Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

And yet you just got on another poster's case for extrapolating.


At some point, I'm just going to have to accept that you are the absolute worst kind of hypocrite.

Cause I reposted information on Scott Brown and my opinion is he's guilty? Sorry, but we all make decisions like that every day. You don't like get off the Internet. You evidently have some sort of man crush for Scott Brown. Speaking of Scott Brown, my hypocrisy here FAILS in comparison to his life which in it's entire is not only hypocritical but a sham.

 

[Jimjamesak]

And they catch you looking, get all pizzed, and then start ******ing at you and calling you a pervert. Don't want the looks, cover it up.

Yes, it's totally the woman's fault that you're staring at her. Heaven forbid she wants to wear something comfortable.

 

[johnnypohlfan]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Cause I reposted information on Scott Brown and my opinion is he's guilty? Sorry, but we all make decisions like that every day. You don't like get off the Internet. You evidently have some sort of man crush for Scott Brown. Speaking of Scott Brown, my hypocrisy here FAILS in comparison to his life which in it's entire is not only hypocritical but a sham.

Well, the first step is admitting you have a problem. So you've at least put that foot forward. Although minimizing and deflecting still seem to be issues to work on...

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Well, the first step is admitting you have a problem. So you've at least put that foot forward. Although minimizing and deflecting still seem to be issues to work on...

**** **

 

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Kep, the dude at Faux News has been accused of something that has yet to be proven or any sort of evidence shown to be true, except a former employee saying he did something. Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. Scoobs post said flat out that the guy is guilty. As he often does, prematurely, in news stories such as this. Based on those numerous examples, I threw out a half-*** attempt at calling him out on it. Instead of responding to it, he tried to change the subject, throwing out a tired sarcastic cliche so often used by you, him, and your ilk. Doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing, actually. You care to jump in and defend Scoobs' post? Hold him to it? How exactly wasn't he dodging the question. Enlighten me.

Aside from the fact that he called me a conservative, which is laughably inaccurate. But I digress...

I had no idea about the Scoob situation (and I'm still pretty confused about it after reading your post).

I just didn't buy your call-out and I offered my opinion on it. That's what happens when you shiv somebody en passant. (I haven't forgotten about you, Nate!)

I'm genuinely curious what you would call yourself if not "conservative." That's my general impression of your posts, though I could easily be mixing you up with others.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

I know many (including some women) feel this way, but in my opinion it is wrongheaded. Women can dress as sexually as they want and still retain the right to not being come on to at work. Especially in a business where your job is to appear in front of the camera, and part of what everybody is selling is your looks.

You being attracted to a woman is not a license to mess with them. We understand this in some way because we revile Islamic culture that makes women dress head to toe in a bag so they don't slyly get our masculine juices flowing. The argument about women losing sympathy in a harassment situation because they are wearing "slutty" clothes is just that kind of thinking with different boundaries.

Even if a woman came to work stark naked you wouldn't have the "right" to pinch her butt.

This is just something that older guys have to get over. The world's changed and that stuff has been thrown on the ash heap of history.

Even if I were to agree that an opinion (especially mine) can be "wrongheaded", I'm going to disagree with you to an extent.

Recall that the legal definition of sexual harassment entails unwelcome advances or conduct of a sexual nature. Traditionally I think the EEOC has looked to see whether the alleged victim has "invited or incited" the advance.

Again, do I think Carlson sent some message that she wanted to sleep with Ailes? Probably not. But my whole point, which Handy correctly deduced, is that I don't have a lot of sympathy for eye candy when someone ultimately decides they want to take a piece. But, as noted, it's just one man's opinion.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Even if I were to agree that an opinion (especially mine) can be "wrongheaded", I'm going to disagree with you to an extent.

Recall that the legal definition of sexual harassment entails unwelcome advances or conduct of a sexual nature. Traditionally I think the EEOC has looked to see whether the alleged victim has "invited or incited" the advance.

Again, do I think Carlson sent some message that she wanted to sleep with Ailes? Probably not. But my whole point, which Handy correctly deduced, is that I don't have a lot of sympathy for eye candy when someone ultimately decides they want to take a piece. But, as noted, it's just one man's opinion.

Well, I used "wrongheaded" instead of "wrong" to try to capture that difference -- wrongheaded seems to me to be "a logical conclusion derived from axioms which are wrong."

But I think we've gotten to the core of our difference. You equate wearing alluring clothes with welcoming or inciting sexual advances. I don't at all. Is a married woman who wears alluring clothes to work inviting adultery? Or does she maybe like looking that way and wearing those clothes? Even with a single girl, maybe she's after a particular guy. Is that guy you? Very, very unlikely. (And the guys who get nailed for sexual harassment are invariably guys who look, sound and act like Roger Ailes.) So hands off, eyes front, dude.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Well, I used "wrongheaded" instead of "wrong" to try to capture that difference -- wrongheaded seems to me to be "a logical conclusion derived from axioms which are wrong."

But I think we've gotten to the core of our difference. You equate wearing alluring clothes with welcoming or inciting sexual advances. I don't at all. Is a married woman who wears alluring clothes to work inviting adultery? Or does she maybe like looking that way and wearing those clothes? Even with a single girl, maybe she's after a particular guy. Is that guy you? Very, very unlikely. (And the guys who get nailed for sexual harassment are invariably guys who look, sound and act like Roger Ailes.) So hands off, eyes front, dude.

To be clear, I don't make that equation, but I'll leave it at that. I've hijacked this thread enough.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Roger Ailes has already been found guilty. Not much of a leap to assume since he was running the place that the entire organization is the equivalent of Sodom and Gomorrah.

But, I digress.

And if he's found not guilty in the courts, you'll say he got away with it, right? Happens all the time when a man belittles a woman, whether it's harassment, saying something and it's taken out of context, accusations of abuse, whatever the case may be.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

And if he's found not guilty in the courts, you'll say he got away with it, right? Happens all the time when a man belittles a woman, whether it's harassment, saying something and it's taken out of context, accusations of abuse, whatever the case may be.

***. This from the same ****ing nation that won't throw rapists in jail because they need the college experience.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Yes, it's totally the woman's fault that you're staring at her. Heaven forbid she wants to wear something comfortable.

If you actually read what we are talking about you would know those clothes are not comfortable. High heel shoes and tight clothing is not worn for comfort nor are push up bras and plunging necklines. Try again...

 

[unofan]

Even if I were to agree that an opinion (especially mine) can be "wrongheaded", I'm going to disagree with you to an extent.

Recall that the legal definition of sexual harassment entails unwelcome advances or conduct of a sexual nature. Traditionally I think the EEOC has looked to see whether the alleged victim has "invited or incited" the advance.

Again, do I think Carlson sent some message that she wanted to sleep with Ailes? Probably not. But my whole point, which Handy correctly deduced, is that I don't have a lot of sympathy for eye candy when someone ultimately decides they want to take a piece. But, as noted, it's just one man's opinion.

Just as mere staring is not harassment, dressing provocatively is not inviting lewd comments or actions. If they violate the dress code, reprimand them for that. If they aren't, then they aren't doing anything wrong. And either way, you shouldn't be dipping your pen in the company ink, so keep your mouth shut and hands to yourself.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Well, I used "wrongheaded" instead of "wrong" to try to capture that difference -- wrongheaded seems to me to be "a logical conclusion derived from axioms which are wrong."

But I think we've gotten to the core of our difference. You equate wearing alluring clothes with welcoming or inciting sexual advances. I don't at all. Is a married woman who wears alluring clothes to work inviting adultery? Or does she maybe like looking that way and wearing those clothes? Even with a single girl, maybe she's after a particular guy. Is that guy you? Very, very unlikely. (And the guys who get nailed for sexual harassment are invariably guys who look, sound and act like Roger Ailes.) So hands off, eyes front, dude.

Ultimately it comes down to...did she tell him to stop or make it clear she wasnt interested? If not...well sorry but then she is SOL. She isnt some secretary in an office trying to keep a job so she can keep her kids insured, she works for a major news network and has contacts everywhere. She knows the damage she could do to him...if she really felt as bad as she now claims why not just go public or smear him to contacts?

 

[Handyman]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

***. This from the same ****ing nation that won't throw rapists in jail because they need the college experience.

That is way worse than all of this...

 

[unofan]

Ultimately it comes down to...did she tell him to stop or make it clear she wasnt interested? If not...well sorry but then she is SOL. She isnt some secretary in an office trying to keep a job so she can keep her kids insured, she works for a major news network and has contacts everywhere. She knows the damage she could do to him...if she really felt as bad as she now claims why not just go public or smear him to contacts?

Because there is a significent non-zero chance she would get black listed. She's not exactly in an industry where she could move to the next town over to start a new life.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

I run a business that employs large numbers of younger people - 18 to 25 is not uncommon. They don't work directly for me but they're in the vicinity. Despite the fact 80% of the population here professes themselves Catholic there is no shortage of cleavage, skirts that push the boundaries of "within 4 inches of the knee" and there being a great many very pretty faces, I've never not been able to refrain from grabbing *****, winking, slinging innuendo, going cartoon google eyes on anyone nor asking for a date, etc., etc., etc. That is not not to say I've never glanced and you sure as hell notice these things as a hetero male, but to insist these circumstances renders you to be incapable of behaving yourself is beyond absurd.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Because there is a significent non-zero chance she would get black listed. She's not exactly in an industry where she could move to the next town over to start a new life.

Please...if she outed Faux News MSNBC or CNN would hire her within hours. Then she writes a book and makes the talk show rounds...

This isnt the 1960s stop pretending it is.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Ultimately it comes down to...did she tell him to stop or make it clear she wasnt interested? If not...well sorry but then she is SOL.

Again, I just do not agree. In 2016 people have to be three TPS reports short of an FAT to make a pass at anyone at work -- 100x so if it's a subordinate! I don't care whether Sally in accounting is wearing f-ck me pumps and a see-through teddy, you don't sh-t where you eat. Commandments 5 and 7, bra, for at least two reasons: (1) she can do what she wants without having to put up with your gross macking on her, and (2) even in the insanely unlikely instance where you are invited, if anything goes wrong the risk-reward is simply too high. Paychecks > office sex.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Because there is a significent non-zero chance she would get black listed. She's not exactly in an industry where she could move to the next town over to start a new life.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But who would be more concerned about getting blacklisted for not putting out, Maureen Dowd or Britt McHenry?

 

[Handyman]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Again, I just do not agree. In 2016 people have to be three TPS reports short of an FAT to make a pass at anyone at work -- 100x so if it's a subordinate! I don't care whether Sally in accounting is wearing f-ck me pumps and a see-through teddy, you don't sh-t where you eat. Commandments 5 and 7, bra.

Wait a minute, you are arguing two different things. I am not advocating that he hit on her or that people **** where they eat...I am just saying fair is fair. Looking is not harassment, and comments arent until you say to stop.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

Now overall you could say Faux is a hostile work environment and I buy that but me looking at Sally's tight sweater is no more harassment then her looking at the shirtless construction guy fixing the parking lot. If she says "eyes up here" though then yeah you are right.

There is a difference between being creepy and sexually harassing someone in the legal sense.