Tidal wave of sexual assault-misconduct allegations list

[_DoubtingThomas]

Given that it is widely understood that acknowledging a victims pain and suffering (especially from the perpetrator) is an important step in the healing process and since Nassar seems wholy unrepentant of his crimes it is good that at least the judge can do her part.

You're right that you wouldn't say "he is gone forever" but you probably also wouldn't say "oh he isn't actually dead". There has to be some acceptance of what actually happened in order to move on.

Acknowledging the victims pain and suffering is important, but I wouldn't use words like "taking away their innocence", it sounds like the Book of Mormon scripture Moroni 9:9.

If I were the judge I would have said "You have cause a great deal of pain and suffering, but your victims will heal and grow together". Saying things like "their innocence and youth are gone forever" isn't probably wise.

[_Res Ipsa]

Burns Strider, Hillary Clinton Faith Adisor and Campaign aide. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/u ... es/1736218

Faith Advisor, protected from firing by Clinton. SMH.

[Guest]

Burns Strider, Hillary Clinton Faith Adisor and Campaign aide. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/u ... es/1736218

Faith Advisor, protected from firing by Clinton. SMH.

I don't know what he exactly did, but harassment is not the unforgivable sin. Harassers can't be without a job forever.

[_Xenophon]

I don't know what he exactly did, but harassment is not the unforgivable sin. Intolerance really isn't a good thing. Harassers can't be without a job. I see nothing wrong on Clinton's part other than just politics.

You don't see why Hillary Clinton, a presidential candidate that hoped to champion women's issues, should have distanced herself from a man who touched/kissed a women without permission and sent multiple suggestive emails to her (Strider in this case, as she was also warned about Weinstein)? Also, if a human being is unable to not harass co-workers, sexual or otherwise, they can be without a job. Do you honestly think people should have to tolerate a hostile work environment because the harasser has bills to pay?

[_MissTish]

Harassers can't be without a job.

Why?

[_DoubtingThomas]

You don't see why Hillary Clinton, a presidential candidate that hoped to champion women's issues

Yes for political reasons, but politics is mostly bull$***.

Also, if a human being is unable to not harass co-workers, sexual or otherwise, they can be without a job. Do you honestly think people should have to tolerate a hostile work environment because the harasser has bills to pay?

Wait wait! So if a man harassed a woman five years ago, he doesn't deserve to work again anywhere? I do agree harassers should be fired (well depending on how serious the offence was), but it doesn't mean harassers shouldn't get a second chance.

Do you honestly think people should have to tolerate a hostile work environment because the harasser has bills to pay?

Not saying harassers should be placed in a position of authority, but not having a job only increases crime. Jobs do help reduce crime. If you don't want more crime give someone a job.

Read What Biology Can Teach Us About Crime and Justice by Nathan H. Lents and Lila
https://www.skeptic.com/magazine/

[_DoubtingThomas]

Harassers can't be without a job.

Why?

Should harassers be fired for serious offences? Yes. But should they be without a job? No
Why? Because unemployment is a bigger threat to society. Terrorists, dangerous drug cartels, violent gangs are formed due to unemployment.

Read

What Biology Can Teach Us About Crime and Justice by Nathan H. Lents and Lila
https://www.skeptic.com/magazine/

[_DoubtingThomas]

Unemployment is a serious threat to society. So no, we can't afford to have harassers without a job. Should they be fired? Of course, but not for a harassment that happened years ago.

"Can Employment Reduce Lawlessness and Rebellion? A Field Experiment with High-Risk Men in a Fragile State"
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... AD6E999213

[_Xenophon]

DT, it is pretty obvious you didn't read the article about this so let me TL:DR it for you-

• Strider harassed a fellow campaign worker
• Worker files complaint through proper channels
• Campaign investigates and recommends that Strider should be fired because of his actions
• Clinton steps in and instead Strider retains his position and woman that complains is moved somewhere else

No one is talking about him never working again, just suggesting that he should have been let go in this instance.

Wait wait! So if a man harassed a woman five years ago, he doesn't deserve to work again anywhere?

I never suggested anything like your above comment. Not harassing people is a condition of employment though. If you harass people, an organization is well within their rights to not employ you and if you have a consistent history of repeated offenses I firmly believe in an organization's right not to hire you. That isn't exactly an out there comment though.

[_DoubtingThomas]

I firmly believe in an organization's right not to hire you. That isn't exactly an out there comment though.

Do you feel the same for ex-convicts with a bad history?

What Biology Can Teach Us About Crime and Justice by Nathan H. Lents and Lila https://www.skeptic.com/magazine/

But thankfully harassers don't have a high rate of repeated offense after being fired/punished. It's true. So it really doesn't matter. I will share the statistic when I find it.

Strider harassed a fellow campaign worker

How serious was it? You believe all harassment should result in immediate termination without warning?

No one is talking about him never working again

Okay good!