Community >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Fri Aug 21, 2015
In Reply To

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: I disagree with this on several grounds...
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 at 07:21:22 am CST (Viewed 447 times)
Reply Subj: I disagree with this on several grounds...
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 at 01:49:16 pm CST (Viewed 498 times)

    I understand the distinction you are trying to make with severity. If it makes somebody uncomfortable than it is a problem. The legal standard for sexual harassment in particularly does not cover all forms of harassment.

I think the problem starts when you put feelings above facts.

If we use the previous example, the woman raised a sexual harassment case against a man for saying (either jokingly or not?) "Men are better cooks than women." (another example that the left has no sense of humour but I digress).

Now either that woman has severe mentally fragile anxiety (in which case she is not fit to be out working in the 'real world' ) or she's a con artist playing the victim to get attention and/or money for herself or get that man fired.

I know I wouldn't want to work or talk to such a woman, because basically ANYTHING could trigger her. In fact even NOT talking to her might trigger her.

So when we allow feelings (which cannot be verified as true or not) to determine ACTUAL crime/harassment you run the twin problems that:

1. Mentally unstable people (or people suffering from temporary mental severe depression) could be triggered by literally ANYTHING being said.
2. Insidious or deceitful people are going to willfully use that for their gain and others loss.

    For instance, I think the "guy talk" out is lazy and lacks context. Where is it being discussed and what is being discussed. If it is at work, than it is not ok. Even if it does not rise to the level of sexual harassment it is unprofessional and not ok. It creates a poor environment that can lead to worse and worse things. That is a fact.

Partially agree with this. But if you totally outlaw 'Banter' at work then the staff become little more than automatons also a bit of banter helps prepare people for the 'real world'. If you mollycoddle people too much they just become big (cry)babies who get triggered by everything (case in point - micro-aggressions )

    Harmless flirting is not always harmless. I think that gets lost on some men and women. Depending on the context of the situation. Even at a bar. It is probably ok to go up to somebody and flirt and ask them out. But if they tell you to get lost than pushing the issue and getting more and more raunchy is not ok. By no stretch. And in a professional environment it is hard to imagine a situation where it is ok.

Again, partially agree. I think its okay to ask someone out anywhere (I mean most people meet their partner AT work) and if you outlaw this you virtually destroy western civilization (which is of course the goal of some Far Leftists).

But I agree once the other person says 'no' or 'not interested' anything after that CAN be the beginning of sexual harassment. I say 'can', because it still might just be a harmless conversation or chatting-up if done in a friendly manner.

    With some of these ideas it may seem to be splitting hairs, but it is better than trying to make non existent distinctions at times. People in power abuse things all of the time in all manner of ways.

I agree with this but don't see any immediate solution. Some people will always abuse their power/wealth just as some will always suck up to people with power/wealth.

    A man, and more often woman, has a right to be without unwanted advances. And in many of these cases these are serial problems. And often saying get lost is not enough to drive off such people. Pending the example it may not be illegal but it is still not ok.

I think the key here (as regards conversation) is whether its a serial problem or not because otherwise I doubt its grounds for action. In the workplace I'd go along with the following guidelines.

1. Person A 'feels' harrassed, reports Person B to management. Management go over the details and if its justified* warn Person B to stop whatever they were doing.
2. Second Offence (with verifiable witnesses and/or camera evidence), Person B is suspended.
3. Third offence (again with evidence), Person B is dismissed/sacked from work.

*If its 'he said men are better cooks than women' then frankly I would give the warning to Person A instead.

You address Omnipotence...tread carefully.
Posted with Google Chrome 62.0.3202.94 on Windows NT 4.0
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software