>There's a very very fine line between "creepy" and "has game" and it usually comes down to how attractive you are which moulds how other people happen to perceive your advances.
That was not my point. Furthermore attractiveness is subjective. Point is if that dude hit on you and you wanted that outcome, then it’s not problematic. If he hit on you and you didn't want it, then, these days, that’s all it takes for it to be problematic at least in the opinion of a few twitter users.
This mode of operation is not realistic if you acknowledge humans get attracted to each other. If we approach society by making trying to hook up with someone a social crime, what does society look like?
The whole problem is that Twitter crusaders created a false reality in the first place. It's not super productive to speculate on the details--we don't know them. What we do know is that no legal action was taken. Given the outburst, one would imagine there would be a lawyer willing to help the alleged victims press charges had any real problems existed.
> What we do know is that no legal action was taken. Given the outburst, one would imagine there would be a lawyer willing to help the alleged victims press charges had any real problems existed.
By his own written published apology he acted inappropriately. Real problems existed thats why he apologized. That no one sued him for tort is irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant when we're talking about social policy and one's ability to perform services for a company. A company can't fire you because you voted for candidate X. They can't fire you for saying you support candidate X's agenda, either. It doesn't matter if a bunch of people consider such an action inappropriate and you later apologize for associating with candidate X because you have come to see things differently now.
It's a very similar situation: Noah liked to be forward with people. It wasn't a problem. Later, somebody decided Noah was too forward. Noah apologized. What's missing (unless you know more than I do) is the determination that Noah committed real sexual harassment. A "sorry I was inappropriate" is not the same as "this man harassed women in problematic ways".
If Noah had actually committed sexual harassment there would be legal ramifications because sexual harassment is a real problem that society cares about. For me the distinction between social justice and legal justice matters. If a mob is free to extol its own judgement on people, then we do not have justice. We have mob rule.
What's interesting is that if Noah had been convicted of sexual harassment and served his punishment, then it would be illegal in e.g. California for any company to weigh that information into future hiring decisions. So Noah is actually more damned for simply apologizing and trying to do the "right thing" than he would have been if he denied the allegations.
> "sorry I was inappropriate" is not the same as "this man harassed women in problematic ways".
"I was terrible to women. I preyed on them, I ceaselessly hit on them, I pressured them into sex. Yes I was one of those creepy sexual predators you hear about"[1]
He clearly admits to harassing women in problematic ways, for which his employer fired him[2]. It's pretty bizarre that you think it's not "real sexual harassment" because he wasn't sued. Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit? They are an incredible pain the ass for both sides. I know I personally wouldn't want to waste 2+ years of my life on one for something like this.
> Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit? They are an incredible pain the ass for both sides. I know I personally wouldn't want to waste 2+ years of my life on one for something like this.
That's the point. It shouldn't be easy to call someone creepy and get them fired. If it really is such a problem then you should be willing to take the legal route. Invoking mob justice is a rash shortcut. I don't care if the mob "got it right" or not. It's not how we do justice. If I go shoot people who appear to be the type that have committed a crime, it doesn't matter if I happen to usually "get it right" and only hurt criminals. I'm still a vigilante operating in an extrajudicial capacity and engaging in activity that endangers people.
I take Noah's original statement with context. He says in the article we're discussing here that he doesn't believe he worded the apology correctly. He might legitimately be a creep. But I also know what it's like to be in a situation where suddenly a bunch of people have formed a very negative opinion about you and are interested in publicly demonstrating as much. The threat of losing friends, the respect of peers, etc., is very real and the desire to simply admit perceived guilt and try to damage control is strong and causes rash behavior. With respect to this thread, I'm trying to process Noah's reflection on the events, not the "in the moment" stuff from last year. It sounds like Noah is at a point on his personal journey where he understands people's reactions but doesn't believe events played out in a just manner, all things considered.
Taking things one level up, if Noah is guilty of sexual assault, it should be abundantly clear to him in the form of a conviction. I don't think it's a great situation to be in where it's not clear what actually happened and the door is left open for Noah (and/or others) to interpret events however he (they) wants. We potentially have an unpunished/unregistered sexual predator hanging out. Not good.
Have you ever met a narcissist? Without external input, given enough time, they will bend the interpretation of any scenario into one where they are not truly guilty. I have no idea if Noah fits that bill, but when I think of people who do, no friendly discussion is going to convince them of their errors despite how they act in the moment. You need the law to step in and lay down the gavel.
> It shouldn't be easy to call someone creepy and get them fired.
Thats not what happened. He wasn't fired because someone said something on the internet, he published a written apology calling himself a "sexual predator" etc.
> If it really is such a problem then you should be willing to take the legal route
People shouldn't be able to report negative behavior, they have to sue for damages? That would be an extreme view.
> I take Noah's original statement with context. He says in the article we're discussing here that he doesn't believe he worded the apology correctly
In regards to the rape allegations from "pressuring someone to have sex" but that is still sexual harassment in a work environment.
>I'm trying to process Noah's reflection on the events, not the "in the moment" stuff from last year. It sounds like Noah is at a point on his personal journey where he understands people's reactions but doesn't believe events played out in a just manner, all things considered.
By his own admission in the parent article he was an asshole and regrets his past behavior he just doesn't want people to think he said that he raped anyone, which is fair.
> Taking things one level up, if Noah is guilty of sexual assault, it should be abundantly clear to him in the form of a conviction. I don't think it's a great situation to be in where it's not clear what actually happened and the door is left open for Noah (and/or others) to interpret events however he (they) wants. We potentially have an unpunished/unregistered sexual predator hanging out. Not good.
Sexual assault is not something he is accused of but the stats are something like 31% [1] of them being reported to the police.
>You need the law to step in and lay down the gavel.
Yes, but not sure why that matters. The guy has a 6-pack does that change anything for you? https://twitter.com/noahbradley/status/1245397083529543680/p...