IRS Agent bullies man into sex.

[SEVERUSMAX]

Given my political leanings, resistance to any kind of censorship should hardly surprise one.

Again, misogyny seems to be a very vague category. Nothing specific there.

As for gay jokes, well. Remember whom you address here. Not exactly a homophobe.

 

[Stella_Omega]

So, we're back to Victorian ideas....don't talk of sex in mixed company? Bizarre.

Don't talk misogyny in mixed company.

And the sex jokes that man tell? There are not many that aren't misogynistic. Even gay jokes belittle women, right along with the gay men they belittle.

Moreover, there are none that are not predicated on a man's assumption that women want to applaud his assumptions. (If he didn't assume that, he wouldn't tell them.)

Last time I checked, there's no Constitutional right not to be offended.

Last time I checked there is no constitutional right to talk sex at work.

Now, if you're talking of something more threatening, well....clarify that. Threats are not the same as offensive comments.

Hmm.

Let me introduce you to Schrodinger's rapist.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

And the exceptions to free speech strike again....lol. Oliver Wendell Holmes sold you a bill of goods.

Oh, well, can't win 'em all. The evolution toward anarchy has a long way to go.

 

[Stella_Omega]

And the exceptions to free speech strike again....lol. Oliver Wendell Holmes sold you a bill of goods.

Oh, well, can't win 'em all. The evolution toward anarchy has a long way to go.

Go take a walk down South Central and shout "nigger" a couple of times. That's free speech. And also, you will experience anarchy in actual action.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Shakes head. Always the "fire in the crowded theater" allusion. Always. Or its equivalent.

 

[YDB95]

Ok, there's no Constitutional right to not be offended. It does not, in any way, follow that you have the right to create a hostile working environment for your co-workers.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

No, specifics, then? Okay, moving along. Never will get a specific description of what constitutes "hostile working environment".

I see.

Yep, moving along.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Shakes head. Always the "fire in the crowded theater" allusion. Always. Or its equivalent.

You want to practice free speech that doesn't threaten you-- even though it does threaten approximately one half the human race (minus those women who are bigger and more confident than most of us).

But your ... well, let's be kind and call it 'pragmatism...' tells you that you must not practice free speech that threatens larger, stronger people. Because they will practice free speech all over your ass, and you know it.

In other words, you are constrained to respect their right not to be offended.

Nothing less than the fear of an ass whupping creates in you the desire to be respectful, I guess. Requests, from people physically weaker than yourself, don't register.

This is why we keep on creating governments.

 

[YDB95]

That's because different people have different thresholds. It is absolutely impossible for you or me or anyone to say "this is offensive, that isn't," because by definition it's a matter of opinion. But generally speaking, all dirty jokes and all frank discussion of sex are going to feel inappropriate to someone. So unless you're very close with everyone in your place of work (something that is very rarely the case for anyone), it's best to err on the side of caution. Just because you have a Constitutional right to say anything you damn well please doesn't mean you always should say it.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Go take a walk down South Central and shout "nigger" a couple of times. That's free speech. And also, you will experience anarchy in actual action.

::Nods:: and get a couple of "anarchy" caps busted in his white, entitled, male ass while he's at it.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Shakes head.

Too many assumptions. Putting words in my mouth. Oh, and I can see that SB is up to her usual BS. Figures.

I am not arguing for "harassment". I am arguing that some things are clearly harassment and some things are a far too vague definition of the same.

Take an example. Suppose a woman made a joke that was misandrist in nature and one took exception to that. Should a man then get to decide that said joke creates a "hostile working environment"?

It's a bit different when the shoe is on the other foot. Also, it's a slippery slope. When Coke cans and pubic hairs can be "harassment", what next? Dropping Viagra on your male subordinate or colleague's desk?

I work with people who by those standards could be sued a thousand times over. It's retail. No one there gives a fuck. No one gets offended. No one sues. They are not very mature in many ways, but they've grown a thick skin about that. Men and women alike. Men and women both get ribbed over all kinds of shit. I've seen male supervisors date their subordinates, female supervisors date their subordinates, etc.

The only things that have offended me so far?

1. The presumption by some women that they can touch me when I didn't okay it (there are plenty of women who wouldn't bother me if they did, but I believe that is a line for me to draw).
2. The graffiti in the men's room accusing a certain female supervisor of sleeping her way to the top.

Which did I report? The latter. Why? Because I care a great deal about the woman in question. The graffiti was less harassment than libel. Grounds for civil rather than criminal action. Sadly, the culprit has not been identified.

Why didn't I report the former? Because my icy glare did the job instead. They got the message. I'm a big boy. I don't need the nanny state to do my job for me.

What am I trying to say?

That concrete, tangible actions are harassment. Things that threaten or intimidate, not things that merely offend. What's next? Suing a Jehovah's Witness because she won't shut up about her faith? Suing a Communist for calling me a "capitalist pig"?

It's a slippery slope. I prefer to limit such drastic measures to force, extortion, etc. Not merely remarks that offend or upset me. If that was true, I'd avoid the GB, instead of merely putting people there on iggy.

It's the workforce, not kindergarten.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Take an example. Suppose a woman made a joke that was misandrist in nature and one took exception to that. Should a man then get to decide that said joke creates a "hostile working environment"?

Yes. And, men have.

Suppose a lot of women, the majority of the work force, habitually made misandrist jokes, comments, assumptions? Suppose these women were utterly offended at the notion they should stop, and blamed the few men there, for asking them to stop?

It's a bit different when the shoe is on the other foot. Also, it's a slippery slope. When Coke cans and pubic hairs can be "harassment", what next? Dropping Viagra on your male subordinate or colleague's desk?

Yes. Duh.

Why didn't I report the former? Because my icy glare did the job instead. They got the message. I'm a big boy. I don't need the nanny state to do my job for me.

Uh-huh. You ARE a big boy.

And if YOU had grabbed her ass, there would have been a BIG BOY grabbing her ass.

And her icy glare might not have much affect on the kind of Big Boy that decides to grab a woman's ass.

It's the workforce, not kindergarten.

So behave like an adult at work.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Not sure what the point is to your mockery. So, sighing, I will let this one go.

There is no point convincing you that championing a more precise and restrained definition does not make me a bully, that I'm not out grabbing a woman's ass (at least not without her consent), that I'm not bullying people, etc.

Uh, since when is glaring at someone who grabbed me bullying or harassment? Seriously. It's a much better way of dealing with the problem, at least from where I stand.

What is immature about having a thick skin and refusing to feel entitled to not have my feelings hurt? What is immature about only reporting things like libel against people who are falsely maligned, rather than reporting things that I can handle on my own?

I reported the graffiti because that was necessary. It wasn't necessary to report the unwanted manhandling.

Despite your attempt at mockery, your point is not being made very well.

I'm not a bully. I'm a decent guy who doesn't confuse bawdy humor with bullying. There's a difference. What my colleagues do or say, as long as no one crosses the line into actual harassment or bullying, is no business of mine.

If colleague A, however, stalks, bullies, or truly harasses colleague B, however, he or she will hear from me. No passive-aggression involved. Just me telling him or her to cool it. No sense in going further if they take the hint.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Dude, please re-read. Carefuller.

I did not call you a bully,

I did not say that glaring at her makes you a bully,

I did not accuse you of grabbing anyone's ass.

You have been misinterpreting most of what anyone has said, respnding with straw men and hyperbole to refute non-existent points-- and I thought it was just the standard poor grasp of logic that so many people display in argument.

But now I wonder if you actually can comprehend what you are reading?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

So why did you refer to the size difference and me "respecting" or "not respecting" someone based on that?

Seems the misunderstanding is a two-way street here.

Why did you refer to "behave like an adult", as if to imply I'm doing the opposite?

Why did you refer to my response in such a way that suggested that I was doing something other than merely discouraging unwanted advances?

Why bother saying such things, if you clearly understand my point, which is simply to have a precise definition of harassment?

Uh-huh. You ARE a big boy.

And if YOU had grabbed her ass, there would have been a BIG BOY grabbing her ass.

And her icy glare might not have much affect on the kind of Big Boy that decides to grab a woman's ass.

Okay, rereading this, you might have been saying that she would have less recourse if the shoe was on the other foot. So she could always slap the guy on the face. It would be a perfectly sensible response. That and report it to her supervisor (which in my department would probably only get somewhere if she made enough noise....there are drawbacks to the thick skin, admittedly).

Still, far too much made of gender and size differences, especially for avowed feminists. Frankly, you surprise me.

And I also don't appreciate the "big boy" mockery.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Actually read it, this time.

 

[YDB95]

Take an example. Suppose a woman made a joke that was misandrist in nature and one took exception to that. Should a man then get to decide that said joke creates a "hostile working environment"?

Of course he should. Has anyone here said otherwise? Has anyone anywhere said otherwise? (If you have heard such a thing, let me guess - Faux News?)

It's a bit different when the shoe is on the other foot. Also, it's a slippery slope. When Coke cans and pubic hairs can be "harassment", what next? Dropping Viagra on your male subordinate or colleague's desk?

First of all, are you really, seriously saying Clarence Thomas' comment about the Coke can wasn't creating an uncomfortable work environment for others?
Secondly, why would you give Viagra to anyone else in the workplace? If you mean dropping it by accident, of course that's not harassment. But again, that's a straw-man argument. No one is suggesting any such thing. If you mean on purpose, then of course it's harassment. It's totally inappropriate and it crosses all sorts of lines.

I work with people who by those standards could be sued a thousand times over. It's retail. No one there gives a fuck. No one gets offended. No one sues. They are not very mature in many ways, but they've grown a thick skin about that. Men and women alike. Men and women both get ribbed over all kinds of shit. I've seen male supervisors date their subordinates, female supervisors date their subordinates, etc.

Just because you're not aware of anyone taking offense or being made to feel uncomfortable does not mean it hasn't happened. Indeed, you strike me as the kind of person who would never notice such a thing no matter how obvious it was. That said, if everyone in the workplace is comfortable with a given level of sexual frankness, that's fine. The trouble is, how can you ever really know that for sure? You can't, which is why it's best to err on the side of caution.

The only things that have offended me so far?

1. The presumption by some women that they can touch me when I didn't okay it (there are plenty of women who wouldn't bother me if they did, but I believe that is a line for me to draw).
2. The graffiti in the men's room accusing a certain female supervisor of sleeping her way to the top.

Which did I report? The latter. Why? Because I care a great deal about the woman in question. The graffiti was less harassment than libel. Grounds for civil rather than criminal action. Sadly, the culprit has not been identified.

They both would have offended me too, but as far as I know, the latter could only be considered libel if it did any tangible damage to her career.

Why didn't I report the former? Because my icy glare did the job instead. They got the message. I'm a big boy. I don't need the nanny state to do my job for me.

Reverse the genders. You know what can very easily happen then? The man backs off for the moment, but then he waits for the woman as she's leaving the building, and maybe he traps her in an alley or in her car and does heaven-knows-what. The cold hard truth is, this world is somewhat more dangerous for women than for men. Your comment here smacks of male privilege.

What am I trying to say?

That concrete, tangible actions are harassment. Things that threaten or intimidate, not things that merely offend. What's next? Suing a Jehovah's Witness because she won't shut up about her faith? Suing a Communist for calling me a "capitalist pig"?

Again, who are you to say what threatens and what merely offends? If the "merely offensive" language is coming from your boss and you can expect reprisal if you complain, guess what? It crosses the line into threatening!

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Of course he should. Has anyone here said otherwise? Has anyone anywhere said otherwise? (If you have heard such a thing, let me guess - Faux News?)



First of all, are you really, seriously saying Clarence Thomas' comment about the Coke can wasn't creating an uncomfortable work environment for others?
Secondly, why would you give Viagra to anyone else in the workplace? If you mean dropping it by accident, of course that's not harassment. But again, that's a straw-man argument. No one is suggesting any such thing.



Just because you're not aware of anyone taking offense or being made to feel uncomfortable does not mean it hasn't happened. Indeed, you strike me as the kind of person who would never notice such a thing no matter how obvious it was. That said, if everyone in the workplace is comfortable with a given level of sexual frankness, that's fine. The trouble is, how can you ever really know that for sure. You can't, which is why it's best to err on the side of caution.




They both would have offended me too, but as far as I know, the latter could only be considered libel if it did any tangible damage to her career.



Reverse the genders. You know what can very easily happen then? The man backs off for the moment, but then he waits for the woman as she's leaving the building, and maybe he traps her in an alley or in her car and does heaven-knows-what. The cold hard truth is, this world is somewhat more dangerous for women than for men. Your comment here smacks of male privilege.



Again, who are you to say what threatens and what merely offends? If the "merely offensive" language is coming from your boss and you can expect reprisal if you complain, guess what? It crosses the line into threatening!

It's quite clear that you don't know me at all. Making such broad and blanket statements makes that abundantly clear. Yes, the world is more dangerous for women than men. That's why you have self-defense courses, etc. A broader definition of harassment realistically does nothing to protect women from the kind of man who would take things that far. All it does is create the risk of false accusation and the loss of the presumption of innocence, not to mention repression, censorship, etc.

A belief that a more vague definition and shouts of "male privilege" will make the world better is a tad bit naive. Slogans don't replace resolve, courage, conviction, etc. They're just phrases and slogans. The most they can do is muzzle speech.

The latter example is actually a rare case where you're right. That would be harassment. Other than that, you're grasping at straws yourself, far more than you say that I am.

For those who proclaim the equality of the sexes, you're far more into victimhood and being patronized/protected by men than one would expect.

 

[YDB95]

A broader definition of harassment realistically does nothing to protect women from the kind of man who would take things that far.

That's certainly true if guys like you are in charge.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

That's certainly true if guys like you are in charge.

Again, you don't know the first fucking thing about me. I don't make assumptions about you. Be nice enough to return the favor.

First of all, I'm an ANARCHIST. Meaning, I don't want anyone in charge. Period. Get it? Good.

 

[Stella_Omega]

So why did you refer to the size difference and me "respecting" or "not respecting" someone based on that?

Because you are too ... sensible... to go disrespecting bigger guys. And you refuse be non-PC around them.

And because you have not yet referred in any way, to any other force that would make you change the way you do anything. You get requests, you trumpet about PC censorship.

Okay, rereading this, you might have been saying that she would have less recourse if the shoe was on the other foot. So she could always slap the guy on the face. It would be a perfectly sensible response.

I'm not going to slap a man who just grabbed my ass. He has already demonstrated that he feels entitles to touch me in any way he pleases. And I am not strong enough to knock him down.

That and report it to her supervisor (which in my department would probably only get somewhere if she made enough noise....there are drawbacks to the thick skin, admittedly).

have you ever seen any woman make enough noise in your company? How much noise was it? How was it for her, did it take up all of her time and energy, and how did it all turn out for her?

I tell you right now-- I'll bet you a lot of people including supervisors know which man wrote that thing you mentioned. And he's never going to get called on the carpet.

Still, far too much made of gender and size differences, especially for avowed feminists. Frankly, you surprise me.

Wait, you mean you think we should all pretend that most men don't have reach and strength over most women? Refusing to acknowledge reality is going to solve everything?

Really?

That would be as stupid as... me continuing this conversation, actually.

What am I even doing....

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Change anything of what I'm doing? Again, why make this about me? I was speaking in general terms. How the fuck do you not get that? It has nothing to do with me or what I do.

I PM'd you with a more precise description of what I do and how I conduct myself at work. You have evidently ignored that. Talk about not reading. I am criticizing vagueness in PC and harassment codes. I'm not harassing or advocating harassment. There is a fucking difference. Okay?

 

[YDB95]

Change anything of what I'm doing? Again, why make this about me?

YOU are the one making it all about you, with your attitude of "My right to say any damn thing I please anytime anywhere is all that matters".

And yes, I could already tell you're an anarchist. Kinda hard to miss.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

YOU are the one making it all about you, with your attitude of "My right to say any damn thing I please anytime anywhere is all that matters".

And yes, I could already tell you're an anarchist. Kinda hard to miss.

I was speaking in general terms. And yes, it's connected to being an anarchist. As in, I prefer people to stand up for themselves and their friends, not resort to PC and other restrictions. If the woman is smaller, then she has mace, pepper spray, self-defense courses, etc. available to her.

Do I harass? No. Do I personally approve of harassment/bullying/coercion/intimidation, etc.? No.

I was speaking in general terms of the dangerous of too vague, too nebulous a legal standard. I'm already opposed to the State's existence. What makes you think that I would trust it to be fair about how to enforce such codes? Of course, I don't trust the State, the courts, etc. By definition, the State is unreliable, untrustworthy, coercive, etc.

That's where this whole conflict originates, really. You trust the State with a much larger, increasingly larger category of offenses to punish, etc.

I don't. That's I why speak up for those who might offend you. Not because I am speaking for myself. But because, in principle, I mistrust the State. The more power you give it, the less I trust it.

Talk about misreading things. I speak in general terms of what should or should not be considered harmful conduct, and somehow it you assume that I am speaking for myself. No, I am speaking against PC and vagueness. Not on behalf of anyone, per se. Least of all, myself.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oh, man, I never did acknowledge that -- SEV you sure are one hell of an anarchist, buddy.

Sorry I didn't say that back when you first mentioned it. Or the second time. Or even the third...