#metoo

[♦ nivek ♦]

I hoping for that day the Po-Po take me into custody for deeply retina staining some young tenderoni showing her ass crack and thong, bouncing braless in everso slight material top and bottom. Not that I'd look more than once. Or twice, or more..
 

Ought to be fun to be gagged in public after being tazered by the Bitch Bunch for daring compliment some fine ass Cougar dressed to kill.
Dudes, I am always looking for classy dressed girls. Jeans to silk, if she's a looker, Ima gonna retina stain her.

 

Thinking too asking  lonely lil gal at the bar if she wants to take a scooter ride to Destination Nowhere for weekend might have this Mean Olde Phuk be incarcerated in their "Men's Mental De-Marital Deletion Directory Wards".

 

Fuck it.  Taught my Son to be a Man, part of that is being able to let shit flow across his back and in turn not let dumbassery force him into angry retorts resulting in a bitch fest.

 

Does it sound as though I could care fucking less about whining bull  cowshittery and big city problems? 

Indeed.

 

Men, be Men. Let your fucking testosterone have you do what Men do. You need not be a jerk as I tend to be, however being a pussy for a cause lessens you as a Real Man.

 

ArtofManliness.com
 

Male not need be recycled scooter trash or have a long list of anti-social behavior on their record to be a Man. Having a backbone and being able to take on those things that keep you Male and strong are.

 

k,fuckin'L

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, TrueScotsman 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.  

 

 

I try not to live in fear and always respect women. Not being alone at some point with a woman would have been impossible in my particular circumstance. Fortunately the hiring process was pretty stringent so we had high caliber people. But we also did have a horn dog (male) that would get in trouble from time to time for his 'comments' to the women. But every faux pas was documented.

[midniterider]

11 minutes ago, SkipNChurch said:

I hoping for that day the Po-Po take me into custody for deeply retina staining some young tenderoni showing her ass crack and thong, bouncing braless in everso slight material top and bottom. Not that I'd look more than once. Or twice, or more..
 

Ought to be fun to be gagged in public after being tazered by the Bitch Bunch for daring compliment some fine ass Cougar dressed to kill.
Dudes, I am always looking for classy dressed girls. Jeans to silk, if she's a looker, Ima gonna retina stain her.

 

Thinking too asking  lonely lil gal at the bar if she wants to take a scooter ride to Destination Nowhere for weekend might have this Mean Olde Phuk be incarcerated in their "Men's Mental De-Marital Deletion Directory Wards".

 

Fuck it.  Taught my Son to be a Man, part of that is being able to let shit flow across his back and in turn not let dumbassery force him into angry retorts resulting in a bitch fest.

 

Does it sound as though I could care fucking less about whining bull  cowshittery and big city problems? 

Indeed.

 

Men, be Men. Let your fucking testosterone have you do what Men do. You need not be a jerk as I tend to be, however being a pussy for a cause lessens you as a Real Man.

 

ArtofManliness.com
 

Male not need be recycled scooter trash or have a long list of anti-social behavior on their record to be a Man. Having a backbone and being able to take on those things that keep you Male and strong are.

 

k,fuckin'L

 

So you're looking at what they are putting on display? You perv! You should be ashamed of your natural attraction to the female body. /sarcasm.

 

Then again, why DO women wear makeup? And (in this younger generation) often let half their boobs hang out? And wear OMFG so very short shorts?

 

haha

 

I used to remind my daughter that whatever you put on display for the public, EVERYONE is watching. Not just hot 22 year old guy. Lecherous old farts are checking you out too.

 

Retina stains. lol. That's good.

[ConsiderTheSource]

3 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

What happens when it is just one person?  Their accusation gets labeled that, and then what?  Patterns always start somewhere, what if we caught the Olympics doctor after the first victim and what if we said, "hmm we need more witness accounts in order to substantiate that this is a fact.  We wouldn't want to ruin the good doctor's career."  He then is let go and many more victims later, you now have the same fact true of many more girls.  The serial and predatory nature of most abusers should cause us caution that we don't end up protecting them in the process, which I think would happen with the suggestions so far in the thread.

 

One accuser vs one accused is clearly subject to a need for additional evidence.  We can't make it possible for anyone to damage anyone with an unsubstantiated claim.  But, nither should the person making the claim suffer negative consequences for coming forward.

 

Now, when we reach 2, 3, 4 etc accusers the evidence of abuse becomes statistically overwhelming quite quickly, especially when paired with other outside evidence.

[Moxie]

3 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

...women often don't have a clue who you are and what your intentions are but notice that you're bigger and stronger.  Give women a wide birth and respect them, how hard can this be?

 

 

That's a huge part of what's being left out of this conversation, that male people are generally stronger. Though this fact doesn't mean men should be put to the fire for simply being men, it adds credence to the narratives about being extra cautious and expecting the worst before anything else.

 

Personal story: I once reported a male coworker who was not harassing me, but was harassing another female coworker. He kept asking her for a chance with him on break. He was also a friend of our boss. She didn't want to speak up because in her previous job, her boss fired her for reporting him for sexual harassment. Also, the work environment had no security and involved walking across the parking lot to a dumpster around 11 pm every work night.

 

Mind you, we'd had other male coworkers in the past who simply did their job and went home. I contacted the general manager on her cell phone to report him, and he was escorted off the property. He was replaced by another male employee who stayed with us for several months and never caused issues.

[♦ nivek ♦]

1 hour ago, TrueScotsman said:

testosrone.   ?

 

1 hour ago, TrueScotsman said:

oogle  ?

 

1 hour ago, TrueScotsman said:

Give women a wide birth  ?

 

1 hour ago, TrueScotsman said:

Chimp males naturally canabalize the younger chimps after they battle another band and win, and men in the name of manliness have slaughtered each other wholesale for millennia in order to prove they have the stones.  Evolve beyond this pitiful culture of manliness which really just caters to particular personality types. 

 

ArtofManliness just teaches white men how to be pompous Libertarian assholes, there are better reasons to be tough and resilient than: testosrone.

 

**le sigh.... <nevermind>

Sheeeit *I* thought that fucked up home-made words and goofy usages were MY bailiwick here at ExC.

k,moreMankeethanMan,stilluseschainprimaryandsprockets,FL

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

What do you need, multiple accusations?  Hard evidence, which part of the company is supposed to substantiate these claims?  Serial abusers always start off with a first victim, and this is about protecting other employees.  The criminal justice system demands proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but they dont have the same responsibilities and liabilities that a company does.  What if a man abuses a women and her accusation was said to be insufficient grounds for termination and then he went on to abuse someone else.  What kind of lawsuit do you think the company would be looking at?  The only perspective being really explored here is that of the ACCUSED.

 

 

I don't believe I said that a company should do nothing. A company should gather as much information as possible and make a decision based on it. Consult with the police to see if it looks like a crime. If it is, hand it over to them. If not, fire them if it seems prudent, or document it for later. Remember, firing someone will not stop them from abusing someone else. They will just get a job again at another place and do it again. Prison will stop a criminal.

 

Police don't need a conviction to arrest someone. Just probable cause. If they have that, the suspect is removed from harming others. Being jailed is also great ammunition for an employee file. If an employer doesn't have much damning information on a he said/she said case, an arrest record is helpful. 

 

I don't want a perpetrator going free to go on to harm others, no. I also don't want someone climbing the corporate ladder by using false accusations to get people out of their way. I think we should cover all our bases. Should we cover all our bases? Is the truth important?

 

 

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, SkipNChurch said:

 

 

 

 

**le sigh.... <nevermind>

Sheeeit *I* thought that fucked up home-made words and goofy usages were MY bailiwick here at ExC.

k,moreMankeethanMan,stilluseschainprimaryandsprockets,FL

 

Trade that in on a Kawaski, old man.

[♦ nivek ♦]

4 hours ago, midniterider said:

Trade that in on a Kawaski, old man.

 

NEVAR!

<self edited to prevent another wall o'text bout how evile `American badged bikes force te-scooter-ones on less menly mens.>

 

kFL

[Vigile]

11 hours ago, ConsiderTheSource said:

Now, when we reach 2, 3, 4 etc accusers the evidence of abuse becomes statistically overwhelming quite quickly, especially when paired with other outside evidence

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria

 

The McMartin Preschool case was the first daycare abuse case to receive major media attention in the United States.^[21] The case centered upon the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, California, where seven teachers were accused of kidnapping children, flying them in a plane to another location, and forcing them to engage in group sex as well as forcing them to watch animals be tortured and killed.^[21] The case also involved accusations that children had been forced to participate in bizarre religious rituals, and been used to make child pornography.^[22] The case began with a single accusation, made by the mother - who was later found to be a paranoid schizophrenic^[3] - of one of the students, but grew rapidly when investigators informed parents of the accusation and began interviewing other students.^[22] The case made headlines nationwide in 1984, and seven teachers were arrested and charged that year.^[22] When a new district attorney took over the case in 1986, however, his office re-examined the evidence and dropped charges against all but two of the original defendants. Their trials became one of the longest and most expensive criminal trials in the history of the United States,^[22][1] but in 1990 all of these charges were also dropped.^[21] Both jurors at the trial and academic researchers later criticized the interviewing techniques that investigators had used in their investigations of the school, alleging that interviewers had "coaxed" children into making unfounded accusations, repeatedly asking children the same questions and offering various incentives until the children reported having been abused.^[21] Most scholars now agree that the accusations these interviews elicited from children were false.^[23][24] Sociologist Mary de Young and historian Philip Jenkins have both cited the McMartin case as the prototype for a wave of similar accusations and investigations between 1983 and 1995, which constituted a moral panic.^[25][22]

[Thurisaz]

Also compare to repressed memory therapy.

 

It's just like calling yourself a scientist doesn't make you one.

[ConsiderTheSource]

11 hours ago, Vigile said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria

 

The McMartin Preschool case was the first daycare abuse case to receive major media attention in the United States.^[21] The case centered upon the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, California, where seven teachers were accused of kidnapping children, flying them in a plane to another location, and forcing them to engage in group sex as well as forcing them to watch animals be tortured and killed.^[21] The case also involved accusations that children had been forced to participate in bizarre religious rituals, and been used to make child pornography.^[22] The case began with a single accusation, made by the mother - who was later found to be a paranoid schizophrenic^[3] - of one of the students, but grew rapidly when investigators informed parents of the accusation and began interviewing other students.^[22] The case made headlines nationwide in 1984, and seven teachers were arrested and charged that year.^[22] When a new district attorney took over the case in 1986, however, his office re-examined the evidence and dropped charges against all but two of the original defendants. Their trials became one of the longest and most expensive criminal trials in the history of the United States,^[22][1] but in 1990 all of these charges were also dropped.^[21] Both jurors at the trial and academic researchers later criticized the interviewing techniques that investigators had used in their investigations of the school, alleging that interviewers had "coaxed" children into making unfounded accusations, repeatedly asking children the same questions and offering various incentives until the children reported having been abused.^[21] Most scholars now agree that the accusations these interviews elicited from children were false.^[23][24] Sociologist Mary de Young and historian Philip Jenkins have both cited the McMartin case as the prototype for a wave of similar accusations and investigations between 1983 and 1995, which constituted a moral panic.^[25][22]

 

Wow.  Yes, there is the occasional odd ball exception.  Are you really going to stand on this and deny the victims any reasonable way to enforce their greivances???  Really?   Sounds a lot like the "You can't prove god does exist, so he must exist" argument if you ask me".

 

My child was sexually abused by his Sunday School Teacher.  So were the two children in another family.  When multiple victims come forward something need to be done, and quickly, before there are more victims.  But, in 1990, their was no effective process.  I am glad times are changing for the better.  #metoo

[ConsiderTheSource]

23 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

Come back when you've got a few more molestation victims, should be the reponse from HR?  The criminal justice system is the place for this arbitration, businesses have to protect themselves and their employees.  How about we not wait until we get to 2, 3, 4, 5 victims, or do you not understand how distressing this can be for people on a long term?  If you have that many victims in your business, probably there are larger problems in the corporation which enables these abusers.  

 

Wow.  You really don't get that I am on your side for this issue, do you?   I have you telling me that I am being too easy, and another commenter telling me I am being too hard.  So, I am guessing I am in the correct zone with my thoughts.

 

Get real.  Tell me how this gets fixed in the criminal justice system, or anywhere else, when it is just oner person's word against another?  Answer:  It doesn't.  But, if 2, 3, 4, etc come forward then you have strong statistical based evidence.  Resolution in favor of the victim should happen.  Ignoring when there are multiple victims can not be tolerated.

[Orbit]

Why don't we treat robbery like this?

 

"Oh, you were robbed? Well, it's your word against his".

 

It's ludicrous, and it becomes clear how ludicrous when FBI statistics tell us that false accusations for rape are no different in frequency than false accusations of anything else, but it gets treated like all rape accusations are false. Besides, the way our law works is already that every person accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Do rapists need special protection for....what reasons?

[Guest]

Anybody ever considered the fact that when the words "victim mentality" are bandied about, as if to refer to some people who just want special attention and have nothing better to do with their time but complain, there's actually something to it, and that said people might actually be victims? More specifically, victims of unwanted harrassment, sexual advances, or sexual abuse? One need not look any further than history and in particular Christianity to get a good example of how women and women's bodies have been treated.

[Vigile]

12 hours ago, ConsiderTheSource said:

 

Wow.  Yes, there is the occasional odd ball exception.  Are you really going to stand on this and deny the victims any reasonable way to enforce their greivances???  Really?   Sounds a lot like the "You can't prove god does exist, so he must exist" argument if you ask me".

 

My child was sexually abused by his Sunday School Teacher.  So were the two children in another family.  When multiple victims come forward something need to be done, and quickly, before there are more victims.  But, in 1990, their was no effective process.  I am glad times are changing for the better.  #metoo

 

Huh? How am I denying victims any way to address their grievances? I have done nothing here but bolster the argument for innocent until proven guilty. That means everyone is afforded due process, otherwise we just create more victims and/or engage in vigilantism. I posted an example of mass hysteria because someone (perhaps it was you) argued in favor of railroading those who are accused simply on the basis of an accusation and not conviction in a court of law. I will not apologize. If that's you, then sorry, you're just wrong and history and the law are not on your side. 

[Thurisaz]

There is no simple and just solution to the question of sexual aggression, let's make that clear here.

 

Sticking to due process and in dubio pro reo does mean that it's damn hard to find out the truth, because it's in the fucking nature of the alleged crime that witnesses are very rare. It will be he said she said in most cases, so that's the drawback there.

 

But assuming that claims of sexual aggression are always true and the accused is always guilty is not just taking a crap right into the face of justice and a legal system that's been set up the way it is for damn good reasons, it opens up a dangerous road.

Whether male or female, old or young, whatever religion, whatever skin color, whatever whathaveyou... if you give someone power over others, without also holding that someone responsible for what they do with that power, you can lean back and count the days until they start abusing their power.

 

Power corrupts.

 

We may not like it but look around, that's a sad fact. If a woman only needs to point at a man, say "rapist", and that man immediately gets punished... it's only a question of time until abuse of that option begins. And actually it's already happening. I'm not making any claims about frequency of this abuse, but it does happen.

 

Bottom line is, each case has to be examined individually. There must be no bias among the involved (lawyers, judges et cetera) toward either side. It's not a perfect way but it's the best way it can be done.

[mymistake]

Yeah, the harsh truth is that the situation is complicated.  Nobody made it that way.  It started off complicated all by itself.  There isn't going to be a simple solution.

[Thurisaz]

8 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

You're talking about in a court of law, this thread has primarily been surrounding how employers should handle the situation.  Just because someone gets terminated for an allegation, doesn't mean they're guilty in a court of law, but other employees have to be protected.

 

Ah, point taken

[midniterider]

I hear in this thread that a man should be fired immediately on a sexual misconduct allegation. 

 

If a woman is accused of sexual misconduct by a male coworker should she be terminated immediately to protect other employees? 

[Bedouin]

When it comes to things not scientific, mathematical or religious, I kind of go by that saying, “there’s my side, your side, and somewhere in between there’s the truth. “

 

 

[Bhim]

On 1/29/2018 at 9:12 AM, Vigile said:

 

Holy shit that is stupid, authoritarian and evil. I'm sure HR departments love it. This is a great example of why Americans need contracts with their employers and worker protections like the free, civilized world has. 

 

I'm honestly starting to believe that liberals are more dangerous than conservatives. Willing to ruin a person's life (and yes, being fired for something like this would ruin most lives, and the lives of their wives and children too) for a mere allegation. 

 

I promised myself I would read the whole thread before commenting, but I couldn't resist. When I joined ex-C I hated conservatives due to their associations with Christianity. I still do, and yet I voted for Trump in the last election, despite that he resembles an orangutan more than a human. This was a major issue for me, well before the #MeToo movement. I am a strong believer in presumption of innocence, both in law and in HR departments. I have had two friends who were removed from their universities due to false accusations of sexual misconduct (in one case I was physically present - in my friend's lab in the physics building - when the act was alleged to have occured, and yet was never questioned as a witness by the university kangaroo court). Indeed, my political choice was vindicated when Nancy DeVos brought attention to the weaponization of Title IX.

 

Allegations alone should not result in termination, or for that matter in any other negative consequence. I am disheartened at the dismantling of our legal justice system, and its replacement with "courts" run by universities and HR departments. This is a subversion of the law and should be recognized as such. The only place a person should ever be accused of sexual crimes is in a court of law.

 

And because of the damage one's reputation can suffer due to mere allegations in this climate, it should be possible to waive the right to a public trial.

[mymistake]

11 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

 It seems to me the only factor many men here are able to articulate are their fears of a false accusation.  ZERO concern for thr plight of women is articulated as a result of their crackpot schemes which would provide unprecedented protection to predators with their social schemes.

 

 

There is a middle ground.

[mymistake]

54 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

 Why is all the attention on false accusations over the concern for the rates of sexual assault against women?   

 

It isn't a zero sum game.  Caring about one issue does not diminish care for the other.  I could start and end every sentence with "Rape is wrong" but that becomes awkward and makes if hard to convey other thoughts.

[Bhim]

46 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

Why is all the attention on false accusations over the concern for the rates of sexual assault against women?  Like I said, this is the sexual abuser in the bathroom using the transgender law as cover 2.0, a red herring that me have brought up to divert the attention of the #MeToo movement.

 

Because of a certain legal principle which I believe in called Blackstone's Maxim. Simply put: "it is better to let ten guilty men go free than for one innocent to suffer." That's why stopping false accusations is more important than punishing rapists or harassers.

 

Regarding your claims concerning Hinduism, India, and sexual assault, it is regrettable that your departure from Jesus did not result in an improved tolerance for other religions. Your statement contains numerous incorrect assumptions, but let's focus on your claim about sexual assault rates. They are lower in India than in many Western countries including the United States. It may surprise you, and as the onus to prove a claim rests on the claimant, I'll leave the research to you. But might I suggest you deal with sensitive issues such as this with a degree of disinterested logic. While feminists were shouting wildly about locking up all the men (I speak hyperbolically, of course), I went into the voting booth and voted for an orange haired moron who, for all his bad traits, believes in Blackstone's Maxim to a greater extent than his opponent did.

 

To whatever extent you support feminism, I ask you to fix this issue. Ensure guaranteed protections of liberty and reputation for men falsely accused of sex crimes. If you don't, I will vote for the orangutan again in 2020, simply because he believes in Blackstone's Maxim and feminists do not.

 

I will endeavor to respond to your other points once I have caught up with the rest of this thread.