7 ms·

Aren't the actions egregious on a case by case basis? Do we actually know what he's been accused of? It sounds like he's a little bit overly friendly...and that

Aren't the actions egregious on a case by case basis? Do we actually know what he's been accused of? It sounds like he's a little bit overly friendly...and that does not push somebody into a binary 0 for me. Dude makes good movies.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
Yes, we do, in the linked articles. The Polanski Standard is a bad one. Someone can make great movies but if they are a creep, they're a creep. If he made bad movies would it be okay to judge him? I've gotta believe you can be a decent person and still do great things. Otherwise, what's the point? No need to excuse bad behavior, maybe by excusing it, we make it possible. If predators got run out of industries instead of being allowed to stick around for decades (Hastert, Weinstein, Paterno, Spacey, Trump, the media is even starting to turn on Bill Clinton), then we wouldn't have to be so disappointed. It's not acceptable.
- jdminhbg 9y ago
  Paterno isn't accused of being a predator. You're probably thinking of Jerry Sandusky. But ironically, you might accidentally have come across the reason this doesn't happen. Things that "everyone knows" aren't actionable until there's hard evidence and accusers on the record, and then afterwards, we all pretend like "everyone knew" and chose to do nothing.
  - kthejoker2 9y ago
    Enablers are worse than predators. Paterno can rot in hell.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
stevenwoo 9y ago
Based on what I read about the details, if the boss of your company was making unwanted sexual advances to the people that worked for him/her, most people to whom this happened would think "Eww". From the news - A former Pixar employee requesting anonymity says Lasseter's leave of absence statement is "ridiculous" and "trivializing this behavior." The employee adds, "To sum this up as unwanted hugs is belittling and demeaning. If it was just unwanted hugs, he wouldn't be stepping down."
rayiner 9y ago
“Grabbing” and “kissing” coworkers is more than “a little overly friendly.” Legally, it’s battery. (Fun fact: it was defined that way at common law, long before feminism.)
- tptacek 9y ago
  Wait, really? Where can I read more about that?
  - vidarh 9y ago
    Wiki page on battery? [1] Or any legal text on it... Battery in common law is basically any unlawful offensive/unwanted physical contact, though various jurisdictions limit or define this very differently. So it's not that kissing or grabbing is specifically called out, but that any physical contact to the extent that it is unwanted (battery and assault both depend on the recipients subjective views in common law; in codified versions this may be different) and/or seen as insulting or offensive in the relevant jurisdiction is likely to be battery unless specific other criteria comes into play. A challenge is that in some instances you may be thought to "silently consent". E.g. in the UK this very explicitly comes into play with ordinary contact in a crowd, and presumably all jurisdictions will recognize this in some form or other. But absent codified rules, precisely what/how/when you may be considered to "silently consent" to may vary wildly in different common law jurisdiction depending on details of precedent setting case law up through the ages and changing social expectations. E.g. a lot of people would likely have expectations of a higher level of "silent consent" on a night club dance floor, for example - but conversely because battery is largely down to the subjective judgement of the victim, my ex is due in court tomorrow because some guy grabbed her ass in a night club and refusing to apologize (admittedly "helped" massively by the guy lying to the police about it once things escalated) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime)

aaron-lebo 9y ago

Yes, we do, in the linked articles. The Polanski Standard is a bad one. Someone can make great movies but if they are a creep, they're a creep. If he made bad movies would it be okay to judge him? I've gotta believe you can be a decent person and still do great things. Otherwise, what's the point? No need to excuse bad behavior, maybe by excusing it, we make it possible. If predators got run out of industries instead of being allowed to stick around for decades (Hastert, Weinstein, Paterno, Spacey, Trump, the media is even starting to turn on Bill Clinton), then we wouldn't have to be so disappointed. It's not acceptable.

jdminhbg 9y ago
Paterno isn't accused of being a predator. You're probably thinking of Jerry Sandusky. But ironically, you might accidentally have come across the reason this doesn't happen. Things that "everyone knows" aren't actionable until there's hard evidence and accusers on the record, and then afterwards, we all pretend like "everyone knew" and chose to do nothing.
- kthejoker2 9y ago
  Enablers are worse than predators. Paterno can rot in hell.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

stevenwoo 9y ago

Based on what I read about the details, if the boss of your company was making unwanted sexual advances to the people that worked for him/her, most people to whom this happened would think "Eww". From the news - A former Pixar employee requesting anonymity says Lasseter's leave of absence statement is "ridiculous" and "trivializing this behavior." The employee adds, "To sum this up as unwanted hugs is belittling and demeaning. If it was just unwanted hugs, he wouldn't be stepping down."

rayiner 9y ago

“Grabbing” and “kissing” coworkers is more than “a little overly friendly.” Legally, it’s battery. (Fun fact: it was defined that way at common law, long before feminism.)

tptacek 9y ago
Wait, really? Where can I read more about that?
- vidarh 9y ago
  Wiki page on battery? [1] Or any legal text on it... Battery in common law is basically any unlawful offensive/unwanted physical contact, though various jurisdictions limit or define this very differently. So it's not that kissing or grabbing is specifically called out, but that any physical contact to the extent that it is unwanted (battery and assault both depend on the recipients subjective views in common law; in codified versions this may be different) and/or seen as insulting or offensive in the relevant jurisdiction is likely to be battery unless specific other criteria comes into play. A challenge is that in some instances you may be thought to "silently consent". E.g. in the UK this very explicitly comes into play with ordinary contact in a crowd, and presumably all jurisdictions will recognize this in some form or other. But absent codified rules, precisely what/how/when you may be considered to "silently consent" to may vary wildly in different common law jurisdiction depending on details of precedent setting case law up through the ages and changing social expectations. E.g. a lot of people would likely have expectations of a higher level of "silent consent" on a night club dance floor, for example - but conversely because battery is largely down to the subjective judgement of the victim, my ex is due in court tomorrow because some guy grabbed her ass in a night club and refusing to apologize (admittedly "helped" massively by the guy lying to the police about it once things escalated) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime)