Fifty Shades of You're Fired - Your employer in your bedroom

richard_daily said:

But in your mind, he's already guilty and convicted. I think there's a danger to that.

Click to expand...

He's guilty of having sex with a woman who could not be trusted with his secrets. There is no statute if limitations on that one.

Did she take a vow of silence prior to going to his house

bronzeage said:

He's guilty of having sex with a woman who could not be trusted with his secrets. There is no statute if limitations on that one.

Click to expand...

The bear's out of the bag.

bronzeage said:

He's guilty of having sex with a woman who could not be trusted with his secrets. There is no statute if limitations on that one.

Click to expand...

Hi secrets? I don't think this is about a loose lipped ex. This is about a pattern of abuse that someone finally had the courage to speak up about. Thankfully she did and others will be warned!

I'm a trustworthy person who has kept the secrets of every friend and lover except for one. The one who did not deserve my trust and abused me. I say fuck him and his secrets. It's time he was called out for being the monster he is.

richard_daily said:

There is no "but" in my argument. If he violated consent, he's guilty. Perhaps not in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion at least. I have seen no proof that he has violated consent. If you have it, please show it to me.

Your accusation of my being an enabler is insulting and un-warranted. If you actually read my posts, I say that the woman who has come forward provides the strongest and most damning evidence against the accused. It is my sincere hope that other women who are making those accusations do the same, to help keep a man who is accused of violating consent from continuing to do so.

But thanks for the patronization and personal response... I'll deeply consider it for you.

Click to expand...

I was going to respond snarkily, but I've decided to take a more polite approach.

richard_daily said:

I find it odd that the supposed women aren't willing to go on record. It's very possible that the Star is making at least 2 of them up outright.

Click to expand...

richard_daily said:

However, even she admits to going to his home after he yanked her hair in a cab, two weeks later. It sounds like she was exploring... and I bet that there's a lot more to this than the public knows. A lot of these stories just don't add up, or make sense.

Click to expand...

richard_daily said:

That sort of comment reeks of dishonesty to me. I have never, in my life, met a woman who performed oral sex to get out of a situation. There was no gun to her head, and you'd be hard pressed to impress upon me that there was coercion on that level.

There is money in a lawsuit, and that's what is probably bringing a lot of women out and against him on this.

Click to expand...

richard_daily said:

I'm going to wait to pass judgement until I see transcripts of these emails and of these chats.

Click to expand...

richard_daily said:

And what if texts come out indicating that he negotiated with her prior to "attacking her without warning"?

Click to expand...

richard_daily said:

Without even having a name, it's hard for me to give that level of trust.

I am not even certain she exists... A lot of the stories have a ring of manufacture to them.

Click to expand...

richard_daily said:

There's also the fact that a lot of this information is coming from his ex-employer, who obviously has an agenda to discredit him.

Click to expand...

richard_daily said:

You have no clue who these women are, if this old employer made them up, or anything about the situation other than vague and bad reporting (so far).

I don't know that these women even exist as of yet.

Click to expand...

This would be some of the "but" that I kept seeing.

You suggested that two separate national and major metropolitan news sources may have invented false accusations against him, suggested that people who made accusations against him were in it for (non-existent) money, and repeatedly suggested that the accusers might not even exist—even after one of them came forward publicly under her own name.

You chose to believe that a conspiracy involving multiple major news organisations was as or more plausible than the accusations of multiple independent women—just because they weren't willing to be identified publicly as participants in a violent sexual relationship.

You've admitted at several points that you didn't know much about specific circumstances related (e.g. Canadian lawsuits, women being coerced into sex without the threat of immediate physical violence), but nonetheless had opinions on them—opinions which led you to suggest that Ghomeshi's accusers were possibly lying, seeking money, or non-existent.

That's what I meant when I said there was a "but" in your argument.

For what it's worth, if you actually read my post, I didn't accuse you of being enabler, I said that what you said was a tactic—which I explicitly absolved you of—that is widely used by enablers and apologists. If you'll pardon my being patronising, allow me to explain to you what I meant when I said that: I assumed you were unaware either that it is quite common for people to justify behaviour by acknowledging that the behaviour is horrible, even insisting that it is way worse than anyone else in the conversation thinks, while simultaneously coming up with reasons why an example isn't that behaviour or that your statements could be so taken—but that you weren't trying to justify his behaviour.

You're starting from the assumption that the actions were consensual—because he said they were—and insisting that you be shown proof that they weren't before you make a conclusion—I can't offer you that beyond the fact that numerous people have come forward to say so. But you want to know the names of everyone involved, because otherwise you aren't convinced that they actually exist—I think that's placing an undue burden. You've even suggested that there might be a conspiracy involving the CBC and the Toronto Star to smear him—I respectfully suggest in the absence of any supportive evidence of that (e.g. whistleblowers, internal memos, women who were asked to falsely accuse him but refused to go along, etc.) that it's prima facie ridiculous.

When I said you are making excuses, I don't think you're making excuses for violent non-consensual behaviour, I think you're making excuses for not believing accusations of violent non-consensual behaviour.

Allow me to single out something in particular:

richard_daily said:

...I say that the woman who has come forward provides the strongest and most damning evidence against the accused.

Click to expand...

And yet you're still insisting that the others might have been made up as part of a conspiracy to blacken his name. Admittedly, that's technically possible, in the same sense that it's technically possible that he masterminded all of it for the lulz.

You keep insisting on proof that can't ever be given, vacillating back and forth between "If he's guilty, and he might very well be, he deserves everything he gets" and "But we don't know that his accusers are even real—we need to know their names". Every time some new evidence—not one piece of which thus far has been exculpatory—comes up, you're quick with a "Yes, it looks like he's a terrible person, but then there's..." You acknowledge that something looks bad for him and that he may well be guilty, but then later you're right back to "But we don't know anything! It could all be made up just to get him."

I stand by my assessment: you're not behaving like someone who is waiting for all the facts to make a conclusion. You're behaving like someone who wants a conclusion not supported by the known facts.

I'm not suggesting that you should start or join a pitchfork-wielding mob. I'm suggesting that you're making a lot of assumptions about accusations of sexual misconduct, while criticising others for making assumptions about accusations of sexual misconduct.

If I have any animus regarding you at all in this matter, I am annoyed that you're trying to present yourself as being fair-minded and reasonable when you actually do have substantial biases. In that, I might add, like I said in my initial post, I think you are being representative of people who are conspicuously "waiting for the evidence".


So, dismiss my statement, if you like. Be insulted by it, if it so please you. That is your affair.

You are right, though, I am patronising.


But perhaps we should wait and see how many people think I have point before jumping to a conclusion.

Equinoxe said:

I was going to respond snarkily, but I've decided to take a more polite approach.

Click to expand...

I don't think you managed that very well.

But i'll agree to your trial by mob... Have at it.

Equinoxe said:

That's always a wise choice, but with all due respect to you, I don't think that's what you're actually doing here. Regardless of your claims to the contrary, you are bending over backwards to make excuses and, worse, you think that you are not making excuses.

Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you are wholly and completely sincere in everything you've said here, that you believe everything you've said you believe, and said nothing with any guile intended—because I do think that you probably genuinely do believe everything you've said. I will likewise grant you the presumption that nothing you've done was strategic—but you should realise that you've engaged in several standard tactics used by enablers and apologists of all manner of misdeeds ("If he did what he is accused of doing, that is wrong and he should go to jail, but...", which is a tack you see in many discussions of sensitive social issues, e.g. "Rape is a terrible crime, but..."—"Racism is a horrible thing, but...", etc. etc. etc.)

You've given more weight to his account (up to and including entertaining the idea of a conspiracy against him) while criticising others for jumping to conclusions by believing those who've come out against him. You can call that being fair and open-minded, if you like, but that's not how that looks to me, especially in light of your reactions to every development in the story.

Here, more or less, is your participation in this conversation:
"Something is suspicious. An elaborate conspiracy involving imaginary victims concocted by a major news organisation to blacken a man's reputation is far more plausible than the celebrity who filed a 50 million dollar frivolous lawsuit and started up the spin machine right away perhaps having entitlement issues.

Why has no-one come forward publicly using their full and legal name? Why have none of the women who say they were forced or coerced into engaging in rough and violent sexual behaviour been willing to tell the entire world who they are? Why? That's very suspicious. Maybe they're making it up or don't even exist.

Oh, one of them did? Well, that's interesting, but I'm going to wait for chat transcripts that may or may not actually exist. That's the only way to be sure, even though it couldn't possibly prove that an action was consensual at the time of its occurrence.

Wait, one of them said she engaged in sexual acts with him out of fear, just to get him to stop? Well, I've never experienced anything like that, so I don't think it actually happens.

Oh, that's happened to you? Well, I didn't mean to be disrespectful or dismissive of your experience. I'm just speaking from my own personal experience—as a man who can't be expected to have any personal experience with it but who feels entitled to make pronouncements about people's experiences anyway.

Look, if he did what he is accused of doing, he's a terrible person and he should go to jail, even though he won't go to jail because that's not the issue here. But I still think the accusations might all be made up. I'm going to wait for more evidence."


You can say that other people have already found him guilty, and that's undoubtedly true, but it seems to me that you've been rather intent on finding him not guilty, no matter how many times you say "If the accusations are true...".

Or, if I may be somewhat more pointed:
People who are waiting for all of the facts to come in before they come to a conclusion usually either say nothing or say something like "I don't know. I don't want to jump to any conclusions. I want to wait for all of the facts to come in." and then quietly wait for all of the facts to come in. They don't pop up every five minutes to dismiss each new piece of evidence as not really being evidence.

Like I said, I think you genuinely believe you're withholding judgment, but I don't think you actually are.

EDITED:
Oh, and I'm responding to you personally both because I think it might be worthwhile for you to see how you're coming across from another perspective and because I think you are being representative of people who are "withholding judgment" in discussions of circumstances like these.

Click to expand...

THANK YOU

Sweet mother of mercy it was driving me crazy that he couldnt see what he was doing

Equinoxe said:

I'm not suggesting that you should start or join a pitchfork-wielding mob. I'm suggesting that you're making a lot of assumptions about accusations of sexual misconduct, while criticising others for making assumptions about accusations of sexual misconduct.

If I have any animus regarding you at all in this matter, I am annoyed that you're trying to present yourself as being fair-minded and reasonable when you actually do have substantial biases. In that, I might add, like I said in my initial post, I think you are being representative of people who are conspicuously "waiting for the evidence".


So, dismiss my statement, if you like. Be insulted by it, if it so please you. That is your affair.

You are right, though, I am patronising.


But perhaps we should wait and see how many people think I have point before jumping to a conclusion.

Click to expand...

I think you ought to know this made me fall a bit in love with you.

Equinoxe said:

But perhaps we should wait and see how many people think I have point before jumping to a conclusion.

Click to expand...

richard_daily said:

But i'll agree to your trial by mob... Have at it.

Click to expand...

Look, ma...

...mighty democracy swords have been unsheathed.

Truth, already established whether man exists or not...

...yet man once more believes she must establish truth by majority vote.

Really...

...how friggin' funny is that!

Hey, Ryan Scabcrest...

...looks like two more ripe for induction into your Hall of Lame.

vetteman said:

Is he an "at will" employee?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "at will" employee.

He had been with the company for 14 years, and was part of the employee union, from what I can gather. As a unionized employee, his first line of complaint should have been to the union, but given the circumstances I am guessing the union doesn't want to associate with it, either.

Eyer, you are correct in assuming that I disagree with you that employers should be able to fire their employees for everything from sexual orientation to the smell of their farts. If I am doing my job, and doing it well, none of that is my employer's beeswax. That also includes what my sexual practices are. As an employer I would have no desire to know how my employees fuck, either. I hope you are never in a position to be fired just because someone decided they didn't like the way you walk, talk, chew gum or have sex.

This has become more than that now though, as I don't think the whole poor, kinky guy with a jilted ex- lover is being persecuted for his sexual preference story is holding up.

I had no agenda in starting this thread beyond looking for an opportunity to discuss something that is very big in my little end of the fishbowl right now. In Toronto when story hit, it went supernova almost immediately, because of who this guy is.

Sunshine said:

Hi secrets? I don't think this is about a loose lipped ex. This is about a pattern of abuse that someone finally had the courage to speak up about. Thankfully she did and others will be warned!

I'm a trustworthy person who has kept the secrets of every friend and lover except for one. The one who did not deserve my trust and abused me. I say fuck him and his secrets. It's time he was called out for being the monster he is.

Click to expand...

"Secrets" is a broad term. I don't think he is any kind of victim, except of his own narcissism and poor judgment. Whether he is capable of understanding why his private life is now public, is another matter. I doubt any of his lovers watched him take off his pants and thought to themselves, "When this is over, I'm going to rake him over the coals and ruin his life."

Aphroditiac said:

I hope you are never in a position to be fired just because someone decided they didn't like the way you walk, talk, chew gum or have sex.

Click to expand...

It's ok, Aphro...

...no need to carry your hyberbolic, socialistic emotionalism any further.

I, practically just like every other common adult who has lived, or who will ever live, have been in plenty of "position"s "to be fired"...

...yet I've never once wondered if I'm a big enough boy or not to even ponder if I could easily find another job if an employer fired me for whatever reason floated his or her boat.

Why would I even want to work for someone who didn't like the way I "chew gum"??????

The ones to direct your needless pseudo-compassion toward are those obviously like yourself...

...who'd work for the type of employers you despise in the first place. That, being a quagmire of your very own making, is something you and yours need to deal with rather than irresponsibly imagining that any others actually need to care about it at all.

Aphroditiac said:

I had no agenda in starting this thread beyond looking for an opportunity to discuss something that is very big in my little end of the fishbowl right now. In Toronto when story hit, it went supernova almost immediately, because of who this guy is.

Click to expand...

Bullcrap...

...here's your original "agenda":

Aphroditiac said:

I'm trying to wrap my head around how anyone, even a public radio personality, can be fired over unproven allegations of sexual misconduct, when none of the supposed victims filed any charges with police.

Click to expand...

Now...

...care to review how you've clearly helped steer this thread away from that absolute course since then?

Have any of the "allegations" been proven since your OP?

Have any of "the supposed victims" filed any charges with the police since your OP?

No?

Then what - exactly - has changed since your OP [notice the lack of a question mark].

richard_daily said:

I don't think you managed that very well.

But i'll agree to your trial by mob... Have at it.

Click to expand...

You should have read the original version.

I really don't bear you any ill-will regarding this and if you feel that I was implying some fundamental iniquity on your part, I am sorry.

But I stand by the essence and meaning of what I said. It was genuinely not my intention to berate you—only to show you what I do not think you see about yourself. I will admit that I was very pointed and perhaps even condescending and that was probably not the best approach. Maybe I am even being a little bit unfair to you in not appreciating your feelings as someone into BDSM or the trouble and conflicted feelings this incident causes you.


I wasn't being serious about that last bit—it was part of my failure at not being snarky. However, if you would like to impanel a court of judges whose opinions you value to arbitrate, I have no objections.

Well, I feel very smug and self-congratulatory, but it would impolite not to respond.

evesdream said:

Do me next

Click to expand...

Heart!

Lit expects me to make some sort of innuendo here, doesn't it?

girlsmiley said:

Wordy, correct bitch.

It was long but I managed to take it all.

Click to expand...

Rose!

bg23 said:

I think you ought to know this made me fall a bit in love with you.

Click to expand...

Nonemoticon!

Aww, and here I thought you had forgotten all about me! (And you're welcome, re your other post.)

Equinoxe said:

Heart!

Lit expects me to make some sort of innuendo here, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Not pod persons are exempt!

I would fire all of you for not getting laid.

Another woman comes forward http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/reva-seth/reva-seth-jian-ghomeshi_b_6077296.html

Equinoxe said:

I really don't bear you any ill-will regarding this and if you feel that I was implying some fundamental iniquity on your part, I am sorry.

But I stand by the essence and meaning of what I said. It was genuinely not my intention to berate you—only to show you what I do not think you see about yourself. I will admit that I was very pointed and perhaps even condescending and that was probably not the best approach. Maybe I am even being a little bit unfair to you in not appreciating your feelings as someone into BDSM or the trouble and conflicted feelings this incident causes you.

Click to expand...

I appreciate it, and having been through one case of false accusation of violence (not sexualized) when I was in my early 20s (I'd be happy to share the story with you via PM) and seeing both men and a few women falsely accused of sexual assault, (as well as supporting more than a few of my friends who have been through it both in and out of BDSM relationship) I realize and admitted that I was bringing my own expereinces to the table here.

However after reading the latest woman's story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/anna-duckworth/jian-ghomeshi-owen-pallett_b_6063688.html

I want to amend what I've been saying and that I believe that Ghomeshi has serious issues and is using the guise of BDSM to try to hide what is poor judgment on his part at best, and wide-spread systemic abuse and coercion of women at worst. I think that the picture is becoming clear that he has issues with consent and negotiating boundaries. It's not fully clear to what extent, but the evidence is mounting.

Ultimately, I didn't believe that it wasn't possible earlier today. I truly and honestly wanted to wait to reserve judgment. I still think there is a lot more to this story. I still think there are issues with the way it's been reported, but hopefully as more and more women hopefully find the courage to come forward and share their stories, Ghomeshi will come out and issue an apology, seek counciling, and face criminal charges for any assaults he committed.

you are impossible to forget, equi

evesdream said:

Another woman comes forward http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/reva-seth/reva-seth-jian-ghomeshi_b_6077296.html

Click to expand...

his PR firms - both of them - have dropped him, too

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201..._dumped_by_pr_firm_over_lies_sources_say.html

when your crisis management firm deems you a lying shitbag there is not much else to say.

richard_daily said:

Ultimately, I didn't believe that it wasn't possible earlier today. I truly and honestly wanted to wait to reserve judgment. I still think there is a lot more to this story. I still think there are issues with the way it's been reported, but hopefully as more and more women hopefully find the courage to come forward and share their stories, Ghomeshi will come out and issue an apology, seek counciling, and face criminal charges for any assaults he committed.

Click to expand...

i think you - among with many others - are confusing "reserving judgement" with "i believe he is innocent til proven guilty".

reserving judgement means "i don't have an opinion either way". your posts thus far have implied "i think he's innocent til i see proof otherwise". please stop trying to say you've been reserving judgement when you absolutely haven't.

Well, he had a good run.

richard_daily said:

I appreciate it, and having been through one case of false accusation of violence (not sexualized) when I was in my early 20s (I'd be happy to share the story with you via PM) and seeing both men and a few women falsely accused of sexual assault, (as well as supporting more than a few of my friends who have been through it both in and out of BDSM relationship) I realize and admitted that I was bringing my own expereinces to the table here.

However after reading the latest woman's story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/anna-duckworth/jian-ghomeshi-owen-pallett_b_6063688.html

I want to amend what I've been saying and that I believe that Ghomeshi has serious issues and is using the guise of BDSM to try to hide what is poor judgment on his part at best, and wide-spread systemic abuse and coercion of women at worst. I think that the picture is becoming clear that he has issues with consent and negotiating boundaries. It's not fully clear to what extent, but the evidence is mounting.

Ultimately, I didn't believe that it wasn't possible earlier today. I truly and honestly wanted to wait to reserve judgment. I still think there is a lot more to this story. I still think there are issues with the way it's been reported, but hopefully as more and more women hopefully find the courage to come forward and share their stories, Ghomeshi will come out and issue an apology, seek counciling, and face criminal charges for any assaults he committed.

Click to expand...

how many women do you have to beat without consent, before the world believes?

This "consent" and "we negotiated boundaries" argument is exactly why, in many states, the police are the complainant in domestic violence cases.

A woman (sometimes a man) can consent to getting beaten, but if the police show up the person that did the beating rightly goes to jail.

thank you, Equinoxe, for putting words to the mess in my head.

bg23 said:

you are impossible to forget, equi



his PR firms - both of them - have dropped him, too

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201..._dumped_by_pr_firm_over_lies_sources_say.html

when your crisis management firm deems you a lying shitbag there is not much else to say.

Click to expand...

Wow, when a firm hired to tell your side of the story dumps you, things are pretty damned bad.