4 ms·

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

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.
    - bawolff 4y ago
      > How can you be that gullible and still be considered top tier talent? Easily? I don't think there is any reason to think people good at programming are any less susciptible to being manipulated than anyone else.
dubswithus 4y ago
Wouldn’t you say a large organization with a hierarchy has a higher chance of making a change than one cult leader? I don’t see much similarity between this person and the Catholic church. As to the cases you mention no one knew about their crimes because no one came forward. When someone did come forward the police pursued the perpetrator. So firing someone involved wouldn’t have had an effect because the perpetrator was already in jail. Google has a chance to do something if it finds the reports credible.
- mandevil 4y ago
  First of all, plenty of people did come forward, in the Nassar case, the Penn State case, the Catholic Church cases, the SBC, they were just basically ignored. The FBI has done multiple investigations of how they f'd up the Nassar case so horrifically, and plenty of women stepped forward under their own name and accused people high up in the SBC of assaulting them, everyone just ignored them, treated them as problems to be silenced rather than investigated. This is definitely a case where more investigation is warranted. But second of all, most of the accused are not in jail. The infamous SBC list of 700 names were mostly open-source people involved in criminal charges (though some civil charges were also included) but plenty of people who credibly covered up other people's sexual assaults (about the worst thing that could be imagined for Lubbers, based on this article- and to be clear this article does not accuse him of that) are not in jail. Paige Patterson, for example, is not in jail. In fact, he preached at one of the most prominent SBC churches- 1st Baptist in Dallas- the Sunday after the Guidepost report came out. Patterson was fired from SWBTC after being credibly accused of covering-up a sexual assault 15 years earlier, which is definitely something that I would support if evidence emerges that Lubbers did that sort of thing. But without that evidence, I'm just not sure if Lubbers is more victim or violator, you know?
lenkite 4y ago
Your argument looks like a weird straw-man argument. Are those organisations you mention explicitly supporting groomers and padeophiles ? All the folks involved have been fired and/or convicted when crimes have been discovered and publicised. The same is now expected of Google.

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.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    > How can you be that gullible and still be considered top tier talent? Easily? I don't think there is any reason to think people good at programming are any less susciptible to being manipulated than anyone else.

dubswithus 4y ago

Wouldn’t you say a large organization with a hierarchy has a higher chance of making a change than one cult leader? I don’t see much similarity between this person and the Catholic church. As to the cases you mention no one knew about their crimes because no one came forward. When someone did come forward the police pursued the perpetrator. So firing someone involved wouldn’t have had an effect because the perpetrator was already in jail. Google has a chance to do something if it finds the reports credible.

mandevil 4y ago
First of all, plenty of people did come forward, in the Nassar case, the Penn State case, the Catholic Church cases, the SBC, they were just basically ignored. The FBI has done multiple investigations of how they f'd up the Nassar case so horrifically, and plenty of women stepped forward under their own name and accused people high up in the SBC of assaulting them, everyone just ignored them, treated them as problems to be silenced rather than investigated. This is definitely a case where more investigation is warranted. But second of all, most of the accused are not in jail. The infamous SBC list of 700 names were mostly open-source people involved in criminal charges (though some civil charges were also included) but plenty of people who credibly covered up other people's sexual assaults (about the worst thing that could be imagined for Lubbers, based on this article- and to be clear this article does not accuse him of that) are not in jail. Paige Patterson, for example, is not in jail. In fact, he preached at one of the most prominent SBC churches- 1st Baptist in Dallas- the Sunday after the Guidepost report came out. Patterson was fired from SWBTC after being credibly accused of covering-up a sexual assault 15 years earlier, which is definitely something that I would support if evidence emerges that Lubbers did that sort of thing. But without that evidence, I'm just not sure if Lubbers is more victim or violator, you know?

lenkite 4y ago

Your argument looks like a weird straw-man argument. Are those organisations you mention explicitly supporting groomers and padeophiles ? All the folks involved have been fired and/or convicted when crimes have been discovered and publicised. The same is now expected of Google.