TheLeviathan

I'd feel better about it if they, you know, talked to each other about it maybe, possibly happening.

Who said it was? That's your strawman. Perhaps you'll stop knocking it down now? Someone literally pushed back against that not 15 posts ago. Which has led to your ongoing series of strawmen. "Official" approaches to this issue have been largely ineffective, which is in part what has evoked this response. Yes, they offer punitive measures but they are slow, difficult, and don't really solve problems. Someone found officially guilty of sexual harassment in the work place just takes their terrible behavior to the next stop. Nothing changes. Social media has proven to be far more effective. But like anything powerful, it's ability to be constructive vs. destructive is in the hands of the user. (or users in this case, which perhaps makes it even more dangerous, much less the element of anonymity) Social media is not known for it's propensity to consider context and situational, case-by-case information, yet we are driving the change through that medium. Hence my post. And I'll repeat my original caution - we have to be careful not to blur lines and keep perspective. Habits won't change by eviscerating people - unofficially or officially. Habits change through re-education and pushing people to better themselves. Not destroying them. It also doesn't help to zealously pile on to anyone who wants a nuanced position on this. One would think liberals, of all walks of people, would have learned a few lessons lately about the danger of aggressive group think.

I'm not worried about company policies. They have far less bite than social media. Awkward people cannot "get up to speed" if one offense leads to their cultural/social evisceration. Again, we should be careful not to blur lines when we talk about these things. Real change will happen with nuance, re-education, and a dedicated effort to become better, not with zeal to sound like we're on the right side.

In your zeal to line up with your tribe you removed all context from the discussion. I didn't parse them. Carole did. I basically said "word-choice, intent, relationship (and many other factors) matter" and we shouldn't blur the lines between all interactions so we lose sight of that. Carole then responded that many men masquerade behind those very same things in order to harass and assault. And they do. What she said isn't false. And neither is what I said - sometimes awkward is a ruse, sometimes it's just plain awkward. Sometimes "Nice dress today Rita" is a compliment. Sometimes it's a masquerade for some creep. What's the solution for this mish-mash? Outlaw awkwardness? Script conversations? Are people allowed to make mistakes? I don't deny Carole's point at all, that's a true thing. But why is that a rebuttal to what I said? What are we supposed to do with it? Shame the awkward? Who is in charge of educating people on reading social ques? I made the point that not every interaction where one party feels offended, or that something inappropriate was done, is an example of something (like harassment or assault) that we should eviscerate the person for. Many of those interactions are simply mistakes, personality conflicts, etc.. The mistakes that happen all the time when humans interact with each other. We can't get better at our interactions if every clumsy or poor interaction is treated as some heinous act. Human interactions are complicated. They are not simple. Can you work to avoid the line? Absolutely. Do you cross it with some people with absolutely no ill intent to do so? Absolutely. Then we apologize for it, work to be better about it, and move on. But if we don't allow people to recognize some of these issues are just mistakes, help them atone, and improve.....what the hell is the point of this?

That's my point. That it's rarely "simple". I'm not talking about formal sexual harassment proceedings in a court or a company. Please read context. This conversation started when Carole responded to my suggestion that sometimes interactions are not meant to cause harm, but stem from a host of human reasons from being awkward, to emotional, to stupid, to drunk, to misreading signals, to just plain poor phrasing. We shouldn't blur all interactions where one party feels something inappropriate happened into one big pile that we tar, feather, and banish. None of those reasons make the person inherently awful. And few of us would be safe from condemnation if such a standard was leveled against us all. Nick, in an effort to prove how easy it is to avoid being inappropriate used one of the most common masquerades in the workplace to make a sexual comment come off as a compliment. Should we tar, feather, and banish Nick? Probably not. I'd vote no, but I'm the one trying to have nuance here, so I'm not sure I get a vote. Yes, many creeps masquerade their comments behind awkwardness. They also masquerade them behind compliments. Figuring out whether someone is a creep or just had a bad moment is important. Otherwise all we'll generate out of this is confusion, when we should be striving to act better as human beings. (And especially as men)

Not really. How many links would you like from feminists decrying the male tendency to comment on their appearance at work? If you do a few quick google searches you'll see I literally have dozens of them at my disposal. Do I think it's "sexual harassment" in every instance. Probably not. Do I think it toes an awfully fuzzy line between appropriate and inappropriate? Hell yes. Which goes against this bizarre notion of how "simple" the distinctions are. To put it in Carole's terms: "I like your dress/pants/blouse" is frequently nothing more than a masquerade.

Alcohol is an unfortunate part of this equation as well. That's not an excuse, just a reality. We keep trying to simplify this, but that's really naive IMO. If the bar for being tarred, feathered, and banished to some island is to have, at any point just one time, said something taken as inappropriate.....few of us will survive such a test. We have all looked the other way when someone said it too, which doesn't seem much better. Or we ourselves have done it through some combination of stupidity, awkwardness, drunkeness, poor phrasing, poor taste, misread signals, or any number of other things that happen. Humans are complicated beings and when you throw in the complications of sex, emotion, language, office politics, being young, being poorly parented, or any other number of factors.....well, I think I feel safe saying this isn't "simple". That isn't to say we shrug our shoulders and move on. Far from it, it's precisely because it's so complicated that it will take extra time and effort to improve. Pretending it's simple only makes solving it more cumbersome. And, as I said at the beginning, it isn't the blurring that what was said wasn't wrong. It can be wrong, but that person who is wrong for being awkward deserves a different response than the person who forces you to have sex with them to keep your job. That can't be blurred and frequently is in this conversation.

Well...it has on college campuses. I would encourage you to read that author's entire series. I think some of the lessons we can take away from that well-intentioned, but misguided attempt to be "tough on sexual assault" are illuminating to this conversation. I have been in and around enough relationships to know that things are rarely simple when we mix flawed human beings, emotions, and sex. It's worth keeping in mind as we discuss this because we should make sure we don't blur lines between abhorrent sexual assault and some awkward schmuck who tries and fails at a pick-up line.

Earlier you had brought up the college campus rules and we should be careful about those. They demand continuous consent, which opens the door to the possibility that consent can be given and later regretted. Which is a weird grey zone and it does happen. This author has a rather interesting series on the matter, and I think many of the concerns she raises are applicable in some of the "me too" cases. Whether you agree or not, they seem to be worth considering. We like to pretend that these matters are clear cut - and on many of them they are - but any time two humans interact there are a lot of possibilities for confusion or misunderstanding. It's in the nature of our interactions unfortunately. We should strive to be better, but we also have to be realistic in our hindsight.

1998. 2009 was a comedy of errors that led to the end...but 1998 basically flipped on one play that was perfect epitome of a vikings failure.

Bannon vs. Trump is a fight i hope they both lose.

I think what he's referring to is teams the last two weeks have basically lined up in a wide 9 and showing Keenum there is nowhere to run outside the pocket and then they work to collapse it. It takes away a major strength of his for sure.

Sounds like a "tough on crime" mentality, which is largely been proven to be a poor method. Both for the offenders and for preventing future offenders. You took umbrage earlier when I suggested you're basically trying to banish him to some island. The more you respond, the more your tone sounds like that. Honestly, it solves nothing for anyone. More good can come from Miguel changing his life and baseball using him to talk to future players about how to behave. I can't get behind your reaction to this, but I respect the way you've articulated it.

Well, I think that's where we disagree. I don't think what Miguel Sano did is beyond redemption. I think there are crimes that are beyond redemption, but based on what Betsy has told us, I don't believe his actions rise to that level. She deserves justice. He deserves reprecussions. But to punish him indefinitely seems unfairly, emotionally punitive. I can't get behind that and I'd encourage you to rethink the implications.

What I meant by professional related is more like how someone who is convicted of child abuse can't work at a day care. Their crime was directly related to their profession, I wouldn't say this is the case here. You also used words like "Ex-communicated" from MLB, which is more than just having your company fire you. Fed-Ex can fire you, but you can still get a job at UPS. You're suggesting that even if the Twins fire him, that the Red Sox can't hire him. I can't get on board with that. It seems do deny him the ability to redeem himself and it also seems to imply that punishment needs to be indefinite. I don't agree with either of those two implications.

You're denying him, for these actions, from continuing his profession. A profession not related at all to his crime. That would be a highly unusual punishment, one I don't find particularly fair or justified. Personally, I think it's unreasonable. I understand your emotions and why you might personally disavow the Twins and Sano, but to insist he lose any possibility of his career over it does seem unreasonably punitive to me. If Sano worked for FedEx...would you feel he should be ex-communicated from package delivery? I can't make any sense out of why, specifically, a professional athlete would be denied his career.

I just want to say Jham...I really appreciate your posts in this thread. For some reason (I would imagine the heightened focus it has in society right now is the cause...that and longstanding frustration about it) we've treated many of those accused like they are no longer allowed to be members of society. That we have to shun them to some corner of the earth. For some of them, that's probably warranted (Weinstein for example. Preferably in a jail cell), but for others like Sano that seems a punishment that doesn't fit the crime. We believe drunk drivers, bank robbers, domestic abusers, child abusers, and many others are allowed to return to society and hold out hope for them to be rehabilitated, but not someone like Sano? I get the emotions of this issue make it hard, but we really need to avoid the urge to throw away our ideas about humanity and justice just because we really care about fixing this issue. I'm rooting for justice for Betsy. I'm rooting for her to feel good about coming out about this experience and the outcomes that result. I'm also rooting for Miguel Sano to become a better human being. And I will continue to root for him, when he has worked on being a better person, to be a Minnesota Twin and a success. I see no reason to banish him, or my fandom, because of his action. But I may if he can't use this opportunity to improve himself.

They are still very much working out the details. Rhodes has few peers in all of football, he should be top 5.

The Patriots were a bend but don't break defense. I don't know about you, but I've seen enough of those to know I shouldn't count on that. They are a significantly better offensive team than the Vikings, however. Both teams are. But the Vikings have only one peer on defense and that's the Jaguars.

Pittsburgh is a pretty complete team, but they have a serious issue with their play on the road. New England? In terms of being complete? I'm not sure about that. New England has some serious defensive issues - they were the fourth worst team in yardage allowed and have some issues with their linebackers. But both of those teams have significantly better QBs....and that matters a lot.

Every team has flaws and reasons to worry. But I don’t think any team in the league is as complete as the Vikings. Doesn’t mean they win it all, but it gives them a helluva shot.

Trigger happy policing. School shootings.

Chapman and Sano's situations are comparable in one way: Both acts happened during a time when those particular kinds of acts had heightened public awareness. Chapman's actions happened during a time when the focus was on domestic violence much like Sano's come during a time when sexual assault/inappropriate advances are in focus. I think that makes the punishment (30 games) a starting point to consider. Whether it has bearing once the league/team and the player's union sits down to discuss it I have no idea. But it's something of a parallel.

Perhaps not here at Twins Daily....but the social media conversations you're referring to on larger platforms might. In general, I think the scope of which we rely on social media to process these events is quite harmful to everyone involved. And to society in general.

I also don't think it's a good look to be parsing out her recollection of the time on a message board. Much like doling out the consequences is not our job, neither is investigating the incident. Part of what makes it hard for women to come out with this information is how quick we are to dissect everything about what they said. We should allow a fair, just process to happen for all sides involved.