That should be an easy one to show, right? And please understand, part of it is just that it seems even more pronounced than usual, of late, that I can hand out links like candy and while it's evident people disagree with something, asserting and citing actual evidence of what I'm talking about hasn't done much good lately, while the flip side is that neither does this weird vagary I keep encountering help: How would anyone know how to answer your vague retort? And I mean that as a technical point. There comes a point where people are talking about due process, for instance, or vigilantism, or some such, and you ask people what and who, and they won't tell you. It's not as charming, though, as Mix hitting on chicks↱. Okay, I admit, I landed on "oogley-goo, oogley-doo-goo-doo", and, yeah, seriously, look, in what way is who supposed to be taking which part seriously, at this point, and how? So, we can start with this. What you describe would sound like a prominent and definitive argument that you can point us to. Would you be so kind? Because there are people who would actually pick through the history with you, but for the most part, I don't know, it's not a line I bother with very often, anymore, but nobody can do anybody else's thinking for them. To wit, Bells can't think for you on this one, so ... what is it you're referring to? This problem, not knowing what to tell people or where to begin because the either cannot or will not give anyone anything to work with keeps coming up↑. You, meanwhile, have put forward something we can look into. But it would help if you could be a little more precise. For my part, hell, figuring out where all this comes from is apparently part of the gig; I find the proposition fascinating. And, yes, I'm aware of the possibility that you're just throwing hard and not really intending to make any more particular discussion, but if that is actually the case you can just go ahead and say so, which would spare everyone some time.
And as PJdude said, there is also a spectrum. A picture of a man's boyfriend in a bathing suit on a desk at work can (and has) been cited as an example of sexual harassment. That is not harassment at the same level as a man who regularly refers to underlings as "his bitches" and requires them to wear high heels to work.
And the rest of my post that addresses this "spectrum", you chose to ignore because of.....? I mean, I need to ask, but do you always feel the need to state the obvious? Do you think I don't know this or can't spot the difference? That's my post as a whole. You know, context and whatnot. So I'll say it again.. Sexual harassment is sexual harassment. Whether it is a 'mild' form or not, it's still sexual harassment, yes? We can agree on this, yes? So let's say we have a mild form of sexual harassment, it shouldn't be allowed to slide because it is mild. To be blunt, I have never argued differently. My consistent point is that sexual harassment, regardless of where it is on its "spectrum", needs to be handled and nipped in the bud appropriately. For obvious reasons which I have stated already.
you mean like the post i reported her for when she attacked me for daring to have a different viewpoint than her on how we should let sexual assualt victims speak for themselves instead of her attitude that they must be thinking and feeling certain things? tactics matter and bells is quite frankly in her zealotry a detriment to the cause than an asset. to a certain degree i agree with eletric in the viewpoint that bells is more intrested in punishing people who commit sins of rape culture than solving it in the long term. just go look through the roy moore and al franken threads and it obvious she isn't interest in dealing with anything on a spectrum. she is very much murder, arson, and jaywalking feeling everything should have the same punishment. hell you want a fucking example of what im talking about right here she shows contempt to the idea of a spectrum. if there is no spectrum everything is the same.
It's certainly accurate with respect to what has been said within this thread, as well as to what I recall from previous threads. I'll need a specific citation here--we're talking, what, four threads here, and over 100 pages?
and there in lie the problem and your lie. to you the appropriate way to be handled is always the exact same the nuclear weapon. you keep trying to pretend otherwise but to you the only appropriate action is to run them out of town type attitude. and there in the lie the problem with that attitude it fixes nothing and encourages more extreme behaviors because if the punishments the same why not go for broke. you keep talking about context but you clearly don't give a shit about it. to you a lewd comment and trying to fuck a 14 year old are both rape culture so are the same. and you can claim you see them as not equivalent but so long you demand them to be treated the same your claiming their equivalent. and yes im using hyperbole here but im doing it to impress upon you the damage your doing. your damaging the cause by making people who do want to do something look like their incapable of nuance which you have shown you lack the ability to do so here in spades. and before you claim your not to paraphrase a quote if someone tells you this is how you present you don't get to tell no i don't come across that way.
no, there is a misunderstanding of this 'spectrum'. it is not about equating all acts the same or not recognizing the gravity or levels of heinousness of sexual harassment/assault. the point is to not use the excuse that because there is worst sexual misconduct, so therefore we'll let the others slide. it is still a violation of another's boundaries. period. Also, often, when it comes to sexual harassment, when society let's it slide, that is no different than a appetizer to the main course to a perpetrator. and then when extreme boundaries are eventually crossed, there is little care for the victim because society has already accepted sexual harassment as a given and become desensitized so it will be difficult to be taken seriously. something similar to, um. how things are now. what is sickening is the implications of some of these arguments. i don't think someone should have to put up with anyone fondling their private parts because that is not technically 'rape' as in copulation. so if your child came home and told you that they were subjected to the humiliating and violating experience of a teacher or the coach fonding their private parts, i don't think that's right to have to tell that child that it's not important and you should just accept it as par for the course because it not as bad as 'rape' or 'sodomy'. i would kill that fuker who hurt my child. you fuckers are sick who minimize sexual harassment which is personal violation and deeply traumatic. it doesn't have to go all the way to literal rape or sodomy. much of sexual assault has the injurious mental and emotional impact as rape, and that is because the intention was to rape (violate) the victim.
Of course. And no one is suggesting we "let it slide." Good example. Now let's say you had two children. One came home and told you that story. The second one came home and told you that her teacher told her that she should wear a prettier dress, because she had such a great figure. Both are sexual harassment. You should not let either one slide. But you'd probably go after the person fondling your child's genitals first.
No, really? And if someone was going around grabbing behinds or wont take no for an answer, that is also harassment that warrants taking action.
Heresy. They should both be summarily executed, preferably utilizing honey and crazed bull ants. No need for any spectrums (spectra?) or nuance - kill 'em all and let the goddess sort 'em out. If not careful, one could infer that as the expressed opinion of certain factions here on Sci.
So, the answer to this is an interesting circumstance, as it requires access as a moderator, and would you prefer I do that in black or green ink, and that's sort of rhetorical because I'm going with black ink on the grounds that you're not going to like the answer, anyway, so why complicate it with a mod hat, or something like that. I have surveyed the record back through 2016, and found two reports you filed against posts by Bells; neither reflects the report you describe. If I attend specifically the most recent, which I would otherwise presume to be what you are referring to, according its date and thread, the complaint does not reflect the report you describe. It is possible, based on the record available to me, there might have been subsequent discussion separate from that record, but I am uncertain what or where that record would be if it exists, and am presently unable to identify what you are referring to. Your construction, your problem. I don't know how much of the day I feel like spending on the scroll through my own posts, and, yeah, it's not necessarily that you particularly would have noticed in passing, but somewhere around here, I'm pretty sure, I did at one point say something or other about the differences between this and that being important in some contexts, like necessary therapeutic or corrective assessment, like trying, convicting, and sentencing the guilty. It could also be that I never finished a post and thus never made the point. Meanwhile, if I mention a bit about continuum↗, or point to your own quote of Bells' post— —it is part of the same point; classifications are as classifications will. Spectra, continnua, gradations, and so on, are what they are; what we do with them is its own question. And in a way, it's like other such reflexive questions; I do wonder at the outer boundary. Ideas like "just" or "merely" as mitigating sexual offense have their own spectra or continnua, and at the extreme end of one of the relevant comparisons is a disgraced, and I believe, disqualified judge in California who just couldn't fail to make things worse. And while I'm pretty certain most of the laments about a spectrum, or continuum, or whatever, I encounter really don't wish to stand alongside Judge Shredd, but the point about the differences 'twixt one act and the next holds. And His Dishonor actually helps illustrate the point. His job as a judge is to apply comparative consideration in terms of how long the convicted rapist will spend in prison, not to complain that he doesn't like sentencing the rapist because the convicted man didn't rape her hard enough for the judge's satisfaction in calling it rape. All the judge had to do was keep his damn mouth shut and sentence the guy to the low end of the classification, and that would have been the end of the case. It's also true the accused would have been charged with a greater crime had he injured her so badly as the judge's lament described. That any of us find his tantrum sickening does not mean we cannot discern the basic differences. Yet between "stating the obvious" or asking if he thinks she can't tell the difference, you come up with "no spectrum"?
Wow indeed!! Let me say it again, Wow indeed!!!! Aint that the truth!!! After a great evening celebrating my 42nd Wedding Anniversary with my wife, Son and his girlfriend, I would like to conduct a pole. Let's vote on whether any of the following incidents can be classed as "sexual harassment" or anything approaching that. The following are real incidents that have happened in my life. [1] A group of men on a building site wolf whistling a girl walking by. [should they have been charged with sexual misconduct?] [2] The girl reacted by turning around, poking out her tongue, and exposing a nice set of breasts. [Should she have been charged with aiding and abetting such behaviour and also indecent exposure?] [3] The group of men broke out in raucious laughter. [4] I who was walking around 20 or 30 ft behind her, smiled. [should I have been charged with condoning the blokes and hers behaviour? As a teenager I, my girlfriend at that time, and a group of 15 or 20 friends of both sexes, went to the movies one Saturday evening. This was the done thing in the early 60's. A group of my friends were seated behind myself and my girlfriend, and my girlfriend was playing "handies" with my best friend who was sitting behind us. He jokingly dropped his "old fella" into her hand. She gave out with a laudable "Oh" and then while giggling profusely whispered in my ear that Bobby had dropped his dick into her hand. [1] Should Bobby have been charged with sexual misconduct? [2] Should my girlfriend at that time have been charged with aiding and abetting such behaviour? [3] Should I have been charged with condoning such behaviour? While walking in the city one day, I was literally googling at a couple of attractive women who were walking in line with me: My inattention in not watching where I was going, caused me to walk into a traffic light pole. [1] Was this divine intervention at my behaviour? [2]Should the girls have had me charged with indecent behaviour? As a young man many years ago, I had the misfortune of having a women slap me on the bum remarking "nice" while I was talking to a friend. [1] Should I make the effort of finding out who she was and charge her with sexual misconduct? At different times during the cricket season in Australia, we have had what are called "streakers" both male and female running stark naked onto the field. These people are obviously apprehended and charged with invasion of the field, but in addition.... [1] Should they be charged with sexual misconduct? [2] Should the spectators that cheer these streakers on with glee also have been charged with aiding and abetting? And old film actress, long before even my time, Mae West was reported to have remarked once to a co-star, "Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?" [1] Should she have been charged with sexual misconduct? My apologies if some of these incidents appear trivial, but then again, this thread has developed from a silly trivial reaction to a innocent remark.
Precisely. However, it would seem that the existence of said continua must be acknowledged before a discussion can be had on the disposition. Thereof. And so forth. Harumph.
see, this is the problem with such a statement. of course, one is worse than the other. but what you are suggesting is that a lesser offense does not warrant taking action. otherwise, why would you make such an inane statement? it is suggesting it has to be an either/or and to ignore one in favor of another worse offense? otherwise, what is your motivation to make such a statement. can't both be addressed? is there a problem with having both human resources for some situations and criminal investigators for another? general police investigation and special units for more heinous crimes (that includes explicit sexual touching after removing or under clothing, not just rape) does only one need to exist? what is the point, except stating the obvious that some crimes are worse than others and some wrongs are more extreme than others? but the fact is, you don't get to excuse driving drunk or petty crime/theft just because there are serial killers, child molestors and rapists out there. you don't get to tell the traffic cop you don't deserve a dui for drunk driving or a ticket for speeding or to be fired from your job because of harassment using the excuse that at least you aren't a pedophile or serial killer or a isis terrorist. yes, you may not be as bad as another and your actions may not be as evil as another but your actions can still be harmful and warrant reprimand and consequences and those consequences should be weighed depending on the gravity of the misconduct. the difference will be the consequences to fit the gravity of the offense.
It means, dear T, that I haven't seen consensus yet that some offenses are worse than others and deserve harsher penalties. Did I miss it? I see lip service - as in "of course there are degrees" - but it seems that all transgressions deserve public humiliation, degradation along with loss of career and social standing. At the minimum. Am I missing something? How about an example of "sexual harrassment" that doesn't warrant the above consequences? Got one handy?
No, because behavior that should be discouraged shouldn't necessarily be illegal. No, because it should not be illegal to show one's breasts. It should only be illegal to grab them without permission. Free speech. Also just free expression. She would have a case if she wanted to press charges. Nope. She didn't ask him to take it out. No. There is no god. You can look, but you can't touch. You would have a case if you chose to pursue it. Perhaps. For fiction?
so is your reply a lip service. if you don't agree, have the balls to explain what you think is wrong or unfair. is there some reason why you can't figure it out yourself? it's not really that difficult. is someone sexually harassing people okay? if not, then what is the consequences? tell so and so to leave such and such a person alone? if that person does not comply so you take it to some other authority, perhaps human resources? that would be the first step and if they comply and then that first minimal reprimand that is light is only valid if it was not an obscene or extreme act of sexual violation (extreme molestation). granted, a pat on the bum on top of clothing is not the most extreme but it's still a violation that is unacceptable. but as for the likes of franken, but he repeatedly groped and sexually harassed women (he knew better, he just he could get away with it) and so was publicly humiliated and asked to resign. now, what's the damn problem? too harsh? not really.
None. Is there some reason you seem to be having such trouble? Shouldn't be. Nope. That was, in fact, the question I asked. See? That wasn't so hard. Wait - "only valid if it was not an obscene ... act of sexual violation"? As in "extreme molestation"? Please do clarify - what, exactly, constitutes "extreme" for you? Perhaps. Setting aside the question of how you know this to be true, were his actions an example of "extreme molestation"? How about an "extreme act of sexual violation"? See, I just want to establish boundaries here... Let me know. And thanks for playing.
Yep. Because you understand that while both are sexual harassment, some forms are worse than others. Absolutely. But "not taking no for an answer" and raping someone as a result is worse than grabbing someone's behind. Go after both of them - but if you have to prioritize, go after the rapist first.
