PseudoSABR

I'd counter with: it's rarely gray. In any employment/student misconduct situation there are cases that fall in the gray area. I don't think sexual harassment presents any more gray area than say plagiarism. In fact plagiarism is a good touchstone, in that educational institutions need to make it a priority to educate students about what plagiarism is and where there's any confusion on your part, don't do it. As ashbury indicates, the solution to not getting in trouble for sexual harassment is exceedingly simple: stay away from the line/the gray area. If you suspect your compliment to a coworker might be sexual harassment, don't say "Damn girl, that dress looks good on you!" If you don't think it could be construed as sexual harassment, go ahead and say, "That's a cool dress, Rita!" Of course things like word-choice, intent, and relationship of the sayer and sayee all matter. That's why no work place or school has an one-allegation and you're done rule. Again, hypotheticals are obviously more gray than any actual allegation; so let's avoid parsing them.

What is your point again? (That because it's not simple every time, why even have a policy at all? Or because one hypothetical might be ambiguous, false accusation will be rampant, and we must protect the powerful men?!) It can absolutely be harassment to comment on appearance, but the comment nick proffered, standing by itself, no reasonable person will believe constitutes harassment. However, if such comments are always made by the alleged harasser, and always directed at the alleged victim, and are combined with other advances, sure. There's some gray area, but only often in terms of what we pre-select as what might constitute harassment, but when it comes to an actual harassment allegation, there will be real facts and history and culture that help us determine whether or not its harassment. And the determination in the vast majority of cases will, indeed, be pretty simple. The thing is, dudes that sexually harass women will try to toe the line and keep doing what they are doing--it's their intent that in problematic, along with their behavior and what they say. If it's ambiguous, its worthy of an investigation. And the ambiguity may indeed work against men, as the opposite fosters the very culture we are trying to change. Typically, sexual harassment doesn't result in someone losing their job. Esp. the 'that's a nice dress' variety. Companies have process for dealing with first, second, third allegations about the same person. Will such process stop all false-accusations from having some appreciable affect? No. But it will have the affect of stemming the systematic sexual harassment that does take place. All that said, there's plenty of comments and behaviors that perhaps don't rise to level of sexual harassment but are nonetheless sexists and would have the potential to make women feel uncomfortable. Awkward dude should ask himself, would I make this same comment to a male coworker? If the answer is no, that's a clue. If the answer is yes, it still may not be cool. There's nothing wrong with putting a burden on dudes to shape their behavior; in fact, that's the whole point.

For another take on due process and sexual assault standards both on campus and off, there's this.

Nothing about #metoo takes away confidentiality. She spoke in confidence with those she trusted.If you mean you would have preferred the matter be handled internally--well, that's been modus operandi for decades, and yet we obviously still have a systemic problem with sexual harassment/assault. These aren't just a few bad apples; the problem is cultural, social, structural, and it is exacerbated by those who wish to keep this kind of information from public view.

Thanks for this articulate, thoughtful post.

To reverse your absurd analogy. What if your neighbor is smoking pot, or even dealing it? Do you still have moral duty to report? (This isn't meant to be fair question, but nor is your murder example, which is sensational, and intended to force the answer you seek). Investigations and trials themselves are not innocent processes that have costs, especially to those traumatized. You can't lay claim to any moral high ground and not acknowledge those costs to the very people we're supposedly trying to protect.

The criminal justice system is NOT the answer to the problem of systemic sexual assault/misconduct. Most sexual assaults--esp. without penetration--leave little hard evidence, beyond the testimony of a shaken victim. The high burden of proof necessary to prove guilt is very hard to overcome based only on the testimony of traumatized victim. What the answer often is is to shut-up and listen to victims, and to acknowledge one's own role either in saying nothing or in laying the groundwork where the credibility of the victim is the focus rather then the actions of the perpetrator.

How would we make the determination of incompetence anyway? Is anything short of netting Darvish incompetent? I think it's pretty clear the Twins are serious in their desire to retain Darvish's services; they may not, however, have the resources--or be willing to assign such a share of their resources--to obtain Darvish's services. But I don't see how anyone can credibly question their competency or their seriousness at this stage.

via Heyman's Inside Baseball.

https://twitter.com/JimBowdenGM/status/943274669603516416

Terms are more favorable than first reported. In any case, isn't Rodney still on the mound pitching in game 163? I didn't know he was available.

Bleh,

When these moves work out, people freak out about why the Twins don't make these kind of moves. When the Twins make these kind of moves, people freak out about the risk they won't work out.

But who watches the watchers, er, moderates the mods? Thanks for keeping this place tidy and dolling out only the most deserved infraction points.

Be specific. Since you're privy enough to judge, what is it they could have done better? This criticism ignores that Ohtani's choice seems to be regional. The whole walk-the-talk criticism is context-deaf, and awfully blowhard.

Now do we trade the Int'l pool money or sign some former Brave prospects...

Why would any team acquire Santana while giving up pitching? Santana has more value to the pitching-hungry Twins than other pitching-hungry teams, as the Twins are closer to contention. The teams that are more competitive than the Twins, seek better pitchers than Santana, and would rather give up dollars than player-assets. The only kind of trade I could see working would involve the Twins taking on money, say Santana, etc. for Price or Lester, who have their own warts and far worse contracts.

The idea of a third catcher is to safeguard against an injury should you pinch hit. You can't throw any position player behind the plate like you can at first base or in the outfield.

It's also possible that they acquired Jaime Garcia in mind knowing the possibility that they would move him (pay his salary and obtain a better return) was very high. The Twins scuffled at the same time the Indians and the Royals (who faded down the stretch) got very hot. I doubt its a case of the Falvey/Levine changing their minds about the Twins ability to contend, so much as certain contingency came about which they had anticipated and made good on. Swapping Ynoa for Little and Enns, acquired two near ready arms for one not ready anytime soon arm. That outcome wasn't possible without Jaime Garcia and his salary--regardless of the Twins likelihood of contention at the time of either move.

Why would the Padres sell Lamet one year into his serfdom?

Just watched that highlight where the camera can't get Gardner into frame on that Joe Mauer liner to left field with two on. Did he really catch it? What was the cameraman's name? The producer's? The ghost of Phil Cuzzi haunts us.

Very proud of our club. It was too bad not see Sano and Buxton finish this game, but makes me imagine the good things to come.

It's funny, because I wonder what the hot take on starting Severino is... It's easy to second guess decisions, when the team lacks the assets to make an impervious decision. There's plenty of blame to spread around, but I don't fault Molitor for starting Santana.

So you would have started Berrios?