8 ms·

If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the

If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn I'm reminded of this quote every time another one of these scandals breaks.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
With these scandals, it really is simple: don't sexually harass or assault others. Most of us manage.
- westoncb 9y ago
  Come on. Even finding a definition of sexual harassment which people can agree on is notoriously difficult. Add to that the fact our society continues to push the idea that the men which women 'really want' are aggressive in initiating sexual situations. A man who does something as timid as asking whether he may kiss a girl can assure himself of inadequacy. (Not that there aren't plenty of exceptions to our media supporting this idea—but it's still implied pervasively. And some of it probably is just human nature.) That said, even if it's not clear exactly where the line is—it's pretty easy to see that certain actions would be far across it, and that's largely what's come up in recent allegations. Though I don't think all of them have been super clear cut. 'Simple' is too strong here.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    > Add to that the fact our society continues to push the idea that the men which women 'really want' are aggressive in initiating sexual situations This is a big part of the problem. These sexual harassment allegations are almost entirely arising in contexts where sex should be off the table. Society’s expectations of aggressive male behavior are entirely irrelevant.
    - westoncb 9y ago
      Sure, that makes the formal legal aspect of it simpler (though still not simple—which is my only point here), but consider this: do you think these people in positions of power have ever run into situations where their inferiors desire the same thing? Obviously that's not the case for those making allegations—but don't you suppose there were also situations where these folks were involved in fully consensual situations which crossed the power line? The rules are there to protect the inferiors, but what if in some situations they do not want that protection at all? To say otherwise is to say that no one ever desires their boss, which is obviously wrong. 'Simple' is just not the right word for it.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        Think about it logically rather than emotionally. It’s pretty safe to say that #(women who just want to work and build professional relationships without being propositioned for sex) >> #(women who want to have sex with their boss). Drawing bright-line rules that take sex categorically out of the professional context makes life vastly easier for the former group of women.[1] At slight inconvenience to the latter group. It optimized for the common case. [1] People hate being solicited so much that we created a nationwide donotcall registry for it! And that’s with no power dynamics in play!
        westoncb 9y ago
        > Think about it logically rather than emotionally. If there was part of my above comment which seemed to you emotionally rather than logically motivated, I'd be happy to clarify it. It seems from your response that you think I'm arguing against having that line drawn (the one which takes sex categorically out of the professional context). So to clarify: that is very very far both from what I have said and how I feel about things. I think that line is very important and absolutely should be in place. But that question is unrelated to the matter of complexity and simplicity which I intended to discuss (though my interlocutors so far have insisted on skirting the subject). For instance—as I already covered in my first comment—is it 'simple' how to define that line?
        9y ago
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    This case describes a boss trying to kiss his female coworkers and touch their legs. It's not difficult. It's not the appropriate environment to do that and the power dynamic is wrong, too. People know better.
    - westoncb 9y ago
      You're commenting on a discussion of general principles related to the article's content, and not a sanctioning of nor condemnation of Lasseter's specific behavior. The question is whether the general issue is 'simple' or 'complex'.
      - aaron-lebo 9y ago
        You responded to me. I was stating that not doing what is claimed in this case (kissing, touching - sexual harassment) is simple, and it is. That's obviously not appropriate behavior. Most of these recent scandals include behavior that either isn't appropriate in a work environment or isn't appropriate ever. There's no discussion to be had, not being Harvey Weinstein is easy. Add to that the fact our society continues to push the idea that the men which women 'really want' are aggressive in initiating sexual situations. A man who does something as timid as asking whether he may kiss a girl can assure himself of inadequacy. (Not that there aren't plenty of exceptions to our media supporting this idea—but it's still implied pervasively. And some of it probably is just human nature.) You got into "general principles", which as someone pointed out isn't relevant to a work environment. Superiors don't need to be worried about sexual inadequacy in relation to coworkers. We can say that sexual harassment is is complicated issue, and it is, but there's also behavior that shouldn't be happening by any standard and isn't difficult to avoid.
        westoncb 9y ago
        Oops, didn't realize you were the same person, and I would've phrased it differently in that case. That said, your statement, "With these scandals, it really is simple: don't sexually harass or assault others." was about the general issue, not the particular one. Additionally, both the parent and grandparent comments are general. > We can say that sexual harassment is is complicated issue, and it is, but there's also behavior that shouldn't be happening by any standard and isn't difficult to avoid. That's pretty much exactly what my comment said.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    No, you come on. What is it, specifically, that you find difficult to not do, especially at the workplace?
    - westoncb 9y ago
      Ha, should've known this would devolve into ad hominem. The discussion is about simplicity vs. complexity, not 'difficulty'. Address any of the points I've made and I'd be happy to discuss.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        This isn't an ad hominem. You're saying that these things are hard, so what is it exactly that you find hard about it?
        icebraining 9y ago
        You're saying that these things are hard No, nowhere in that post did westoncb say anything was hard to avoid doing.
        s73ver_ 9y ago
        I'm sorry, but their post is still bullshit. It is incredibly easy to not harass and to not assault people. Claiming that things are "tricky" or "unclear" when they're not doesn't help anyone.
  - alexqgb 9y ago
    Here's the deal; if you're (a) at work and (b) dealing with subordinates, the correct amount of sex to bring to the relationship is zero. Figuring out "where to draw the line" is no more complicated than deciding how much flirting with your own daughter is appropriate. Seriously, when you're in a position like Lasseter's, the math is SUPER simple.
    - westoncb 9y ago
      And when you are rich and famous, do you suppose the initiation doesn't occasionally start on the side of the subordinate? In that case, they may have some complex thoughts like, "what is the morality behind this rule if we both clearly desire one another, and they've already told me so first?" So now the complexity is at least similar to: do you still follow rules whose spirit seems not to apply to some present case? If the situation actually matched the father/daughter analogy you gave, it would be super simple. Unfortunately it doesn't look like that analogy works.
      - chipotle_coyote 9y ago
        If one person can promote, demote and fire the other, that's a potentially huge can of worms even when the manager isn't starting the relationship off with casual abuse of power. Maybe some of the other complex thoughts should be like, "Can the manager be trusted not to play favorites with their lover?" and "How will the rest of the team react?" and "If this relationship goes south, can they avoid the appearance--and actuality--of retaliation?" There's a reason a sizable minority of companies have HR policies prohibiting office romances between two people in the same reporting chain, and it's not (solely) because HR professionals are big jerky jerk stick-in-the-muds.
      - robotresearcher 9y ago
        The rule is simple. No messing with your employees. Even if they want you to.
      - siidooloo 9y ago
        Why does it matter who initiated it? The correct answer either way is To not get sexually involved with subordinates. There is no moral ambiguity here. It is wrong to abuse a position of power.
  - rtpg 9y ago
    People might disagree on the line itself, but many of these cases that are publicized are... if you read the details of the interactions they are clearly way over many reasonable people's lines. We might not need a hard line. An acknowledgement of those that went way over the line is proving to be a huge step forward for society. Hopefully we can be left _only_ with ambiguous cases when they occur. It's not normal for someone known by everyone around them to be a harasser to be able to continue their acts.
    - ebcode 9y ago
      >>It's not normal for someone known by everyone around them to be a harasser to be able to continue their acts. I recommend reading "The missing stair"[0] for an account of how normal this actually is. [0] http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/06/missing-stair.html http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/06/missing-stair.html
      - rtpg 9y ago
        Sorry, I meant to say that it shouldn't be normal. Unfortunately society still has a lot of progress to make.
  - ggg9990 9y ago
    Just don't fuck girls you work with! It's such an easy rule.
    - khedoros1 9y ago
      It's a simple rule. Judging from the number of relationships I see spring up in my workplace, I wouldn't say that it's an easy rule to follow (for some people, anyhow).
      - paganel 9y ago
        > I wouldn't say that it's an easy rule to follow (for some people, anyhow). I stick by the same rule, but other people have not been so smart. Most famous case is Bill Gates, who's now not-happily married to Melinda Gates. Or not. Case in point, it is all debatable and depending on context, like all human interactions, but with witch-hunts like these the context gets totally lost.
        icebraining 9y ago
        Which witch-hunt? The only people being accused seem to have been obviously over all reasonable limits. A side discussion about workplace relationships, without mentioning any names, is not a witch-hunt.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        Why do you think they're actually trying to follow it?
  - kelukelugames 9y ago
    What do you think is not super clear cut? Charlie Rose dry humped people and Weinstein and Louie CK masturbated in front of others.
- gt_ 9y ago
  No, it’s not simple. It is incredibly complicated, and moreso than I can address in thiscomment. But, for one, these are not court trials. These are public relations events.
- jdoliner 9y ago
  You'd be amazed how many of the accused said things very similar to what you're saying, right up until the point when they themselves were accused. It's not simple at all, people who claim it is are missing a great deal of nuance and, oftentimes, merely projecting this attitude in the hopes of masking their own transgressions.
  - ascorbic 9y ago
    Can you point to any of the recent high profile allegations where the accusations are of behavior that was ambiguous? They almost all seem to be totally clear cut cases of inappropriate actions or worse. These aren't mild flirting with a colleague.
- coldtea 9y ago
  And still, most of those who "manage" that, have still done tons of other shit. 2000 years later "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" remains controversial...
sitkack 9y ago
This quote doesn't make it any more right. Argumentum Quotumdumb or Quotis Profundis is a valid debate technique, it but isn't a valid cognitive one.
- westoncb 9y ago
  You have assumed that the parents' motivation is to 'make it more right'—there's nothing they've written which expresses that. The comment seems to me to be a much more interesting statement on how we understand the notions of right and wrong in general. People need to be able to discuss this on a philosophical level without automatically being accused of taking one side or the other.
  - sitkack 9y ago
    Remembering that people are complex and nuanced is a thought terminating truism; this is built into the definition of people. The _italics_ doesn't make your comment more poignant. What the quote was eliciting is the idea that we are, "all flawed" and you should look at yourself before you judge, which is utter bullshit. I am flawed (a person), but I can still judge the others and what is acceptable socially to a higher standard than my own (assumed) actions. To not do so is to enter in a pact where we race to the bottom lest be judged to a higher standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque We each embody multiple simultaneous facets that don't always agree, but they all need to hold society accountable while being individually flawed. And we cannot turn an eye against the flaws for the protection of our selves.
    - westoncb 9y ago
      You are adding too much of your own uses and interpretations to the quote. The compartmentalization of an individual's moral actions is an interesting thing to just know about human nature, and it's not as well known as you might think (your simplification to "people are complex and nuanced" is another matter, and I'd agree wouldn't need to be said). I'd wager the typical opinion on the whole lot of recently accused is that we found some 'evil people'—which presents serious difficulties to those who've found their heroes accused, as has probably come up a number of times in connection with Lasseter, for example. > The _italics_ doesn't make your comment more poignant. Not sure why you thought I was shooting for poignance. I was drawing attention to the fact that your statement was based on an assumption, since that was the most important thing and people like to skim.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

With these scandals, it really is simple: don't sexually harass or assault others. Most of us manage.

westoncb 9y ago
Come on. Even finding a definition of sexual harassment which people can agree on is notoriously difficult. Add to that the fact our society continues to push the idea that the men which women 'really want' are aggressive in initiating sexual situations. A man who does something as timid as asking whether he may kiss a girl can assure himself of inadequacy. (Not that there aren't plenty of exceptions to our media supporting this idea—but it's still implied pervasively. And some of it probably is just human nature.) That said, even if it's not clear exactly where the line is—it's pretty easy to see that certain actions would be far across it, and that's largely what's come up in recent allegations. Though I don't think all of them have been super clear cut. 'Simple' is too strong here.
- rayiner 9y ago
  > Add to that the fact our society continues to push the idea that the men which women 'really want' are aggressive in initiating sexual situations This is a big part of the problem. These sexual harassment allegations are almost entirely arising in contexts where sex should be off the table. Society’s expectations of aggressive male behavior are entirely irrelevant.
  - westoncb 9y ago
    Sure, that makes the formal legal aspect of it simpler (though still not simple—which is my only point here), but consider this: do you think these people in positions of power have ever run into situations where their inferiors desire the same thing? Obviously that's not the case for those making allegations—but don't you suppose there were also situations where these folks were involved in fully consensual situations which crossed the power line? The rules are there to protect the inferiors, but what if in some situations they do not want that protection at all? To say otherwise is to say that no one ever desires their boss, which is obviously wrong. 'Simple' is just not the right word for it.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      Think about it logically rather than emotionally. It’s pretty safe to say that #(women who just want to work and build professional relationships without being propositioned for sex) >> #(women who want to have sex with their boss). Drawing bright-line rules that take sex categorically out of the professional context makes life vastly easier for the former group of women.[1] At slight inconvenience to the latter group. It optimized for the common case. [1] People hate being solicited so much that we created a nationwide donotcall registry for it! And that’s with no power dynamics in play!
      - westoncb 9y ago
        > Think about it logically rather than emotionally. If there was part of my above comment which seemed to you emotionally rather than logically motivated, I'd be happy to clarify it. It seems from your response that you think I'm arguing against having that line drawn (the one which takes sex categorically out of the professional context). So to clarify: that is very very far both from what I have said and how I feel about things. I think that line is very important and absolutely should be in place. But that question is unrelated to the matter of complexity and simplicity which I intended to discuss (though my interlocutors so far have insisted on skirting the subject). For instance—as I already covered in my first comment—is it 'simple' how to define that line?
      - 9y ago
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  This case describes a boss trying to kiss his female coworkers and touch their legs. It's not difficult. It's not the appropriate environment to do that and the power dynamic is wrong, too. People know better.
  - westoncb 9y ago
    You're commenting on a discussion of general principles related to the article's content, and not a sanctioning of nor condemnation of Lasseter's specific behavior. The question is whether the general issue is 'simple' or 'complex'.
    - aaron-lebo 9y ago
      You responded to me. I was stating that not doing what is claimed in this case (kissing, touching - sexual harassment) is simple, and it is. That's obviously not appropriate behavior. Most of these recent scandals include behavior that either isn't appropriate in a work environment or isn't appropriate ever. There's no discussion to be had, not being Harvey Weinstein is easy. Add to that the fact our society continues to push the idea that the men which women 'really want' are aggressive in initiating sexual situations. A man who does something as timid as asking whether he may kiss a girl can assure himself of inadequacy. (Not that there aren't plenty of exceptions to our media supporting this idea—but it's still implied pervasively. And some of it probably is just human nature.) You got into "general principles", which as someone pointed out isn't relevant to a work environment. Superiors don't need to be worried about sexual inadequacy in relation to coworkers. We can say that sexual harassment is is complicated issue, and it is, but there's also behavior that shouldn't be happening by any standard and isn't difficult to avoid.
      - westoncb 9y ago
        Oops, didn't realize you were the same person, and I would've phrased it differently in that case. That said, your statement, "With these scandals, it really is simple: don't sexually harass or assault others." was about the general issue, not the particular one. Additionally, both the parent and grandparent comments are general. > We can say that sexual harassment is is complicated issue, and it is, but there's also behavior that shouldn't be happening by any standard and isn't difficult to avoid. That's pretty much exactly what my comment said.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  No, you come on. What is it, specifically, that you find difficult to not do, especially at the workplace?
  - westoncb 9y ago
    Ha, should've known this would devolve into ad hominem. The discussion is about simplicity vs. complexity, not 'difficulty'. Address any of the points I've made and I'd be happy to discuss.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      This isn't an ad hominem. You're saying that these things are hard, so what is it exactly that you find hard about it?
      - icebraining 9y ago
        You're saying that these things are hard No, nowhere in that post did westoncb say anything was hard to avoid doing.
        s73ver_ 9y ago
        I'm sorry, but their post is still bullshit. It is incredibly easy to not harass and to not assault people. Claiming that things are "tricky" or "unclear" when they're not doesn't help anyone.
- alexqgb 9y ago
  Here's the deal; if you're (a) at work and (b) dealing with subordinates, the correct amount of sex to bring to the relationship is zero. Figuring out "where to draw the line" is no more complicated than deciding how much flirting with your own daughter is appropriate. Seriously, when you're in a position like Lasseter's, the math is SUPER simple.
  - westoncb 9y ago
    And when you are rich and famous, do you suppose the initiation doesn't occasionally start on the side of the subordinate? In that case, they may have some complex thoughts like, "what is the morality behind this rule if we both clearly desire one another, and they've already told me so first?" So now the complexity is at least similar to: do you still follow rules whose spirit seems not to apply to some present case? If the situation actually matched the father/daughter analogy you gave, it would be super simple. Unfortunately it doesn't look like that analogy works.
    - chipotle_coyote 9y ago
      If one person can promote, demote and fire the other, that's a potentially huge can of worms even when the manager isn't starting the relationship off with casual abuse of power. Maybe some of the other complex thoughts should be like, "Can the manager be trusted not to play favorites with their lover?" and "How will the rest of the team react?" and "If this relationship goes south, can they avoid the appearance--and actuality--of retaliation?" There's a reason a sizable minority of companies have HR policies prohibiting office romances between two people in the same reporting chain, and it's not (solely) because HR professionals are big jerky jerk stick-in-the-muds.
    - robotresearcher 9y ago
      The rule is simple. No messing with your employees. Even if they want you to.
    - siidooloo 9y ago
      Why does it matter who initiated it? The correct answer either way is To not get sexually involved with subordinates. There is no moral ambiguity here. It is wrong to abuse a position of power.
- rtpg 9y ago
  People might disagree on the line itself, but many of these cases that are publicized are... if you read the details of the interactions they are clearly way over many reasonable people's lines. We might not need a hard line. An acknowledgement of those that went way over the line is proving to be a huge step forward for society. Hopefully we can be left _only_ with ambiguous cases when they occur. It's not normal for someone known by everyone around them to be a harasser to be able to continue their acts.
  - ebcode 9y ago
    >>It's not normal for someone known by everyone around them to be a harasser to be able to continue their acts. I recommend reading "The missing stair"[0] for an account of how normal this actually is. [0] http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/06/missing-stair.html http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/06/missing-stair.html
    - rtpg 9y ago
      Sorry, I meant to say that it shouldn't be normal. Unfortunately society still has a lot of progress to make.
- ggg9990 9y ago
  Just don't fuck girls you work with! It's such an easy rule.
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    It's a simple rule. Judging from the number of relationships I see spring up in my workplace, I wouldn't say that it's an easy rule to follow (for some people, anyhow).
    - paganel 9y ago
      > I wouldn't say that it's an easy rule to follow (for some people, anyhow). I stick by the same rule, but other people have not been so smart. Most famous case is Bill Gates, who's now not-happily married to Melinda Gates. Or not. Case in point, it is all debatable and depending on context, like all human interactions, but with witch-hunts like these the context gets totally lost.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        Which witch-hunt? The only people being accused seem to have been obviously over all reasonable limits. A side discussion about workplace relationships, without mentioning any names, is not a witch-hunt.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Why do you think they're actually trying to follow it?
- kelukelugames 9y ago
  What do you think is not super clear cut? Charlie Rose dry humped people and Weinstein and Louie CK masturbated in front of others.
gt_ 9y ago
No, it’s not simple. It is incredibly complicated, and moreso than I can address in thiscomment. But, for one, these are not court trials. These are public relations events.
jdoliner 9y ago
You'd be amazed how many of the accused said things very similar to what you're saying, right up until the point when they themselves were accused. It's not simple at all, people who claim it is are missing a great deal of nuance and, oftentimes, merely projecting this attitude in the hopes of masking their own transgressions.
- ascorbic 9y ago
  Can you point to any of the recent high profile allegations where the accusations are of behavior that was ambiguous? They almost all seem to be totally clear cut cases of inappropriate actions or worse. These aren't mild flirting with a colleague.
coldtea 9y ago
And still, most of those who "manage" that, have still done tons of other shit. 2000 years later "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" remains controversial...

sitkack 9y ago

This quote doesn't make it any more right. Argumentum Quotumdumb or Quotis Profundis is a valid debate technique, it but isn't a valid cognitive one.

westoncb 9y ago
You have assumed that the parents' motivation is to 'make it more right'—there's nothing they've written which expresses that. The comment seems to me to be a much more interesting statement on how we understand the notions of right and wrong in general. People need to be able to discuss this on a philosophical level without automatically being accused of taking one side or the other.
- sitkack 9y ago
  Remembering that people are complex and nuanced is a thought terminating truism; this is built into the definition of people. The _italics_ doesn't make your comment more poignant. What the quote was eliciting is the idea that we are, "all flawed" and you should look at yourself before you judge, which is utter bullshit. I am flawed (a person), but I can still judge the others and what is acceptable socially to a higher standard than my own (assumed) actions. To not do so is to enter in a pact where we race to the bottom lest be judged to a higher standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque We each embody multiple simultaneous facets that don't always agree, but they all need to hold society accountable while being individually flawed. And we cannot turn an eye against the flaws for the protection of our selves.
  - westoncb 9y ago
    You are adding too much of your own uses and interpretations to the quote. The compartmentalization of an individual's moral actions is an interesting thing to just know about human nature, and it's not as well known as you might think (your simplification to "people are complex and nuanced" is another matter, and I'd agree wouldn't need to be said). I'd wager the typical opinion on the whole lot of recently accused is that we found some 'evil people'—which presents serious difficulties to those who've found their heroes accused, as has probably come up a number of times in connection with Lasseter, for example. > The _italics_ doesn't make your comment more poignant. Not sure why you thought I was shooting for poignance. I was drawing attention to the fact that your statement was based on an assumption, since that was the most important thing and people like to skim.