Matt Lauer/Greg Zaun - when will this end??

[The Unknown Poster]

 

[SpeedFlex27]

2 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

That’s the point. We’re talking Hollywood, media, celebrities etc 

 

I'm talking everyday. Joe Average. What's to stop a spurned lover from bringing up false charges? Or claim a consensual occurrence wasn't consensual. Maybe someone from our past will claim one of us here did something inappropriate years ago. That's why I want to see charges before anyone is judged here. Prove the guilt in court. If proven, then throw their ass in jail. 

Edited December 8, 2017 by SpeedFlex27

[The Unknown Poster]

12 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I'm talking everyday. Joe Average. What's to stop a spurned lover from bringing up false charges? Or claim a consensual occurrence wasn't consensual. Maybe someone from our past will claim one of us here did something inappropriate years ago. That's why I want to see charges before anyone is judged here. Prove the guilt in court. If proven, then throw their ass in jail. 

1) what makes you so concerned about this now? 

2) what does it have to do with the topic of the Hollywood scandal?

3) what has changed to suddenly make false allegations rampant and damaging as opposed to pre-Harvey?

4) regardless of veracity of hard numbers to support or dispute, the stances of false allegations are comparably low. Shouldn’t we focus on ending the lousy behaviour?

[Atomic]

7 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

1) what makes you so concerned about this now? 

2) what does it have to do with the topic of the Hollywood scandal?

3) what has changed to suddenly make false allegations rampant and damaging as opposed to pre-Harvey?

4) regardless of veracity of hard numbers to support or dispute, the stances of false allegations are comparably low. Shouldn’t we focus on ending the lousy behaviour?

I think it's natural for people to worry about themselves first.  For men, the scary part of all this is the idea of someone destroying your life based on a false accusation.  It is relatively unlikely to happen, but it could.  And if women are standing up for women's rights, and men are standing up for women's rights, who is protecting men's rights?

Is it selfish to think this way?  Yeah, it is... totally.  But it's also natural.  I don't think it does any good to belittle and demonize men who are concerned about it.  It's a valid concern based on the court system's treatment of men in domestic disputes, divorce, and child custody, where the woman is presumed to be in the right, and the man in the wrong.  The pendulum swings heavily in favour of women in these cases and men are afraid that it's going the same way in cases of sexual harassment, assault, and rape.

I wouldn't make the same argument, but I empathize with the men who do, rather than try to make them into monsters for being worried.

[Wideleft]

On 12/6/2017 at 5:05 PM, basslicker said:

And democrats and liberals never lie to get votes.................or are caught with their pants down.  What was that guy's name?  oh yeah, Al Frankin, the 'champion of feminism.' 

Nice try to push a political/anti-Christian agenda though.

 

https://www.ranker.com/list/democrat-sex-scandals/web-infoguy

Never said that democrats or liberals never lie or commit crimes. 

The difference is that many Republicans and other small c conservatives tend to PROMINENTLY push their faith as a reason to elect them.  When confronted with accusations of sexual impropriety (often in opposition to those religious morals they espouse) the response is typically (Roy Moore and Blake Fahrentold  and their surrogate) to use their purported faith to shield them from criticism or accusations suggesting "no man of God could ever do such a thing" when the evidence clearly suggests they could.  

From Roy Moore's campaign website:

"As a husband, father, and grandfather, I know the importance of the future we leave to our posterity.

A strong family based on marriage between one man and one woman is and should remain our only guide and model. I oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, civil unions, and all other threats to the traditional family order.

Federal funding for Planned Parenthood or any form of abortion should be stopped.

We must remain a moral and virtuous people, "One Nation under God." I support freedom of worship and the recognition of that God upon Whom we have always relied in peace and war

From Blake Fahrentold's (he used public money to settle an assault case)

"Congressman Blake Farenthold

In Washington, DC, it’s not enough to be a conservative. You must be willing to stand up for what’s right. That’s why Blake Farenthold is a Texas Conservative. He has the best rating in Texas on defending our borders. He’s a 100% pro-life Christian and has an A+ with the NRA."

 

In contrast, did you hear Al Franken, John Conyers or their surrogates invoke their faith to shield themselves from allegations?

 

Didn't realize that me pointing out the hypocrisy necessarily makes me anti-christian.  I once heard a really good interview with an Irish Catholic bishop who pointed out that atheism helped keep the Catholic Church honest.  Now that is a person who understands the role of religion.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Wideleft

[The Unknown Poster]

2 minutes ago, Atomic said:

I think it's natural for people to worry about themselves first.  For men, the scary part of all this is the idea of someone destroying your life based on a false accusation.  It is relatively unlikely to happen, but it could.  And if women are standing up for women's rights, and men are standing up for women's rights, who is protecting men's rights?

Is it selfish to think this way?  Yeah, it is... totally.  But it's also natural.  I don't think it does any good to belittle and demonize men who are concerned about it.  It's a valid concern based on the court system's treatment of men in domestic disputes, divorce, and child custody, where the woman is presumed to be in the right, and the man in the wrong.  The pendulum swings heavily in favour of women in these cases and men are afraid that it's going the same way in cases of sexual harassment, assault, and rape.

I wouldn't make the same argument, but I empathize with the men who do, rather than try to make them into monsters for being worried.

Sort of akin to being worried an airplane will drop on your head.  I mean, I get what you're saying but its rather odd to be worried. 

A quick "real life" story.  A few years ago I was promoted to a lead position at work.  While at an unofficial work function at a local bar, a newer female employee asked me how they can get ahead and expressed a desire to take on new responsibilities.  I said keep doing what you're doing and expressing your desire for more and "we'll help you get to where you want to go".

A week later Im called into a board room by my boss and said someone complained that I offered to help this employee get ahead in return for "favours" and that I was "too friendly with the young attractive women in the office."  My first reaction was to burst out laughing and my boss sheepishly said he had to ask.  I simply said, absolutely Im friends with some of the young attractive girls in the office just as I am friends with the older men too.  And recounted the conversation as being the first and only conversation I had with the employee in question. 

Whats interesting about office dynamics is I found some of the older, more established people had an irrational dislike of the younger people, especially if they were attractive and I found myself defending them more on the basis of their merit.

The point being, the idea that anyone can say anything is true and has always existed in our society and will always exist but the idea that it always means its taken seriously is not.  In fact, the whole point is that real, legitimate acts could not be brought forward BECAUSE people didnt believe them and BECAUSE the women were treated awfully. 

Some of the weird stuff out there such as "how are we ever going to flirt with a woman now" or "I guess dating a girl at work is now out of the question" etc is so absurd.  There is so much ground between flirting and dating....and harassing and abusing.

My entire point is pooh-poohing the "what about the men" is not to pretend false allegations dont happen.  But the driver of some of that in THIS thread had a clear agenda and thats the fear.  The 98% of legitimacy should be encouraged, embraced and celebrated for its bravery rather then the 2% of "something something maybe maybe what if-ism".  Thats all.

[Wideleft]

5 minutes ago, Atomic said:

I think it's natural for people to worry about themselves first.  For men, the scary part of all this is the idea of someone destroying your life based on a false accusation.  It is relatively unlikely to happen, but it could.  And if women are standing up for women's rights, and men are standing up for women's rights, who is protecting men's rights?

Is it selfish to think this way?  Yeah, it is... totally.  But it's also natural.  I don't think it does any good to belittle and demonize men who are concerned about it.  It's a valid concern based on the court system's treatment of men in domestic disputes, divorce, and child custody, where the woman is presumed to be in the right, and the man in the wrong.  The pendulum swings heavily in favour of women in these cases and men are afraid that it's going the same way in cases of sexual harassment, assault, and rape.

I wouldn't make the same argument, but I empathize with the men who do, rather than try to make them into monsters for being worried.

If you want to bring the courts into this, you'd be wise to acknowledge that false accusations of rape were weaponized in the Jim Crow south as an excuse to lynch black men in order to keep the slaves in line.

In modern times, it's far more likely that a person of colour will be convicted of sexual assault, rape, murder etc regardless of the strength of evidence.  If you're a rich white guy or an exceptional college swimmer - you're chances of getting off are considerably better.

And I disagree that thinking of yourself first is natural.  That sounds like a rationalization for selfishness.

[The Unknown Poster]

@Wideleft Im a right leaning conservative and while Im not super religious, I come from a religious family, I wear a cross and I *occasionally* go to Church.  And I agree with you.

A good example is the reports that Moore began dating his wife while she was married.  The vast majority of the time, the vast majority of us would laugh at that report and say who cares.  And for the most part, I still dont care (especially compared to all the other Moore stuff).  But because he has a politician made his faith such a cornerstone of who he is as a politician(and has a history with the Ten Commandments), its absolutely fair game to ask that question. 

because if you stand in judgement of everyone else, you have to stand ready to be judged.

[The Unknown Poster]

To take the other side, Bri Larson made a tweet some weeks about about a TSA agent asking for her phone number and she made the dramatic claim that being a woman means always living on the defensive and I thought she did a real dis-service to the real issue by connecting those two things (ofcourse, we're not privy to the way in which she was asked).

I think a TSA agent asking someone for their phone number, presumably because she's a beautiful woman, in the context of his duties was highly unprofessional but not an attack on her in a sexual way (again, without knowing how he asked).  But I think incidents like that can be filtered through the spectrum of common sense. 

[kelownabomberfan]

3 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

To take the other side, Bri Larson made a tweet some weeks about about a TSA agent asking for her phone number and she made the dramatic claim that being a woman means always living on the defensive and I thought she did a real dis-service to the real issue by connecting those two things (ofcourse, we're not privy to the way in which she was asked).

I think a TSA agent asking someone for their phone number, presumably because she's a beautiful woman, in the context of his duties was highly unprofessional but not an attack on her in a sexual way (again, without knowing how he asked).  But I think incidents like that can be filtered through the spectrum of common sense. 

Fun fact - Brie Larson's grandparents lived in St. Boniface.

[Wideleft]

8 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

To take the other side, Bri Larson made a tweet some weeks about about a TSA agent asking for her phone number and she made the dramatic claim that being a woman means always living on the defensive and I thought she did a real dis-service to the real issue by connecting those two things (ofcourse, we're not privy to the way in which she was asked).

I think a TSA agent asking someone for their phone number, presumably because she's a beautiful woman, in the context of his duties was highly unprofessional but not an attack on her in a sexual way (again, without knowing how he asked).  But I think incidents like that can be filtered through the spectrum of common sense. 

Also consider that casual sexism and casual racism are real things.  A white kid being called boy and a black kid being called boy are 2 completely different things.  

My wife worked in a predominantly male industry and I can tell you that she had to put up with crap like this on a daily basis.  It's really easy for us white guys to pretend it's no big deal, but we sure as hell have no idea how it makes women feel unless we actually listen to what they're saying.

[Wideleft]

On 12/7/2017 at 9:37 AM, kelownabomberfan said:

Bill Baker - from Sherridon  Manitoba.  I know him personally and I agree, he's a hard guy to like.  Great football player though.

That's really interesting!  I've fished Kississing Lake via Sherridon twice.  It's no wonder he was such a terror on the field.  That place will harden you.

[Rich]

A number of posts removed from this thread.  Please leave the personal attacks out of the discussion.

 

[iHeart]

wow I had no idea it was getting ugly here

[iHeart]

http://tvline.com/2017/12/08/harold-ford-jr-morning-joe-contributor-suspended-sexual-assault-investigation/

[Atomic]

I guess the discussion is over.  Pretty bizarre and selective reasoning for what got pruned.  You're allowed to be an ******* if you lean left, but not if you lean right.  Pretty typical, to be honest.  If you can't beat it, delete it.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/ex-husband-of-norway-royal-says-kevin-spacey-groped-him-in-2007-1.3712824

[Wideleft]

38 minutes ago, Atomic said:

I guess the discussion is over.  Pretty bizarre and selective reasoning for what got pruned.  You're allowed to be an ******* if you lean left, but not if you lean right.  Pretty typical, to be honest.  If you can't beat it, delete it.

To suggest that a conversation is over because we can't inject personal insults into the discussion is an interesting take.  It also speaks to how far discourse has devolved.  I lost a post about the kindness of kids because I also evidently injected an insult I could have avoided.  Lesson learned.

Whatever the topic, I'll be sticking to the issue and ignoring (or reporting) the insult in order for the thread to remain focused.

[Logan007]

To be fair, we've kind of devolved this into a "let's eat popcorn and watch to see who's going to be next" discussion, which is kind of disgusting.  Especially when some of us are acting like we know all the facts because he said she said.

I think I'll stay out of this from this point on.

[The Unknown Poster]

Yeah I dislike the office pool mentality as well.  It sucks for everyone involved when something like this happens.

As for the moderation, I almost always eally like the moderation here (I once got banned from a similar forum when one of the mods was homophobic on religious grounds and I disagreed vehemently lol).  I do disagree with deleting posts though and I thought the people here were giving as good as they were receiving so a warning and advice to raise the discourse a bit would have been appropriate.  But thats above my pay grade.

Its a complicated and emotional topic.  Im glad our little "sports" forum has so many intelligent and passionate people to discuss all manner of topics with, whether we all agree or not.

[Rich]

14 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I do disagree with deleting posts though and I thought the people here were giving as good as they were receiving so a warning and advice to raise the discourse a bit would have been appropriate.  But thats above my pay grade.

Just my 2 cents on this.  The warning was to everyone when with the thread I linked to when I mentioned the posts being deleted.

As to people giving as good as they are getting, for the most part we have let that go, but there is a trend happening on the board of people seeing this sort of thing in one place and taking it and proliferating it everywhere to the point where it was happening in almost every thread whether people wanted to give and get or not.

So, unfortunately, there will be a bit of a correction for a time where we are going to be more strict until people can get back into a pattern of discussing the topic at hand without the cheap shots and insults that are in no way needed to have a discussion.  

It has also been my experience based on feedback that when a discussion has degenerated into two people "giving and getting", the only people who really care to read all that noise is the two people involved.  For everyone else it is noise and turns them away from the discussion.  So if it is really that important to people to "give and get", and feel like an internet hero to out insult someone, take it to PMs.

[Atomic]

1 hour ago, Wideleft said:

To suggest that a conversation is over because we can't inject personal insults into the discussion is an interesting take.  It also speaks to how far discourse has devolved.  I lost a post about the kindness of kids because I also evidently injected an insult I could have avoided.  Lesson learned.

Whatever the topic, I'll be sticking to the issue and ignoring (or reporting) the insult in order for the thread to remain focused.

Focused?  Like bringing up Jim Crow in a discussion about sexual harassment?  Great focus there.

More like "Here's a thread discussing an issue that has political connections!  Let me turn on my firehose of unrelated Liberal talking points and start calling everyone racists and sexists to shut down all discussion."

[Wideleft]

Just now, Atomic said:

Focused?  Like bringing up Jim Crow in a discussion about sexual harassment?  Great focus there.

More like "Here's a thread discussing an issue that has political connections!  Let me turn on my firehose of unrelated Liberal talking points and start calling everyone racists and sexists to shut down all discussion."

We are discussing the accusations of sexual assault against men and how serious these accusations should be treated.  Providing an historical context about how false accusations of rape were used as an excuse to suppress blacks in the South is relevant to the discussion.  

[Atomic]

16 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

We are discussing the accusations of sexual assault against men and how serious these accusations should be treated.  Providing an historical context about how false accusations of rape were used as an excuse to suppress blacks in the South is relevant to the discussion.  

It's not relevant.

When Basslicker comes in and talks about the concerns of false accusations, he is accused of not actually caring about that, but instead he's trying to make excuses for Republicans.

It's the exact same thing here.  You claim it's related, but really it's just a reason to be able to bring race into the discussion.  On the left, your argument gets stronger the more -ist and -phobic words you can toss at the other side.  Sexist wasn't getting the results you wanted, so you added racist.  That's all this is.

[HardCoreBlue]

1 hour ago, Rich said:

Just my 2 cents on this.  The warning was to everyone when with the thread I linked to when I mentioned the posts being deleted.

As to people giving as good as they are getting, for the most part we have let that go, but there is a trend happening on the board of people seeing this sort of thing in one place and taking it and proliferating it everywhere to the point where it was happening in almost every thread whether people wanted to give and get or not.

So, unfortunately, there will be a bit of a correction for a time where we are going to be more strict until people can get back into a pattern of discussing the topic at hand without the cheap shots and insults that are in no way needed to have a discussion.  

It has also been my experience based on feedback that when a discussion has degenerated into two people "giving and getting", the only people who really care to read all that noise is the two people involved.  For everyone else it is noise and turns them away from the discussion.  So if it is really that important to people to "give and get", and feel like an internet hero to out insult someone, take it to PMs.

Fair point. 

The one thing I do enjoy about this site is following two (or more) smart thoughtful people go at it in a critically constructive way, sports or non-sports.

 It's engaging to read and  take part in.