waitforufo
-
Posts
1615 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by waitforufo
-
-
I opened this topic and it is about Harvey Weinstein and the culpability of women who kept Harvey Weinstein abuse secret thereby allowing other women to be abused. Somehow it has turned into a "men are pigs" topic. Not my intention and I wish it would stop.
Having just read the last page or so of post let me say this. Human beings are sexual creatures. Denying this is a mistake at both the individual and societal level as well as in our personal life and our public life. What needs to be done is to stop sexual predators whether they are rapists or simply intentionally causing emotional distress. Somehow however this noble objective has moved into a form of zealotry where kindnesses such a paying each other complements on our appearance, or enjoying the beauty of the opposite sex are taboo. I felt iNow's "They don't know" link to be sad on many levels. My primary sadness was that the author seems to believe that all men are the enemy either as predators or through obliviousness. A minority of men are predators and few are men oblivious to the predation of women. Not even tar. Perhaps the problem is that women have been taught not to seek the help of men of good character.
0 -
3 hours ago, iNow said:
Tar - I'd like to hear your thoughts on this article. Please read it all the way to the end before you offer comment.
I don't think I would go so far as to say "They don't know." Men of good character avoid men of low character, so observing their low character behavior is limited to chance encounters. When speaking of men of low character one must at least consider women of low character. What got me thinking about this was the comment in the article about cat-calls. I will relate an experience in my life and let you make your own judgement.
After college I took my first professional job in Southern California. During my lunch break I would nearly every day go for a solitary walk for exercise and to clear my mind for the afternoon. The path of my walk took me through an undeveloped section of the business park in which I worked. For years I was the only person on the sidewalk when I walked through the undeveloped section of the business park. Then a high rise building was built in that section. I took about 8 months to erect the metal framework and pour the concrete floors and attach the exterior skin of the building. During that time there were lots of people walking by that construction site, all of them women. As one would expect there were lots of loud graphic cat-calling. Once the building exterior skin was complete, the cat calling stopped and I was again alone on my walk.
0 -
On 10/15/2017 at 6:51 AM, John Cuthber said:
The sad truth is that there's nothing very spectacular about "Hollywood".
The spectacular thing about Hollywood is there incessant moral sermonizing on every subject under the sun while giving Harvey Weinstein a pass. Who will give them any credibility now?
0 -
A performer who appears to be in full agreement with my sentiment.
QuoteSpeaking of the Weinstein revelations this week on the talk show “The View,” Goldberg made a plea for women to stop taking payouts in exchange for keeping silent about harassment. "We need to start talking to our sisters and say, ‘You do not have to take this,’” Goldberg said. “’Your career does not rise and fall on this. Because if you take this, people are going to assume that you’re OK with the behavior.’”
42 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:Would you like to list the professions where it doesn't exist?
Other professions and been working to eliminate sexual harassment and exploitation for decades. The same decades that Harvey Weinstein was abusing women.
46 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:Here's an interesting example; albeit rather late in the day, Weinstein is being held to account and sacked. Trump was made president.
What kind of message does that send to women who are considering reporting this sort of issue?You really want to go down the partisan political path with this? I seem to recall a different president, who had serious criminal allegations made against him by women, who exploited a white house intern for sex, and received campaign contributions from Harvey Weinstein. Back then we were all told "never mind, that was just all about sex." In fact feminists applauded Nina Burleigh when she said "I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs." A man with a frequent flyer card on the Lolita Express. Why not ask "What kind of message does that send to women who are considering reporting this sort of issue?" After we are done the Clintons, we can talk about Ted Kennedy.
I would prefer to avoid that diversion of this topic that I opened, but if you must, please go ahead.
17 minutes ago, iNow said:75% of harrassment victims experience retaliation when they speak up: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/identities/2017/10/15/16438750/weinstein-sexual-harassment-facts
This is a serious issue. I have noticed that this topic has grown in prominence in workplace training on sexual harassment. I have yet to see anyone terminated for this reason however.
-1 -
1 hour ago, iNow said:
Clever turn of phrase. Given your predisposition toward libertarianism and mention of predatory behavior, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts about the NDAs so often in place at these companies to protect the powerful men at the top. In many cases, the victim can be terminated and heavily fined for speaking out about being harassed and sexually assaulted.
NDAs clearly have an important role to play in protecting IP, but I think it’s wrong for them to be used to protect a predator and silence their victims. Do you agree?
This question is at the heart of my opener for this topic. No one should be required to comply with an NDA on a settlement related to a criminal act. Some will likely make a innocent until proven guilty argument, but I think there is a difference between publicly accusing person X of criminal behavior and stating a fact that Person X paid me $Y based on my accusation of criminal behavior.
With regard to the victims of Harvey Weinstein who have accepted settlements for his criminal acts, I have several thoughts. First, at least they punished Harvey Weinstein in some way, and I'm sure they hopped that in so doing Harvey Weinstein would change his future behavior towards women. Since he did not, obviously the amounts involved were chump change to Harvey. Second, shame on them for keeping his behavior secret thereby allowing his behavior to continue. In my opinion they are culpable of the harassment and rape of other women. Third, I think all of them should now make there accusations public, and their settlement amounts public and then dare Harvey Weinstein and The Weinstein Company to sue them in public court to have the settlements returned. What jury would find in the favor of the Harvey or The Weinstein Company in this case? This in my opinion would in part redeem these women of their culpability in the crimes committed against other women following their own.
1 -
Harvey's contract with The Weinstein Company is pay to prey.
0 -
Finally
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/12/media/harvey-weinstein-jane-fonda/index.html
My opinion of Hanoi Jane is slightly improved.
Seth Macfarline makes this joke at the Oscars and the media gives it a pass. This goes along with NBC spiking the Ronan Farrow story.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nbc-harvey-weinstein_us_59de5688e4b0eb18af059685
Shameful.
0 -
18 minutes ago, iNow said:
Beyond just this, we must take it more seriously when they do. I trust that you're a good manager and would handle it properly. Unfortunately, that's not generally the case or potentially even very common.
In my professional career there has always been mandatory annual harassment training. Prior to becoming a manager I though this training was a bit silly. There wasn't anything in that training that I didn't learn from school and my family, particularly my grandmothers, aunts, mother, and sisters. In fact today this training is done on line with teaching sections and test sections. I always skip the teaching sections and go right to the tests and always get 100%. Very basic stuff.
When I became a manager I quickly understood the need for this training. In my career I have had to deal with three harassment cases. The women complaining were always obviously upset, but at the same time rather timid in their complaints. All three cases were outrageously blatant, one including stalking, all leading to quick deserved termination of the harassers. My experience is that women don't lie about harassment. Every manager I have discussed this topic with has said the same thing. The real problem is when one of these harassing jerks becomes a manager and moves up the ranks. This would not happen if more women complained.
There must be something seriously wrong in show business that this exploitation still exists. I can't believe that Harvey Weinsteins behavior wasn't well know. I shutter at the number of hopeful young women he abused. Established people are supposed to be good to young people starting out regardless of there profession.
-2 -
On 9/22/2017 at 4:04 AM, Phi for All said:
This is the really ironic part. The after-meal cigarette is the one most smokers crave, yet when you quit the food tastes so much better you don't want to screw it up with bitter tobacco. Personally, I think the after-meal smoke is also the most perfunctory (finish the meal, lay down your fork, light that cig). It's good to have a plan to break up that pattern.
I believe the after-meal cigarette craving is because nicotine is a stimulant and the digestive process make one sleepy. Coffee or tea would be healthier, but then you are just encouraging a caffeine addiction.
1 -
1 hour ago, koti said:
I don’t think that playing an emotional card like that should be of any significance. All that this direction can result with is blind hatred towards an obvious asshole who took advantage of his position to satisfy his ill sexual desires. I’m thinking two things...firstly that we (the general public) have no idea about the details of this controversy and most likely we will never find out those details. Secondly, a highest ranked hollywood producer gets accused of sexual harasment - big deal, its not like its going to change the world which I’m suspecting lots of people are not realising is a harsh place.
Perhaps the emotion you refer to is injustice, and not just towards Harvey Weinsten, but towards the women who knew this was going on and did not make it public there by putting it to a stop If these women did make it public, then we would know the details.
I'm surprised that you don't think sexual assault and harassment against women is a big deal. I do. Maybe that's because I have a wife and daughters.
8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:I think we need to define sexual assault. If Harvey Weinstein says - implied or explicitly stated - "I'll do this for you if you do this for me" and they concede, is that sexual assualt?
I don't think you meant to imply that the women in question are whores.
If we as a society are going to push for an end to sexual harassment and abuse of women, then women need to report these crimes. This is what I tell the women who report to me. This is corporate policy in every company I have ever worked for and I have been working professionally for 33 years.
0 -
Imagine that you are a young aspiring actress who gets what she believes is the break of her career, a private meeting with movie mogul Harvey Weinstein. After that meeting she realizes that the entire point of the meeting was for her to be raped by a dirty old man. Then a week later A-list stars such as Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie, Ashley Judd, etc come out publicly claiming the Harvey Weinstein sexually abused them years if not decades ago. How do you think that woman feel about those A list stars never saying a word for years? Women she looked up to and hoped to emulate? Women she looked up to because they were vocal feminists. Do you think she would believe those women were culpable in her rape?
Here is the current list of accusers.
How do you think these women would explain there inaction to this young aspiring actress?
What if that young aspiring actress was your daughter? How would you feel about these women?
What if the young aspiring actress was your wife or your sister? How would you feel about these women?
0 -
2 minutes ago, iNow said:
Brilliant move. Victim blaming is obviously what’s needed here. Well done!
I'm not blaming them for their own personal abuse. I"m questioning if they have an ethical obligation to report this abuse quickly to prevent the abuse of others. As I mentioned, news reports claim that Harvey Weinstein has been sexually assaulting women for decades. Would it not have been better for all of these women to publicly expose Harvey Weinstein long ago to spare the victimization of others? Shouldn't this be particularly true of vocal feminists? They don't seem to have a problem coming forward now that the flood gates have been opened.
0 -
Recent news reports tell us of decades of sexual abuse and harassment by Harvey Weinstein. I'm sure the abuse we have heard about is simply the tip of the iceberg. My guess is the list of abused aspiring actresses is much larger. The reports we have heard so far often refer to rumors of abuse swirling around Weinstein throughout his decades of abuse. In addition there are reports that the news media has spiked stories about this subject. What I find absent in all of this is stories questioning the ethics of actresses who remained silent about their abusive and criminal encounters with Harvey Weinstein. How culpable are these women for the abuse of women that followed them on the casting couch?
Let's take for example Ashley Judd. Ms. Judd is a vocal feminist. Here is an image of Ms. Judd protesting the comments of President Trump.
Here is another image of Ashley Judd with Harvey Weinstein.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4962354/Ashley-Judd-breaks-silence-Weinstein.html
Ms. Judd could find her voice politically, but not professionally. How many women would have avoided Harvey Weinstein abuse if she had publicly accused Weinstein? The same question goes for all the other women abused by Harvey Weinstein.
-5 -
2 hours ago, Ten oz said:
You keep repeating this despite it being provably untrue. As CharonY has already pointed out there are many reasons why a Doctor might prescribe someone birth control. As you will see in the survey I linked below pregnancy prevention is NOT the main cited reason for using birth control and hundreds of thousands who use birth control aren't even sexually active. You are using false claims to justify your position and whenever that is neccessary it means the position attempting to be justified is wrong.
To your point:
"The researchers examined data from the National Survey of Family Growth, a poll administered by the National Center for Health Statistics. In-person interviews of 7,356 women ages 15 to 44 were conducted between June 2006 and December 2008, with results being weighted to ensure the findings were nationally representative.
Nationwide, about 11.2 million women ages 15 to 44, or 18 percent of all U.S. women, currently use oral contraceptive pills. Of these women, 86 percent report taking the pill for birth control. The other most commonly cited reasons for taking the pill are: reducing cramps or menstrual pain (31 percent); menstrual regulation (28 percent); treatment of acne (14 percent); and treatment of endometriosis (4 percent). Endometriosis is an often painful disorder in which tissue that normally lines the inside of the uterus grows elsewhere in the body, typically within the pelvic region, according to the Mayo Clinic.
Furthermore, 762,000 women who have never had sex use the pill, primarily for non-contraceptive purposes. Fifty-seven percent said they use it to treat menstrual pain, 43 percent for menstrual regulation, and 26 percent for acne treatment"
https://www.livescience.com/17061-oral-contraceptive-pill-guttmacher-survey.html
I never said the medication (hormones) in birth control pills could not be prescribed for purposes other than pregnancy prevention. Please quote me if I did.
2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:In the UK condoms are available free.
Please fix your healthcare system.
That would be fair.
0 -
1 hour ago, swansont said:
Because you seem confused about the concept.
I provided my understanding of insurance. What part did I get wrong.
1 hour ago, swansont said:But the topic at hand is employers paying for insurance, and one specific situation being covered. Nothing to do with taxes.
You and rangerx objected to my comment "Why I should have to pay for birth control for others is beyond me. " My response explains how I am paying for the birth control of others by subsisting their insurance premiums through my taxes. Also, insurance paid by employers is part of employee compensation. The expense of this portion of employee compensation determines how much the employee receives. Increasing the cost, means employees get less. This is a cost to the employee.
1 hour ago, swansont said:How much does a birth cost? How much does contraception cost?
I have seen condoms sold for 50 cents in vending machines. They are less at the pharmacy.
1 hour ago, Ten oz said:@ Waitforufo, how about we allow Doctors to decide which things their patients require. Rather than having lay people render judgements on the value of birth control, aroma therapy, and etc should not Doctors administering the care be empowered to decide what's best? Doctors have a very difficult job which often calls upon them to make life or death choices. They really do not need to added distraction of wondering about what is or isn't covered by their patients healthcare plans. If a Doctor want to prescribe birth control to a patient they should be able to and their reason for doing so is no ones business; Doctor patient privilege.
Elective medical procedures and medicine are not covered by insurance. Birth control is elective medicine. Also quacks and frauds exist and they drive up the cost of medical care. So you can have all the doctor patient privilege you are personally willing to pay for. You can't put that cost on others.
As I said, medical care cost money and somebody has to pay for it. There are no medical care pixies that magically pay the cost. The only people that pay medical expenses are patients and tax payers. That's it.
0 -
15 hours ago, swansont said:
Maybe start a thread about how insurance works?
Why start a topic on how insurance works? The concept is very simple. Insurance is a means by which people pay expenses. Since we are talking about medical expenses in this topic, let's narrow the conversation to that type of expense. Let's start by defining just what the expenses are and then talk about how they are paid.
Medical expenses are simple. Every person providing a medical service has to be paid. Every piece of medical equipment utilized has to be paid for, maintained, and replaced when worn out or obsolete. All medicine needs to be paid for. All medical disposables such as tongue depressors, syringes, rubber gloves, have to be paid for. There is no magic, so all of this has to be paid for.
Insurance is one means by which people pay for these expenses. A recurring fee, or premium, is paid by insurance participants, typically on a monthly basis to an insurance company, and that company then pays for medical expenses for participants as they occur. Simple.
So what value do individual insurance participants get for their premium? Well some people win life's lottery and never access medical care. These people receive the value of peace of mind knowing that if they do occur they will be paid for. Other people have a life full of medical tragedy and require constant expensive medical care. Those people are insurance lottery winners. They receive a value far in excess of their premiums over time. Most people however have typical occasional medical expenses, which at times are high cost. These people receive the value of spreading the cost of their medical expenses over their lifetime which prevents their rare high cost medical expenses from also being a financial tragedy for themselves and their family. Since the life lottery winners cancel out the insurance lottery winners, insurance premiums are determined by the medical expenses of the typical person. This is how it should be.
That means it is correct for and individual to say I pay for my own medical expenses by paying for my medical insurance premiums.
It is quite common for an individual to pay the insurance premiums of others. For example, I currently pay the medical insurance for my spouse, and in the past, I paid the medical insurance for my children. Again, it is correct for a person to say I pay the medical expenses of others when I pay their medical insurance premium.
If one's taxes are subsidizing the insurance premiums of another person, that tax payer is paying the medical expenses of that subsidized person. This is simple logic people.
Now, how does one keep the cost of medical insurance low? Well, one can attempt to get currently healthy people to participate in insurance. By paying now, their individual premiums pay the medical expenses of people currently unhealthy, and when those people are healthy they pay the medical expenses of the person paying now. That's how insurance spreads an individual's medical expenses over time. Again, that's how insurance works.
So how do you get currently health people to participate in insurance? Well you can penalize those not paying for insurance. One way to do that is to penalize them by law through taxes. The other way is to penalize them through their medical expenses. Those without insurance pay more than those with insurance.
Another way to reduce insurance costs is to cover fewer things. For example, some might think that aroma therapy improves their health. Most however think this is quackery so aroma therapy is not covered to reduce insurance costs. Also, not all medical devices are covered. Tooth brushes and bathroom scales are an example. The costs of these medical devices are purchased by individuals on an as needed basis. The same goes for over the counter medicines.
The question at hand, is should birth control be a covered or uncovered expense. I say uncovered. The expense is just not that high and people should bear the cost of their elective activities.
One way to increase the cost of medical insurance to is to pay for medical care for those who don't pay premiums. While this might be a altruistic thing to do, it does not reduce the cost of medical insurance.
-2 -
Birth control is not preventive because it prevents no health defect. Fertility is the natural healthy state for human beings. If you lack natural fertility then you have a medical defect which should be covered by your health care. This would not include in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, sperm banks, or egg donation since these are not natural ways of reproducing.
hypocrisy in birth control coverage would be to pay for birth control pills, IUDs, etc, for women but not pay for condoms for men.
By the way I have no problem with birth control. Why I should have to pay for birth control for others is beyond me.
-1 -
5 hours ago, rangerx said:
I equivocated nothing. I said both exist. I have no opinion of liberal positions of the ACLU on free speech because I'm not certain such a thing even exists and as such there's no burden for me to prove anything. If it does, it may or may not reflect me or my liberal views. Once again you fail painting liberals with a wide brush.
In case you hadn't noticed. I'm talking about you as a conservative, not others as conservatives.
You see the problem is BLM says "liberalism is white supremacy" and you say "I said both exist." Now I guess we could argue about what the definition of what "is" is, but since this is a science forum I think we should be able to agree that BLM is saying that liberalism equals white supremacy which means they are one and the same. So no you don't agree with BLM but simply don't have the courage to admit that a group you have sympathy for is wrong in this instance. I find this rather shocking since the statement that "liberalism is white supremacy" is so wrong it it mind boggling.
Then you say you have no opinion of the liberal positions of the ACLU on free speech because you are not certain such a thing even exist. So is it that you don't know the opinions of the ACLU on free speech or that you don't know that free speech is a thing that exists? Well if it is the former you you have a fundamental ignorance of the American experience and should be quite a bit less strident in you posts. If it is the latter you have a fundamental ignorance of liberalism regardless of the country you live in. Free speech is a fundamental cornerstone of liberalism. It is in fact the reason why blogs like this one are permitted to exist.
My favorite part of this post, however, is that since you are ignorant (not certain such a thing even exists) that there is no burden for you to prove anything. If you have no burden to prove anything, then why should anyone argue with you at all? Your example of proof in previous posts is laughable. For example you said.
6 hours ago, rangerx said:Last time I checked, Nazi and Neo-Nazi groups are violent groups. Violence was how they were destroyed and they rise again. Violence is all they understand.
I read back, but nothing by waitforufo condemning nazi violence. Nada. Zip. Yet here he stands, insisting everyone repudiate everyone he demands.
Hypocrisy at it's height.
Using your logic, I have never seen you demonstrate an ability to perform mathematics in Science Forums so that must be proof that you cant add and subtract. Do you see the logical fallacy in that statement?
By the way, free speech is a right in the United States, but violence is a felony. While I believe that the speech of white supremacists is despicable, free speech also gives us all the right to speak out against that speech. Perhaps if BLM would have listened to Ms. Claire Gastañaga they would have learned that.
iNow, your post starts out good, but then you cave to the emotion of those sympathetic to BLM. Chants like "the revolution will not uphold the Constitution," and, "liberalism is white supremacy" should be roundly condemned by any thinking proponent of liberalism.
MigL you mention the direction where BLM is headed. Chants like "the revolution will not uphold the Constitution," and, , "liberalism is white supremacy" point in a frighting direction. Pretending that they are trivial is equivalent to the German people disregarding the words and actions of the brownshirts.
0 -
Just now, rangerx said:
Well, white supremacy exists. Liberalism exists. Apples and oranges, but your stance is that because the two are not the same that fruit does not exist.
Nonsense. You were just condemning me for my opinions of liberals. Yet when BLM equates liberalism, the core of political liberal ideology, with white supremacy you equivocate. Do you support the liberal positions of the ACLU on free speech or not? If you do, don't you think you should condemn this chant of BLM? Don't you wonder why the BLM movement has go so far astray?
-1 -
12 minutes ago, rangerx said:
Your narrative is liberal bad conservative good, period.
So you still haven't answered my question. Do you agree with BLM that liberalism is white supremacy?
0 -
5 minutes ago, rangerx said:
False equivalence, across the board. if you read back, the n-word is a last resort not the first. Toeing that line makes you a moderate-to-strong bigot, one step short of an extremist.
And just so you know, I condemn censorship in the strongest terms. I'm sure Berkley sticks in your craw. Violently opposing free speech is an issue some people need to address. Let's not kid ourselves, reverse racism exists too. Most liberals agree with me, but you'll have none of it. Your narrative is liberal bad conservative good, period.The difference being, I am able and willing to address the underlying issues. Not like you, who conflates those issues into something they're not.
False equivalence? Why is that? Is it because the Democratic party had more time to ingrain racism into American culture. They did have four score and seven years. Oh yeah, I forgot about an additional five score when you include jim crow.
This topic is in large measure a defense of the ACLU. Do you happen to know their political persuasion?
0 -
33 minutes ago, rangerx said:
We hear all kinds of phony righteous indignation about players taking a knee at a football game lately. An affront to soldiers, the flag and all that yankee doodle dandy nonsense in complete absence of the real issue and it's underpinnings. Police brutality.
Then of course there's the Westboro Baptist Church, who in reality, daily stalk and harass the families at funerals of fallen soldiers with horrible slurs, disruptive behavior, religious zeal, homophobic hate speak. Let's not ignore their high level of broadly perverse indoctrination among their children and followers. Yet nary a word from the likes of waitforufo who broadly condemns liberals for perception but not conservatives for their actions.
waitforufo is right-wing bigot by default, not reality. Using the n-word is not the standard that crosses the line of bigotry, it's merely a last resort when all other discord and hostility has failed.
Last time I checked, Nazi and Neo-Nazi groups are violent groups. Violence was how they were destroyed and they rise again. Violence is all they understand.
I read back, but nothing by waitforufo condemning nazi violence. Nada. Zip. Yet here he stands, insisting everyone repudiate everyone he demands.
Hypocrisy at it's height.
These are the chants of BLM protesters; "the revolution will not uphold the Constitution," and, "liberalism is white supremacy. Do you agree with these chants? I'm particularly interested in the chant "Liberalism is white supremacy. In case you didn't notice, that is the subject of this topic. Do you have an opinion or not?
Everything you posted above is nonsense. I have in fact commented several times in Science Forums on the subject of Nazi's. I have pointed out how similar the treatment of Jews by the Nazi's is to how the Democratic party has treated African Americans. In so doing I have condemned both the Nazi party and the Democratic Party. Where have you been? I have never once used the N-word. In fact many consider me simply a be red N-word. Also, I have not commented on the the football game knee taking. I will however point out that the Star Spangled Banner is about the heroics of soldiers defending our nation from invasion. It is not about the police. Also, the knee taking is designed to be offensive. Without the offense it would not be a protest.
-1 -
1 hour ago, swansont said:
You are making observations about them as if they were organizations, with a mission statement, code of conduct, etc. Which makes everything you say a bunch of straw men.
I wish that nobody had gotten drunk and awakened me, interfering with my right to learn, back when I was in school. But that's a rather vague charge. Are we going to expel every student who interferes with learning in some way? Toss out that person who keeps a book checked out past its due date? And that person who gave me a cold and kept me out of class that one time. Expulsion!
I am making observations about them as they presented themselves.
Your complaints about drunks and inconsiderate book borrowers are incidental. This protest was a deliberate and successful attempt to inhibit learning.
1 hour ago, swansont said:What part of the Constitution was being ignored in this protest?
I was responding to this.
12 hours ago, rangerx said:For lack of a better analogy, your constitution is being perverted in the same manner the jihad perverts the Quran. Liberal, conservative... who cares, y'all look the same to me (to use a common American meme about others).
So why not ask rangerx what part of the constitution is being perverted in the same manner as jihad perverts the Quran? Since you don't ask I assume you agree.
The constitution guarantees all Americans the right to assemble, and the right to free speech. William & Mary is public university. The rights of students who wanted to assemble and learn from Ms. Claire Gastañaga were violated by this protest at a government institution. Good enough for you?
0 -
2 hours ago, swansont said:
BLM and antifa are movements, not organizations.
Your point?
1 hour ago, swansont said:What rule did they violate that warrants expulsion?
They are inhibiting students from learning.
1 hour ago, swansont said:So what are the expectations here?
I expect all students on campus to respect the rights of students to learn.
0
Harvey Weinstein
in Politics
Posted
Thank you. Based to the two post previous to yours I was going to suggest that the topic be closed. My reading of those prior two post is that the situation is hopeless. Those two seem to believe that since some men are misogynistic harassers and sexual predators that all women must assume that all men are and therefore women must never report harassment and sexual abuse for fear of retaliation. Case closed, game over, why even talk about the subject? Men are pigs. I'm much more hopeful than that. In fact I don't believe most work places even come close to what is common in Hollywood or the greater entertainment industry. Does any aspect of your workplace come even close to what you heard about coming out of Hollywood these days.
In the mean time I'll just keep being a man who is kind enough to notice when my coworkers put an extra effort into their appearance, change their hairstyle, got new glasses, or similar things when appropriate. I believe it shows kindness and that I recognize them as human beings. To not do so would, in my opinion, be cruel. I have been doing just that for over thirty years in my profession and personal life and never had a complaint.