• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Me, too. Time's up. What's next?

Cor Luctis

Between the Shadows
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
26,599
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The media based cancel culture is the primary issue because I *think* the legal system does require evidence. I would recommend that businesses be required to follow the same rules for cancel culture as for non-prejudicial hiring practices. If they aren't allowed to discriminate, then they shouldn't be able o fire someone for a media accusation. Social service jobs with vulnerable populations can have a higher bar because young children, cognitively impaired individuals, and dementia in the elderly prohibits individuals from even reporting violations done towards them. I could agree to not being allowed to work in those environments when under suspicion and would comply myself. In regular business, I think they should not be able to fire based on gossip, even if done at the national media level. I think that could help stabilize the negative spiral of hyper-gossip and media distortion that is happening.
How would you handle a well-established pattern of behavior that doesn't actually break the law, but is unprofessional and creates an uncomfortable environment for women? By "well-established" I mean it has been widely witnessed and even documented, e.g. Donald Trump's Access Hollywood tape. Should such behavior be tolerated if the person doing it is otherwise a high performer in the workplace?
 

Siúil a Rúin

To the waters of the wild
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
13,268
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
How would you handle a well-established pattern of behavior that doesn't actually break the law, but is unprofessional and creates an uncomfortable environment for women? By "well-established" I mean it has been widely witnessed and even documented, e.g. Donald Trump's Access Hollywood tape. Should such behavior be tolerated if the person doing it is otherwise a high performer in the workplace?
The behavior that goes right up to the line but doesn't cross it, is the complicating issue - I agree. In the case of Donald Trump, there were also a number of depositions filed against him for acts that did break the law, but never saw a day in court.

In most work environments those behaviors would be handled by Human Resources. I understand the process would be complaints submitted, and then a meeting between the accuser, accused, and the HR representative to sort it out to come to a resolution. Most cases are not appropriately handled through national media when it is in that grey area. Work places can have their guidelines for ethics focused on behaviors and then when it comes into question it is accounted for in an HR meeting with a goal of correcting the issue in some manner.

The Donald Trump scenario also introduces a different sort of evidence besides physical evidence, and that is confession. That places it on a different level than someone supposing him to look at their body. He stated his intention, so it is a form of evidence. I don't know he could be imprisoned for that alone. I see it as motivation to do comprehensive FBI level investigation because it implies that legal lines could have been crossed. People who dismissed it as locker room talk are as absurd as the people who call a social pat on the back at a cocktail party sexual harassment.

So much human behavior goes right up to the line. I had the opportunity to watch women do the same thing when I knew a man with an image of being a local 'rock star' sort. Women were very overt in the physical posturing socially. I had no idea women were that aggressive sexually. This man also told me that his high school English teacher was hitting on him and sexually harassing him. I believe him because I saw so many women toy with the boundaries with him. Edit: The high school English teacher's behavior should have been stopped with potential legal repercussions. /edit Still with most of it, there isn't much that can be done when motivations cannot be defined definitively. I'm not a fan of the behavior and it's one reason I avoid a lot of social interactions, but my concern is litigating so much grey area making the world a huge pile of eggshells for people to walk on. There are so many behaviors that are violating, but left with plausible deniability. I don't have a complete answer because it would be great if that stopped, but I don't see an ethical way to force it to stop. I think you have to live with some degree of annoying, intrusive behaviors from people.
 

Siúil a Rúin

To the waters of the wild
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
13,268
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I remembered one depressing anecdote about a woman behaving in a way I found sexually violating, and I wasn't sure what to do in the moment. I was at the airport sitting and waiting for my flight and there was an older couple sitting to the left of me. Then a woman in her 20's came and sat across from us. She was wearing short shorts and put her legs up on the seat spread apart. You could see at least half of the actual skin of her crotch and she had a big grin on her face. She made lingering eye contact with the older man across from her and he returned her gaze for a while, then put his arm around his wife. There was a kinda nerdy man sitting next to her and chatted obliviously because he was not in eye shot of her crotch.

I didn't speak up, but that was sexually aggressive and intrusive behavior. I don't know if I have weird bad luck, but my experience seems like both genders have had very inappropriate sexual behaviors. The airport scenario might have qualified for indecent exposure, but I do wish there was a way to make it stop. I also don't want systems in place where motives are misconstrued, but behaviors can and should be addressed.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,299
The behavior that goes right up to the line but doesn't cross it, is the complicating issue - I agree. In the case of Donald Trump, there were also a number of depositions filed against him for acts that did break the law, but never saw a day in court.

In most work environments those behaviors would be handled by Human Resources. I understand the process would be complaints submitted, and then a meeting between the accuser, accused, and the HR representative to sort it out to come to a resolution. Most cases are not appropriately handled through national media when it is in that grey area. Work places can have their guidelines for ethics focused on behaviors and then when it comes into question it is accounted for in an HR meeting with a goal of correcting the issue in some manner.

The Donald Trump scenario also introduces a different sort of evidence besides physical evidence, and that is confession. That places it on a different level than someone supposing him to look at their body. He stated his intention, so it is a form of evidence. I don't know he could be imprisoned for that alone. I see it as motivation to do comprehensive FBI level investigation because it implies that legal lines could have been crossed. People who dismissed it as locker room talk are as absurd as the people who call a social pat on the back at a cocktail party sexual harassment.

So much human behavior goes right up to the line. I had the opportunity to watch women do the same thing when I knew a man with an image of being a local 'rock star' sort. Women were very overt in the physical posturing socially. I had no idea women were that aggressive sexually. This man also told me that his high school English teacher was hitting on him and sexually harassing him. I believe him because I saw so many women toy with the boundaries with him. Edit: The high school English teacher's behavior should have been stopped with potential legal repercussions. /edit Still with most of it, there isn't much that can be done when motivations cannot be defined definitively. I'm not a fan of the behavior and it's one reason I avoid a lot of social interactions, but my concern is litigating so much grey area making the world a huge pile of eggshells for people to walk on. There are so many behaviors that are violating, but left with plausible deniability. I don't have a complete answer because it would be great if that stopped, but I don't see an ethical way to force it to stop. I think you have to live with some degree of annoying, intrusive behaviors from people.

We have a problem here. Our guru, Carl Jung, sexualised his anti-semitism by sexually abusing his Jewish female patients, as did many of his political collegues.
 

John Catstentine

Hellblazer
Staff member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
18,412
get_off_your_soapbox.jpg
 

Siúil a Rúin

To the waters of the wild
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
13,268
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
We have a problem here. Our guru, Carl Jung, sexualised his anti-semitism by sexually abusing his Jewish female patients, as did many of his political collegues.
He should have been investigated and subjected to the law in any instances where he crossed the line morally. You are addressing that question about intellectual contribution from morally corrupt people. It is a difficult question because there are many: Picasso and Wagner for starters. I think any person should have to answer for their crimes and perhaps society should find ways to provide more education and opportunity for the less forceful of personality. There are brilliant minds with amazing contributions overlooked because they live in poverty or aren't hyper-aggressive. We lose their contribution as well.

As far as Jung is concerned, I haven't read a great deal of his work, but could find notions like the collective unconscious interesting. The personality system seems mostly based on the notion that there is a continuum of concrete to abstract preferences and objective to subjective judgments. Yes, those would be components, but it is rather incomplete. I don't have any sort of fervant admiration of Jung and am comfortable criticizing him both intellectually and morally based on whatever information I have. It won't cause me any agitation for someone to speak against him. Wagner was a genius and contributed to the course of musical style, but I can't stand him or his music personally.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,299

It is commonly said the work is separate from the man, yet we don't say this about, "Mein Kampf", and the Fuhrer.

Yet Carl Jung freely adopted the Fuhrer as his neurotic father figure, and followed the orders of his 2 IC.

Carl Jung freely without coercion chose the side of evil in WW II, and yet somehow when we choose to follow Carl Jung, we are not choosing evil.

It doesn't compute.
 
Top