591–600 of 613 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why bother? It’s much easier not trying for anything like that. You can live a comfortable life without ever trying to make waves. Leave politics to the psychopaths.
You don't have to go into politics to be cancelled. You just need any kind of notoriety.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why didn't they simply ask Noah to stop making sexual advances at “work events” if it was really a pervasive problem Wizard's had a business relationship with him and were liable for his behavior. They didn't owe him anything. Your company isn't your friend, if you want a friend buy a dog.
It doesn't work that way. Companies are not liable for the alleged misconduct of their employees unless we're talking about specifically being on the job/clock when the misconduct occurred. Given Noah contracted, the company isn't liable in the first place and even if he were an employee, I doubt what Noah does at parties (I have found no references to the problematic behavior happening at specifically work events) i…
It's not alleged, he published a written apology.
> I doubt what Noah does at parties (I have found no references to the problematic behavior happening at specifically work events)
These weren't random private parties, these were work & industry events. Yes companies do not want their employees to be sexually inappropriate with other employees, vendors and community members at their conference's and workshops.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author acknowledged that he was an asshole and did things that were inappropriate, thats why he apologized... You are creating a straw-man not reflective of this scenario.
The whole problem is that Twitter crusaders created a false reality in the first place. It's not super productive to speculate on the details--we don't know them. What we do know is that no legal action was taken. Given the outburst, one would imagine there would be a lawyer willing to help the alleged victims press charges had any real problems existed.
By his own written published apology he acted inappropriately. Real problems existed thats why he apologized. That no one sued him for tort is irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't work that way. Companies are not liable for the alleged misconduct of their employees unless we're talking about specifically being on the job/clock when the misconduct occurred. Given Noah contracted, the company isn't liable in the first place and even if he were an employee, I doubt what Noah does at parties (I have found no references to the problematic behavior happening at specifically work events) i…
> Companies are not liable for the alleged misconduct It's not alleged, he published a written apology. > I doubt what Noah does at parties (I have found no references to the problematic behavior happening at specifically work events) These weren't random private parties, these were work & industry events. Yes companies do not want their employees to be sexually inappropriate with other employees, vendors and communi…
The point is it's not legally problematic. He apologized because some people said he was being inappropriate. We have no evidence that there was actually sexual harassment by any legal definition of the term. There's nuance here.
> These weren't random private parties, these were work & industry events
Do you have a citation on that last part? I can't find any info indicating they were work sponsored events with vendors and the like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole problem is that Twitter crusaders created a false reality in the first place. It's not super productive to speculate on the details--we don't know them. What we do know is that no legal action was taken. Given the outburst, one would imagine there would be a lawyer willing to help the alleged victims press charges had any real problems existed.
> What we do know is that no legal action was taken. Given the outburst, one would imagine there would be a lawyer willing to help the alleged victims press charges had any real problems existed. By his own written published apology he acted inappropriately. Real problems existed thats why he apologized. That no one sued him for tort is irrelevant.
It's a very similar situation: Noah liked to be forward with people. It wasn't a problem. Later, somebody decided Noah was too forward. Noah apologized. What's missing (unless you know more than I do) is the determination that Noah committed real sexual harassment. A "sorry I was inappropriate" is not the same as "this man harassed women in problematic ways".
If Noah had actually committed sexual harassment there would be legal ramifications because sexual harassment is a real problem that society cares about. For me the distinction between social justice and legal justice matters. If a mob is free to extol its own judgement on people, then we do not have justice. We have mob rule.
What's interesting is that if Noah had been convicted of sexual harassment and served his punishment, then it would be illegal in e.g. California for any company to weigh that information into future hiring decisions. So Noah is actually more damned for simply apologizing and trying to do the "right thing" than he would have been if he denied the allegations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Companies are not liable for the alleged misconduct It's not alleged, he published a written apology. > I doubt what Noah does at parties (I have found no references to the problematic behavior happening at specifically work events) These weren't random private parties, these were work & industry events. Yes companies do not want their employees to be sexually inappropriate with other employees, vendors and communi…
> It's not alleged, he published a written apology. The point is it's not legally problematic. He apologized because some people said he was being inappropriate. We have no evidence that there was actually sexual harassment by any legal definition of the term. There's nuance here. > These weren't random private parties, these were work & industry events Do you have a citation on that last part? I can't find any info…
https://www.hipstersofthecoast.com/2020/06/noah-bradley-admi...
> He apologized because some people said he was being inappropriate. We have no evidence that there was actually sexual harassment by any legal definition of the term.
His apology is Screenshoted in the above link.
"I was terrible to women. I preyed on them, I ceaselessly hit on them, I pressured them into sex. Yes I was one of those creepy sexual predators you hear about".
You really think this doesn't meet definition of sexual harassment? It seems pretty clear he admits to "unwelcome sexual advances" and creating "a hostile or offensive work environment" https://www.eeoc.gov/sexual-harassment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What we do know is that no legal action was taken. Given the outburst, one would imagine there would be a lawyer willing to help the alleged victims press charges had any real problems existed. By his own written published apology he acted inappropriately. Real problems existed thats why he apologized. That no one sued him for tort is irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant when we're talking about social policy and one's ability to perform services for a company. A company can't fire you because you voted for candidate X. They can't fire you for saying you support candidate X's agenda, either. It doesn't matter if a bunch of people consider such an action inappropriate and you later apologize for associating with candidate X because you have come to see things diffe…
"I was terrible to women. I preyed on them, I ceaselessly hit on them, I pressured them into sex. Yes I was one of those creepy sexual predators you hear about"[1]
He clearly admits to harassing women in problematic ways, for which his employer fired him[2]. It's pretty bizarre that you think it's not "real sexual harassment" because he wasn't sued. Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit? They are an incredible pain the ass for both sides. I know I personally wouldn't want to waste 2+ years of my life on one for something like this.
[1]https://www.hipstersofthecoast.com/2020/06/noah-bradley-admi...
[2]https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/statement...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not irrelevant when we're talking about social policy and one's ability to perform services for a company. A company can't fire you because you voted for candidate X. They can't fire you for saying you support candidate X's agenda, either. It doesn't matter if a bunch of people consider such an action inappropriate and you later apologize for associating with candidate X because you have come to see things diffe…
> "sorry I was inappropriate" is not the same as "this man harassed women in problematic ways". "I was terrible to women. I preyed on them, I ceaselessly hit on them, I pressured them into sex. Yes I was one of those creepy sexual predators you hear about"[1] He clearly admits to harassing women in problematic ways, for which his employer fired him[2]. It's pretty bizarre that you think it's not "real sexual harassme…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have never been a sexual predator and will commit to never being one in the future. This is something I would wager the vast, vast majority of the public can commit to too. This is not something weird or out of the ordinary.
Or you just haven't realized which actions you've taken are predatory yet.
To quote Cardinal Richelieu, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
This behavior really has nothing to do with the nature of the crime at hand; it's been used to discriminate against people by race, by gender, by interest, by religion - by just about anything. Giving human beings the ability to arbitrarily punish other humans, without recourse, is obscenely dangerous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not irrelevant when we're talking about social policy and one's ability to perform services for a company. A company can't fire you because you voted for candidate X. They can't fire you for saying you support candidate X's agenda, either. It doesn't matter if a bunch of people consider such an action inappropriate and you later apologize for associating with candidate X because you have come to see things diffe…
> "sorry I was inappropriate" is not the same as "this man harassed women in problematic ways". "I was terrible to women. I preyed on them, I ceaselessly hit on them, I pressured them into sex. Yes I was one of those creepy sexual predators you hear about"[1] He clearly admits to harassing women in problematic ways, for which his employer fired him[2]. It's pretty bizarre that you think it's not "real sexual harassme…
That's the point. It shouldn't be easy to call someone creepy and get them fired. If it really is such a problem then you should be willing to take the legal route. Invoking mob justice is a rash shortcut. I don't care if the mob "got it right" or not. It's not how we do justice. If I go shoot people who appear to be the type that have committed a crime, it doesn't matter if I happen to usually "get it right" and only hurt criminals. I'm still a vigilante operating in an extrajudicial capacity and engaging in activity that endangers people.
I take Noah's original statement with context. He says in the article we're discussing here that he doesn't believe he worded the apology correctly. He might legitimately be a creep. But I also know what it's like to be in a situation where suddenly a bunch of people have formed a very negative opinion about you and are interested in publicly demonstrating as much. The threat of losing friends, the respect of peers, etc., is very real and the desire to simply admit perceived guilt and try to damage control is strong and causes rash behavior. With respect to this thread, I'm trying to process Noah's reflection on the events, not the "in the moment" stuff from last year. It sounds like Noah is at a point on his personal journey where he understands people's reactions but doesn't believe events played out in a just manner, all things considered.
Taking things one level up, if Noah is guilty of sexual assault, it should be abundantly clear to him in the form of a conviction. I don't think it's a great situation to be in where it's not clear what actually happened and the door is left open for Noah (and/or others) to interpret events however he (they) wants. We potentially have an unpunished/unregistered sexual predator hanging out. Not good.
Have you ever met a narcissist? Without external input, given enough time, they will bend the interpretation of any scenario into one where they are not truly guilty. I have no idea if Noah fits that bill, but when I think of people who do, no friendly discussion is going to convince them of their errors despite how they act in the moment. You need the law to step in and lay down the gavel.