You know this?

So you're saying that it took incessant badgering and putting herself in HR's sights to get them to do what they were supposed to do from the beginning? Doesn't that put her in line for retaliation if the HR people decided to go the other way? Why do you offer anecdotes that undermine your own argument?

Here is the problem with this reasoning. If someone "keeps at it" until something is done, you count it as evidence for your theory. If they stop before anything is done, you count it as evidence for your theory. If they are currently in the process of keeping at it, it is not yet evidence either way.

It's like saying, "Everyone can be rich if they pray hard enough. If you aren't rich, you're not praying hard enough. If you are rich, good job!"

I get the feeling people are talking over one another...

There's two different conversations at play, and both are valid. Dettigers isn't wrong about "due process," the legal perspective and what happens in courts. But the legal perspective, while it plays a part in the "court of public opinion" isn't the only factor there. People are free to make up their own opinions of what happened, to believe the accused or the victim, and to believe that justice wont be served for whatever reason. Nobody is really questioning what Dettigers has said as far as "due process" and all that jazz. They're questioning him over that being a defense to people making opinions and holding beliefs about what happened. Which would imply that we should never, ever question the legal system and its doling out of "justice." That is what makes his OUTBURSTS OF CAPS ARRRRGH I'M GETTING UPSET seem absolutely infantile, idiotic and irrational.

Oh but let's just believe the person who acussed someone. Guilty until proven inacent. Damn people are dip shits here. I'm done with this mess up board.

I'm done with this mess up board.

That's not even close to being a good analogy because praying literally doesn't do anything compared to an actual active task.

You are still missing the point then. That's fine -- we'll have to move on I suppose. I could have used something besides prayer to make the same point though. I chose it BECAUSE we were likely to agree that it doesn't do anything. The intention was that by choosing something whose inefficacy we would agree about, we could set that variable aside and focus on the question of how we can determine whether things are effective or not. I showed that your line of reasoning would VALIDATE prayer. Thus by your own premise (that prayer is not an active step) your reasoning is undermined. That was the point. But you clearly are comfortable in your misunderstanding.

No, the equivalent is either doing nothing or submitting the claim to HR once and praying it works out. Kinda like submitting an application for a job and never following up on it.

I don't know that there's much the reps could do even if they wanted, especially on short notice. It's the FCC's decision. They've already ignored the public, something like 75% of the comments to the FCC were against it.

Sexual harassment complaint procedures are often ineffective, either because they are not publicized or because the culture of the organization makes employees who experience harassment reluctant to take action. Multiple scholars have shown that employees often choose not to complain in order to show that they are team players, to avoid further humiliation, because they fear retaliation or because they think their complaints will not be taken seriously. Employees often prefer to think of themselves as survivors who can take harassment, as opposed to victims who cannot. Some worry that if they speak out, their powerful emotions will cause them to behave inappropriately, so they bottle up the humiliation. Some blame themselves. Many women (and people of color) have come to take harassment for granted as a part of workplace life that must be endured to succeed.

...When HR professionals do investigate, my interviews and analyses of human resources journals have shown, they often characterize sexual harassment complaints as instances of poor management or as interpersonal difficulties rather than as violations of law. To remedy the situation, they may transfer the complaining employee to another department or advise one or both parties to seek counseling or arrange for an apology, but they rarely take strong disciplinary actions against harassers. My interviews showed that employers may issue a warning and sometimes even impose a financial penalty, but public action (such as firing the harasser or revealing the reason for a penalty) is rare, because they worry about defamation suits by perpetrators as much as or more than discrimination suits by victims.

“In most cases, employers are creating these policies more to protect themselves than to protect employees,” said Lauren Edelman, a professor at the law school of the University of California at Berkeley. “We don’t know when harassment training is effective, and we have reason to believe that maybe it’s counterproductive in some cases.”

Experts say the training has traditionally been done more as a legal defense.

So about that net neutrality repeal.... y'all contacting your reps to stop this shit, right?

So, about going to H.R. as an effective means of combating workplace harassment...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... 384f892cad



And about codes of conduct with regards to sexual harassment?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on- ... 7b1b65b4e9

A very illuminating and important article about the Russia-Trump hysteria, recommended reading: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/worl ... erals.html

“American liberals are so upset about Trump that they cannot believe he is a real product of American life,” Mr. Kurilla said. “They try to portray him as something created by Russia. This whole thing is about America, not Russia.”

So about that net neutrality repeal.... y'all contacting your reps to stop this shit, right?

Intelligent article. This quote really rings true:

People really need to talk to their grandparents once in a while.

Aaaand it looks like Rex Tillerson is about to be out of the State Department. Another one bites the dust.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... id=UP97DHP

Ajit Pai lies about net neutrality on Fox News



Piece of shit.

Senator Tom Cotton as the rumored next CIA director is the far more noteworthy personnel change. Being on the correct side of the Iran deal in 2015 does not make him sufficiently qualified to be CIA director. He's had minimal intelligence committee experience, no background in intelligence whatsoever, just military service. CIA generally disliked the last military veteran as director (Petraeus). I expect Cotton will try to make CIA more "aggressive" (eg, more drone strikes and "direct action") while letting their collection and overseas CI functions continue to atrophy the way they have for the last 17 years.