reasoning specifically because of my ethnic background. This is racism, and your fellow white males of a certain political persuasion would probably tell you at this point to "check your privilege" or something of that nature. I of course went into this conversation on race fully aware that calling you racist would elicit discomfort from you. Like I said, it's the only time I recall ever having to do this on ex-C. People don't usually tell my that my arguments are poor because I am Indian, so this is relatively new territory for me. But I know that white males like yourself will understandably be sensitive to accusations of racism.

 

Simply put: if you don't want to be a racist, don't make the race of your logical opponents an issue. You yourself have said that interactions with females in the workplace should be kept strictly professional, and that it is wrong to bring up a female coworker's appearance. Yet you felt it was OK to mention my ethnicity in the course of what should have been a logical argument. This makes your position on gender a bit inconsistent with your position on race. Surely you can understand that this makes it more difficult to take your suggestions on appropriate workplace behavior seriously, can't you?

 

Saying that you aren't racist counts for nothing. Yet race is something that you seem interested in discussing because you repeatedly remind us that you are a white male. While I obviously can't force you to do or not do anything, I'd highly recommend that you permanently stop calling attention to the fact that you are a white male. The gender component might be mildly relevant to this conversation. The color of your skin isn't. Not even remotely.

 

Incidentally, you do know that I'm Indian only by genetics, right? As in, I have an American accent and never even went to India until relatively late in life. I write pretty extensively about my background on ex-C, and since you're a long time poster I just sort of assumed you were aware of this. But I get the impression that you assumed, for the purposes of this conversation, that I'm a curry-eating villager with an H1B. Had you asked, I would have been happy to clear this up. But again, racists favor pre-conceived assumptions over easily obtained facts.

 

I don't know who accused you of "virtue signaling." But saying that you're not a racist while behaving in a demonstrably racist manner would certainly seem to me to fit this description.

[Bhim]

Perhaps a good case in point to those who are able to read this post. If he was so deeply offended that I observe and comment on his actual racist behavior, just imagine how someone might feel who is accused of sexual harassment without even the opportunity to question their accusor.

[midniterider]

42 minutes ago, Bhim said:

Perhaps a good case in point to those who are able to read this post.... 

 

Exactly

 

[Bhim]

I contemplated starting another thread about this, but declined to do so because I think what I'm about to say is very relevant to this thread. The more I think about it, the more I am fascinated by @TrueScotsman's deeming me worthy of his ignore list.

 

To back up a bit, on at least two occasions he specifically called attention to his being a white male. When I asked him why he did so, the question was of course purely rhetorical. We both knew why he did this. By stating "I am a white man," he is suggesting that white men are the recipients of both white and male privilege, and he is explicitly stating that he recognizes that he has these implicit privileges. I've written before about how dangerous I find this notion of "privilege," but that's not what I want to talk about here. What I want to talk about is the fact that by calling himself a white male, he implicitly made numerous statements in support of race and gender tolerance. Yet when attention was focused on his exercise of he would call white privilege - namely dismissing my argument precisely because I am something other than white - he resorted to arguments of the form "I'm not racist, but..."

 

With the diminishing influence of evangelical Christianity in politics, I'm becoming more comfortable associating with "conservative" ideologies. And I want to emphasize that I do not believe white privilege is something to be corrected by legislative or institutional measures. Nor was I being disingenuous when I told Scotsman that I am not seeking for him to apologize for his racial background or even for his behavior. But here we have a man - a white man as he is wont to remind us - who believes he has a responsibility to exercise particular racial sensitivity due to the actions of his ancestors. And yet when he is charged with doing precisely the opposite, he chooses to ignore the charge entirely and even resort to childish name-calling, e.g. referring to me as a "moron." Not only does he refer to me as such, but feels the need to add "...and to be clear I don't think you're a moron because you're Indian or Hindu." Sounds to me like someone on the alt-right who starts every Facebook post with "I've got nothing against black people, but..."

 

To the extent that Scotsman represents the views of extreme feminism in the workplace in the #MeToo era, we have to ask how such an individual would behave when charged with exercising his male privilege rather than his white privilege. To those of us who don't believe that "privilege" is a good idea to begin with, it is understandable that we would become immensely defensive if accused of sexual harassment without the benefit of confronting our accuser. But someone who claims to believe in male privilege, and then is accused of sexual harassment (rightly or wrongly) could, I believe, be expected to react as Scotsman has here: namely by ignoring the charge. And there we see the hypocrisy, the untenability of the position he advocates. We have seen here someone who advocates for default belief in accuser testimony, who teaches a separation of genders that we ex-Christians have likely not even seen in the churches where we used to congregate, e.g. " don't leave myself alone with any woman besides my wife." I have to admit I was quite shocked by this suggestion. For someone who escaped Christianity to suggest such a thing is almost unthinkable, and yet here we have it.

 

So let's recap. We have a person here who imposes unreasonable levels of Puritanism on society, who is unable to deal with the consequences of the very rules that he sets in place for himself. Obviously this doesn't constitute a logical debunking of extreme feminism or the liberal #MeToo movement. But in my opinion, it is a case study in the failure of this philosophy. If Scotsman's overall philosophy can exhibit such abject failure in the environment of an online forum, surely it has no opportunity for success in the workplace. I encourage anyone here who is in a position of power to not succumb to the ethic of default belief for accusers, and to recognize that it is more important to protect an accused person than it is to protect the person who is accusing. Men who engage in male self-loathing will not ultimately cooperate with an unfair philosophy, just as Scotsman, who engages in white self-loathing, chose to ignore even fair criticism in the context of his own professed beliefs. Blackstone's Maxim has served the Western world well for centuries. And frankly I would not want to live in a society that does not practice it.

[mymistake]

Bhim I'm sure you had fun on that little tangent you went off on but your personal conflict with TS has nothing to do with the topic.  TS's mistakes in this thread do not reflect on our society in general nor the problem of sexual assault in the workplace.  TS went about it the wrong way.  The issue isn't the data we have but the unknown nature of future incidents.  If you have to choose between protecting the falsely accused and protecting the sexually assaulted clearly one group suffers much more harm than the other.

[midniterider]

47 minutes ago, Bhim said:

Perhaps a good case in point to those who are able to read this post.... 

 

Exactly

 

 

[Bhim]

29 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

You're worthy of my ignore list because of your slanderous false accusations of racism, which is prejudicial conduct on the belief that one race is superior to another or all others.  I corrected this slander, but you continued, assuming your incorrect reading of my statements to be true.  To be clear, you're not on my ignore list for being a Hindu, or not being white or for any reason to do with your race.  It's because you slandered me and called me a racist (MANY TIMES) and you lied about the state of Indian women concerning the prevalence of sexual assault in that country, which I corrected and you failed to address.  Love how you call out my "childish name calling when you escalated way beyond that to calling me a racist, which to me indicates that you're a moron and that I don't have anything fruitful to gain from talking to you.  That is why you're on my ignore list.

 

Apparently, I am not worthy of your ignore list after all, because you're continuing to reply to me. I don't know how ignore lists work, as I've never chosen to use this feature. But if you're still able to read what I write and choose to respond, it sort of defeats the purpose of ignoring me. Very well...

 

You accuse me of of falsely accusing you of racism. On various news media I've heard feminists dismissing false accusations against men by claiming that it is the just retribution for millennia of male power and privilege, and that it is a teaching moment for men, a "reckoning," a "watershed moment" and other vindictive terms. I could make any manner of witty comments about your white privilege, but since I don't believe in the concept, and since I believe you have actually, literally behaved in a racist manner, I will refrain. Still I want you to keep the analogy in mind.

 

Here is how I will react to your denials of racism. Every time you deny being a racist individual, I will quote you as having said:

 

Many male Indians are adept at using principles of Classical Liberalism to defend this perpatuated (sic) situation which you will actually lie to me on this forum and misrepresent as actually not being that much of a problem compared to the West.

 

If you don't recognize the above as racially prejudiced, then your definition of racism is so specific as to be worthless. Or to put it more bluntly, you don't need to wear a white hood and lynch Africans to employ racist rhetoric. Instead of denying that you have made an argument from the basis of racial prejudice, I suggest you simply correct yourself by no longer calling attention to your being a white male, and by generally refraining from talking about race. I imagine that if a member of Black Lives Matter were participating in this conversation, he might tell you that white men have no business lecturing people of color about race. I, however, take a more moderate view and simply think that discussing race is generally unhelpful, regardless of the race of the speaker. Bringing race into conversations where it has no place is a fruitless endeavor, and causes participants to be mired in conversations such as this.

 

You don't want to be talking about race forever, do you? Because I guarantee you that if you uttered the words that you wrote to me in a workplace setting to a person of color from a more liberal persuasion, your career would now stand in ruins. Good thing I don't believe in ruining careers or in holding people accountable to HR departments for merely expressing their opinions. If I still believed in Jesus I would pray to him that you never encounter a female colleague who believes differently than me.

 

Again, I can't force you to do anything, but I can make suggestions. If you dismiss everything else I've said, then please at least consider doing the following: don't talk about race. Ever. Much like your female coworkers' appearances, it simply isn't relevant.

[Bhim]

1 hour ago, mymistake said:

Bhim I'm sure you had fun on that little tangent you went off on but your personal conflict with TS has nothing to do with the topic.  TS's mistakes in this thread do not reflect on our society in general nor the problem of sexual assault in the workplace.  TS went about it the wrong way.  The issue isn't the data we have but the unknown nature of future incidents.  If you have to choose between protecting the falsely accused and protecting the sexually assaulted clearly one group suffers much more harm than the other.

 

I wish that what you said were true. But might I suggest that ex-C is more of a discerning audience than the general public. We are by nature skeptical. Scotsman, however, seems to have become enmeshed in a very restrictive and almost religious worldview. Presumably he identifies as "liberal." And yet he suggests that you shouldn't interact with women besides your wife. This is a philosophy that I've only heard from the likes of John Piper, Mark Driscoll, and the rest of the Reformed crowd from my Christian days (well, there's also Vice President Pence).

 

I think I'm not known on this forum for obsessing over these irrelevant racial issues. The reason I bring them up here is not because I care whether Scotsman is racist. That sort of thing really doesn't bother me very much. I bring it up because it's an excellent example of how easy it is for a subscriber to this ultraliberal philosophy to trip over himself. A few months ago I started a thread on some thoughts about how modern day American liberalism is reminiscent of the dogmatism of evangelical Christianity, due to the emphasis both worldviews place on internal beliefs over external actions. Others here were skeptical of my thesis; I considered their counterarguments and abandoned this line of reasoning - because I change my opinion when presented with valid arguments from respected sources. But Scotsman's extremist views, particularly his Mike Pence approach to female coworkers, has me thinking about this again. I'm starting to worry that at some level, his absurd worldview really does represent the way that a large number of people think.

 

I have no problem with racist people. What I have a problem with is inconsistent worldviews. Right here in this thread, we have an example of someone who recites religious sanctimony about white privilege, but dismisses arguments on racial grounds. He is equally sanctimonious about male privilege, so how do you think he'll react when accused of sexual harassment? If the proponents of draconian gender policies themselves are unable to live with those policies, surely the rest of us cannot!

 

The issue you bring up about the unknown nature of future incidents is certainly a valid one. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about the absurdity of the worldview represented by Scotsman. In this very thread we have an example of how poorly his worldview plays out when put into practice.

[Bhim]

8 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

I do believe TS is TRIGGERED again.  

 

I know you meant this as a joke. But when I wrote my earlier post discussing his racist behavior, I genuinely considered adding a trigger warning informing him that I was about to accuse him of racism. Like I said, it's a touchy subject to white liberals.

[duderonomy]

On 1/26/2018 at 8:43 PM, Bedouin said:

 

 

Need some feedback here.

 

I'm a male that finds females attractive.

 

 

After wading through most of the posts here, I find that Bedouin in the very first post described all of the problems in the world today. 

[duderonomy]

13 minutes ago, Bhim said:

 

I know you meant this as a joke. But when I wrote my earlier post discussing his racist behavior, I genuinely considered adding a trigger warning informing him that I was about to accuse him of racism. Like I said, it's a touchy subject to white liberals.

 

But white conservatives are ok, right?

 

Sorry Bhim, just joking in order to thicken the soup.