276 replies to this topic

[mweb08]

I don't think the party should have anything to do with it.  I would give no benefit of the doubt to someone who is revealed to have committed harassment resigning to resign because some member of the other party who also was guilty didn't resign.  Anyone who does this should resign. 

 

Franken not doing so should be an embarrassment to every member of his party as well as every member of any other party.

 

That's a fantastic ideal to have, but the most realistic way to make that ideal reality is for both parties (and their voters) to care a lot.

 

I'm not opposed to him resigning. I do think proportionality matters though, and what Franken did (that we know of) pales in comparison to what others are accussed of. However, I am very much ok with drawing the line on the side that said what he's allegedly done is enough to have someone resign. Of course how we decide the validity of allegations is a crucial component as well.

[mweb08]

I kind of agree with Shack.

 

I don't like the idea of lumping all of these guys together and acting like what Cosby did (for example) is the same as what Franken did.

 

There are degrees to this...even if they are all wrong.

 

There's a difference between robbing someone at gun point and stealing from a store.  Both are stealing and obtaining things that aren't yours but obviously, the circumstances are much different.

 

The apocalyspse must be upon us!

 

I actually agree with both of you on this point.

[mweb08]

With the sex scandals, we've seen people fight against accusations. It doesn't seem like the stories about Stallone and Takei are sticking. And it seems like when someone is outed, if they knew they were wrong, they're admitting it, to different degrees.

 

Eh, I'm not sure that's true and I wouldn't put a ton of stock into that.

 

That incentivizes lying about ones actions even more.

[Mackus]

So, hang'em all, regardless of the severity?

 

There is some sort of a sliding scale.  But the bar is pretty low in terms of what is sufficiently bad behavior to merit someone losing their position of power.

 

I'm speaking only of public perception and employment opportunity.  Not physical freedom or legal ramifications.  I think what Franken did is enough for me to think he should resign.

[Mackus]

That's a fantastic ideal to have, but the most realistic way to make that ideal reality is for both parties (and their voters) to care a lot.

 

I'm not opposed to him resigning. I do think proportionality matters though, and what Franken did (that we know of) pales in comparison to what others are accussed of. However, I am very much ok with drawing the line on the side that said what he's allegedly done is enough to have someone resign. Of course how we decide the validity of allegations is a crucial component as well.

 

I don't think that people should resign as soon as there are accusations.  If they are denying the accusations and there isn't anything immediately supporting either side besides people's word, then I think that should be considered unsubstantiated.

 

In Franken's case, he obviously did it.  There is a photograph.  It's not the worst thing anyone accused of doing recently has done.  But it's bad enough that I think you shouldn't continue to hold a seat in Congress.  Resign.

 

What burden of proof would it take for me to think of the accusations as being substantiated?  Not entirely sure.  It'd be less than beyond all reasonable doubt like for a criminal trial but more than a simple preponderance of the evidence like a civil trial.  I'd also consider things more in terms of all the cases against a certain person rather than the unique merits of any one accuser each being considered individual cases.

[SportsGuy]

That's a fantstic ideal to have, but the most realistic way to make that ideal reality is for both parties (and their voters) to care a lot.

 

I'm not opposed to him resigning. I do think proportionality matters though, and what Franken did (that we know of) pales in comparison to what others are accussed of. However, I am very much ok with drawing the line on the side that said what he's allegedly done is enough to have someone resign. Of course how we decide the validity of allegations is a crucial component as well.

And how much does what they do matter?

 

For example. Louis CK is a comedian/actor.  If people choose to not employ him or fans don't support him, that's his punishment but it doesn't mean he can't continue to work if he wants.

 

If you are a politician, something where the public votes for you, should you have to re-sign?  We have seen other politicians stay in power over worse scandals than the Franken situation.

[mweb08]

I don't think that people should resign as soon as there are accusations.  If they are denying the accusations and there isn't anything immediately supporting either side besides people's word, then I think that should be considered unsubstantiated.

 

In Franken's case, he obviously did it.  There is a photograph.  It's not the worst thing anyone accused of doing recently has done.  But it's bad enough that I think you shouldn't continue to hold a seat in Congress.  Resign.

 

What burden of proof would it take for me to think of the accusations as being substantiated?  Not entirely sure.  It'd be less than beyond all reasonable doubt like for a criminal trial but more than a simple preponderance of the evidence like a civil trial.  I'd also consider things more in terms of all the cases against a certain person rather than the unique merits of any one accuser each being considered individual cases.

 

The photo is probably the least significant allegation against him though, and not one that makes me think he should resign. A photo pretending to grab a women's boobs is not cool, but I don't think it's enough for someone to resign, especially in the context of the situation.

[Mackus]

And how much does what they do matter?

 

For example. Louis CK is a comedian/actor.  If people choose to not employ him or fans don't support him, that's his punishment but it doesn't mean he can't continue to work if he wants.

 

If you are a politician, something where the public votes for you, should you have to re-sign?  We have seen other politicians stay in power over worse scandals than the Franken situation.

 

I think being a publicly elected official means you should resign if something like this is proven against you.  I'd hold Al Franken to a much higher standard in this regard than Louis C.K.   The greater the social responsibility of your position, the more I would want for someone to resign to keep the dignity of the chair.  Congressmen, CEOs, big time reporters/editors...those people are going to get more of my ire than athletes or musicians.

[SportsGuy]

I think being a publicly elected official means you should resign if something like this is proven against you.  I'd hold Al Franken to a much higher standard in this regard than Louis C.K.   The greater the social responsibility of your position, the more I would want for someone to resign to keep the dignity of the chair.  Congressmen, CEOs, big time reporters/editors...those people are going to get more of my ire than athletes or musicians.

I tend to agree....although I don't care about reporters.  

[mweb08]

There is some sort of a sliding scale.  But the bar is pretty low in terms of what is sufficiently bad behavior to merit someone losing their position of power.

 

I'm speaking only of public perception and employment opportunity.  Not physical freedom or legal ramifications.  I think what Franken did is enough for me to think he should resign.

 

Well in terms of public perception, worse things have been done by two of our recent presidents and they still got voted to our most important position after many of those things became public knowledge. 

[mweb08]

And how much does what they do matter?

 

For example. Louis CK is a comedian/actor.  If people choose to not employ him or fans don't support him, that's his punishment but it doesn't mean he can't continue to work if he wants.

 

If you are a politician, something where the public votes for you, should you have to re-sign?  We have seen other politicians stay in power over worse scandals than the Franken situation.

 

In both cases, how much these guys are punished if there is no legal action, does come down to the public. They aren't in traditional jobs where someone fires them. We'll see how much people care, but you are right that other politicians have stayed in power, or got elected after worse scandals than the Franken situation.

[mweb08]

I think being a publicly elected official means you should resign if something like this is proven against you.  I'd hold Al Franken to a much higher standard in this regard than Louis C.K.   The greater the social responsibility of your position, the more I would want for someone to resign to keep the dignity of the chair.  Congressmen, CEOs, big time reporters/editors...those people are going to get more of my ire than athletes or musicians.

 

That makes sense. 

 

Now does it matter if the incident(s) occured while having that role that is held to a higher standard?

 

Unfortunatley, there's not much dignity left in terms of our elected officials or CEO's, but I would agree that is something we should strive to correct.

[SportsGuy]

Does this change your support for someone?

 

Will you stop listening to Louis CK, for example?

[mweb08]

Does this change your support for someone?

 

Will you stop listening to Louis CK, for example?

 

For a poltician, yes and by a lot.

 

For a comic, actor, director, musician, athlete, etc, yes, but it depends more on what they did and even after that it's complicated.

 

I still think Louis CK is hilarious and I really like his TV show. I can really like a movie or a team or a band or whatever as well even if they feature someone who did something awful, but at the same time my affection for that thing can be diminished and I can feel more uneasy watching it. It's kind of similar to how I feel about football. I can still like the sport, but all the CTE stuff makes it harder for me to enjoy.

[The Epic]

I kind of agree with Shack.

 

*faints*

 

*comes to*

 

*faints again*

[SportsGuy]

*faints*

 

*comes to*

 

*faints again*

Every once in a while, he makes a valid point....

[The Epic]

The apocalyspse must be upon us!

 

I actually agree with both of you on this point.

 

*faints a-fucking-gain*

[Mackus]

Well in terms of public perception, worse things have been done by two of our recent presidents and they still got voted to our most important position after many of those things became public knowledge. 

 

Yep.  Hopefully in the future people who've been shown to behave this way won't get nearly that far.  Pretty dramatic shift in public perception of sexual harassment in the last month or so.  People didn't really care when it was Bill Cosby.  Didn't care when it was Trump.  Didn't care much when it was Ailes or O'Reilly.  Weinstein was the first one that really seemed to jar the public and get things moving.  Not sure if that was one major case or more of a back-breaking straw.  Either way, I think it's a good thing.

[The Epic]

I still think Louis CK is hilarious and I really like his TV show. I can really like a movie or a team or a band or whatever as well even if they feature someone who did something awful, but at the same time my affection for that thing can be diminished and I can feel more uneasy watching it. It's kind of similar to how I feel about football. I can still like the sport, but all the CTE stuff makes it harder for me to enjoy.

 

I was having this conversation with someone, and I feel like it's a lot like staying with a significant other that was wronged you in some major way. You still do things with them, you still laugh with them, but...it just isn't all there. You can't full-reset. 

[Mackus]

That makes sense. 

 

Now does it matter if the incident(s) occured while having that role that is held to a higher standard?

 

Unfortunatley, there's not much dignity left in terms of our elected officials or CEO's, but I would agree that is something we should strive to correct.

 

Yes.  Doing it while in the role would be even worse, IMO.  I'd still hold them to a high standard for past actions, though.  Even if the standard wasn't as high when they committed the acts.  Franken is a good example of my thoughts.  It was a relatively innocuous offense and he wasn't yet a Senator.  But I think he should resign.  He can run again, if he wants.