5 ms·

No, at a minimum they should have fired all these people for funding a pedophile with their salaries. Absolutely disgusting. > I found support groups where ex-

No, at a minimum they should have fired all these people for funding a pedophile with their salaries. Absolutely disgusting. > I found support groups where ex-members talk about their time in the group, including discussions of sexual abuse and grooming. > Members have described him grooming and sexually assaulting male followers, including minors

24rf24r2f 4y ago
ineedasername 4y ago
I don't think Google could do that when there hasn't been a criminal case. I don't particularly like this situation but I also think it would be problematic to fire employees that were not part of the specific rumored incidents. I'll grant that destructive cults are different than established religions, but firing these workers specifically over the sexual allegations wouldn't be much different than firing an employee who happened to be a deacon in a their local church in a Catholic diocese where the Cardinal abused children.
- dubswithus 4y ago
  Google can fire them and let the lawyers deal with it. Maybe they lose but at least they tried. Fined billions of dollars? Worth it.
mandevil 4y ago
So, does that mean that funding the Roman Catholic Church is a fire-able offense? What about the Southern Baptist Convention? Or Penn State University (at least while Jerry Sandusky was working there)? Or Michigan State (at least while Nassar was there)? Or the BBC (whilst Jimmy Savile was there)? I'm definitely not trying to defend Fellowship of Friends here, just pointing out that a zero tolerance policy for supporting pedophiles pretty quickly falls apart because the successful abusers- those who can consistently abuse lots of people, like Burton, are almost always in a position of power in some organization or another. That's what gives them access and cover to do it to so many victims after all.
- achow 4y ago
  So all the CEOs that were fired due to sexual harassment charges were exception rather than the rule? Don't think so. Somewhere in my employment letter it says, I'm representing the company outside my workplace and work hours as well (that is in personal life too), I can be fired if I bring disrepute to company anytime - ex. drunken brawl in a nightclub.
  - mandevil 4y ago
    Well, the thing is, at least based on the article, Burton- the accused groomer/pedophile/sexual assaulter- does not work for Google. If he did, I'm all for firing him right into the Sun. The article makes no allegations that any of the people employed by Google participated in or covered up the sexual assaults, just that they were members of a organization led by a sexual assaulter. I just get a little antsy about firing people who are not themselves accused of sexual assault- or even accused of direct knowledge and coverup of the assaults, because I don't see a clear and convenient way to differentiate the Fellowship of Friends from the Southern Baptist Convention from the Boy Scouts of America, (unless you want to ban all "cults" and think that can stick). I don't know more about the FoF than what's in the article, but I've done some reading about a similar sexual assault ridden cult, NXIUM, and their the hierarchy was such that clearly some people were assaulting, and some were assaulted (and some were on both sides at different points), and I would want to be damn sure that I was firing people on the assaulting side but not the people on the assaulted side of the line, and for the people who were both... I dunno, really hard question.
    - dubswithus 4y ago
      At the risk of sounding a little heartless, someone that joins a cult is very gullible. How can you be that gullible and still be considered top tier talent? Calling BSA and SBC cults is pure word play on your part. No reasonable person believes these are cults.
      - mandevil 4y ago
        I never called BSA and SBC cults, but I don't think that firing people because they are part of a cult, absent any other evidence of any wrong-doing, is a good idea: it seems like it would only feed into their isolation, sense of persecution, etc. It would be a concrete step that the cult leader can point to about how the world is not to be trusted and pull the flock closer to the leader. As for gullibility: would you support firing anyone who has been the VICTIM of domestic violence? A lot of the ways that cults convince people to stay are similar to the ways that domestic abusers convince their victims to stay, the methods are remarkably similar. So would being a victim of long-running abusive relationship be a sign that one isn't top tier talent in a job? Should all of them be fired? If you find yourself horrified by that idea, then I would suggest that you are being rather too aggressive towards cults, and forgetting that probably a majority of the cults members are more victim than perpetrator, though doubtless many are both to some degree.

24rf24r2f 4y ago

ineedasername 4y ago

I don't think Google could do that when there hasn't been a criminal case. I don't particularly like this situation but I also think it would be problematic to fire employees that were not part of the specific rumored incidents. I'll grant that destructive cults are different than established religions, but firing these workers specifically over the sexual allegations wouldn't be much different than firing an employee who happened to be a deacon in a their local church in a Catholic diocese where the Cardinal abused children.

dubswithus 4y ago
Google can fire them and let the lawyers deal with it. Maybe they lose but at least they tried. Fined billions of dollars? Worth it.

mandevil 4y ago

So, does that mean that funding the Roman Catholic Church is a fire-able offense? What about the Southern Baptist Convention? Or Penn State University (at least while Jerry Sandusky was working there)? Or Michigan State (at least while Nassar was there)? Or the BBC (whilst Jimmy Savile was there)? I'm definitely not trying to defend Fellowship of Friends here, just pointing out that a zero tolerance policy for supporting pedophiles pretty quickly falls apart because the successful abusers- those who can consistently abuse lots of people, like Burton, are almost always in a position of power in some organization or another. That's what gives them access and cover to do it to so many victims after all.

achow 4y ago
So all the CEOs that were fired due to sexual harassment charges were exception rather than the rule? Don't think so. Somewhere in my employment letter it says, I'm representing the company outside my workplace and work hours as well (that is in personal life too), I can be fired if I bring disrepute to company anytime - ex. drunken brawl in a nightclub.
- mandevil 4y ago
  Well, the thing is, at least based on the article, Burton- the accused groomer/pedophile/sexual assaulter- does not work for Google. If he did, I'm all for firing him right into the Sun. The article makes no allegations that any of the people employed by Google participated in or covered up the sexual assaults, just that they were members of a organization led by a sexual assaulter. I just get a little antsy about firing people who are not themselves accused of sexual assault- or even accused of direct knowledge and coverup of the assaults, because I don't see a clear and convenient way to differentiate the Fellowship of Friends from the Southern Baptist Convention from the Boy Scouts of America, (unless you want to ban all "cults" and think that can stick). I don't know more about the FoF than what's in the article, but I've done some reading about a similar sexual assault ridden cult, NXIUM, and their the hierarchy was such that clearly some people were assaulting, and some were assaulted (and some were on both sides at different points), and I would want to be damn sure that I was firing people on the assaulting side but not the people on the assaulted side of the line, and for the people who were both... I dunno, really hard question.
  - dubswithus 4y ago
    At the risk of sounding a little heartless, someone that joins a cult is very gullible. How can you be that gullible and still be considered top tier talent? Calling BSA and SBC cults is pure word play on your part. No reasonable person believes these are cults.
    - mandevil 4y ago
      I never called BSA and SBC cults, but I don't think that firing people because they are part of a cult, absent any other evidence of any wrong-doing, is a good idea: it seems like it would only feed into their isolation, sense of persecution, etc. It would be a concrete step that the cult leader can point to about how the world is not to be trusted and pull the flock closer to the leader. As for gullibility: would you support firing anyone who has been the VICTIM of domestic violence? A lot of the ways that cults convince people to stay are similar to the ways that domestic abusers convince their victims to stay, the methods are remarkably similar. So would being a victim of long-running abusive relationship be a sign that one isn't top tier talent in a job? Should all of them be fired? If you find yourself horrified by that idea, then I would suggest that you are being rather too aggressive towards cults, and forgetting that probably a majority of the cults members are more victim than perpetrator, though doubtless many are both to some degree.