3 ms·

Isn't this exactly the problem we're seeing in sexual harassment and sexaul assault cases outside of politics, though? Simply put, some institutions have judge

Isn't this exactly the problem we're seeing in sexual harassment and sexaul assault cases outside of politics, though? Simply put, some institutions have judged that the pros of keeping a sexual harasser around outweigh the cons. For example, the Uber harassers were swept under a rug by HR because they were "high performers."

rectang 9y ago
No, I disagree with that black-and-white approach. Those are both examples of tradeoffs, true -- but it is entirely possible to come to different conclusions based on specific circumstances. There are many shades of grey -- from nearly black to nearly white and everything in between -- and it is possible to discern between them. And in that context, although I would never vote for Roy Moore, I can understand why many Republicans might.
- kendallpark 9y ago
  Could you explain how my approach is black and white? I'm stating that institutions weigh the tradeoffs, which is a pretty neutral statement. I know people that hated Trump but voted for him anyway because they had huge reservations about Clinton, they wanted to make the most of a Republican majority in the House and Senate, etc. These decisions depended on their own values and their projections of what the future would hold. To continue the Uber example, it may have been in Uber's best financial short-term interest to keep "high productivity" devs around, regardless of harassment issues. But it might not be in their best interest in the long-term because of issues of toxic company culture or fear public outcry. Some would also argue that there is a moral responsibility in play as well. These factors are all being weighed by institutions and the outcome seems to depend on the collective values of that group. That said, the poll cited above shows that the majority of his supporters don't even believe in the allegations. The ability of people to choose to disbelieve things based on what benefits your institution is supremely disturbing. It's nothing new in the history of humanity. But I'm worried more people will be emboldened to use conspiracy defenses in the future, given how well it seems to be working for Moore.
  - rectang 9y ago
    > I'm stating that institutions weigh the tradeoffs, which is a pretty neutral statement. But you cite that as a "problem" in your previous comment: > Isn't this exactly the problem we're seeing in sexual harassment and sexual assault cases outside of politics, though? Decision making based on tradeoffs and acknowledgment of human frailties is better than decision making based on unrealistic absolute categorizations. (For instance, we'd all be better off if we acknowledged that humans tend to be prejudiced, because we're designed that way by evolution -- as opposed to the "racist/not-racist" dichotomy that drives current discussion. But it will be a long time before society ever arrives at a consensus on that...)

rectang 9y ago

No, I disagree with that black-and-white approach. Those are both examples of tradeoffs, true -- but it is entirely possible to come to different conclusions based on specific circumstances. There are many shades of grey -- from nearly black to nearly white and everything in between -- and it is possible to discern between them. And in that context, although I would never vote for Roy Moore, I can understand why many Republicans might.

kendallpark 9y ago
Could you explain how my approach is black and white? I'm stating that institutions weigh the tradeoffs, which is a pretty neutral statement. I know people that hated Trump but voted for him anyway because they had huge reservations about Clinton, they wanted to make the most of a Republican majority in the House and Senate, etc. These decisions depended on their own values and their projections of what the future would hold. To continue the Uber example, it may have been in Uber's best financial short-term interest to keep "high productivity" devs around, regardless of harassment issues. But it might not be in their best interest in the long-term because of issues of toxic company culture or fear public outcry. Some would also argue that there is a moral responsibility in play as well. These factors are all being weighed by institutions and the outcome seems to depend on the collective values of that group. That said, the poll cited above shows that the majority of his supporters don't even believe in the allegations. The ability of people to choose to disbelieve things based on what benefits your institution is supremely disturbing. It's nothing new in the history of humanity. But I'm worried more people will be emboldened to use conspiracy defenses in the future, given how well it seems to be working for Moore.
- rectang 9y ago
  > I'm stating that institutions weigh the tradeoffs, which is a pretty neutral statement. But you cite that as a "problem" in your previous comment: > Isn't this exactly the problem we're seeing in sexual harassment and sexual assault cases outside of politics, though? Decision making based on tradeoffs and acknowledgment of human frailties is better than decision making based on unrealistic absolute categorizations. (For instance, we'd all be better off if we acknowledged that humans tend to be prejudiced, because we're designed that way by evolution -- as opposed to the "racist/not-racist" dichotomy that drives current discussion. But it will be a long time before society ever arrives at a consensus on that...)