What's new
By:
Filters

Reverse Pet Peeves

I was at the Trax trolley station outside the Vivint Dumb Home Arena, and these three stereotypical black kids, in the blaxploitation movie sense, who were about 13 asked an older black dude if they could get a dollar.

Kid 1: "Hey, can I get a dollar".

Pepper haired older black dude: What did you say boy?

Kid: Can I get a dollar.

Older black dude: Listen son, be polite. The way you ask for a dollar is to say "Sir, may I please have a dollar". (While setting a dominating presence of leaning over the boy).

The did repeated that phrase exactly and the older black dude gave him a dollar. Then, another one of the three does the same thing and he got a dollar too. Then, the third kid asks the same thing and the guy says sorry, I don't have no more money and walks off.

There were two lessons learned there at the same time.


What reminded me of this is I was on the same Trax trolley the other day and this black kid says "Sir, can I please have a slice of pizza?" I gave him half the box and I still wonder if that old man's simple advice a few months back somehow trickled down. I wouldn't even respond to "yo dude, can I get a slice of that pizza". But this kid, who was obviously in need and was doing the grocery shopping and riding public transit, obviously needed the help. I appreciated the respectful request from both him and pepper haired old black dude.
 
The guy who did "Prairie Home Companion" is apparently a sexual abuser, so the show is cancelled and they will not rebroadcast the show.

My least liked show on NPR.

Almost as good as KUER stopping the jazz music programming after 8pm.
 
Bulletproof said:
The guy who did "Prairie Home Companion" is apparently a sexual abuser, so the show is cancelled and they will not rebroadcast the show.

My least liked show on NPR.

Almost as good as KUER stopping the jazz music programming after 8pm.
Click to expand...

I hope NPR (or MPR, the place he was fired from) comes out with details. His account of putting his hand on a lady's exposed back and sliding his hand up 6" makes this one sound absurd. He was also very gracious and not defensive in the least in his statement, which does nothing but help him seem innocent.
 
franklin said:
I hope NPR (or MPR, the place he was fired from) comes out with details. His account of putting his hand on a lady's exposed back and sliding his hand up 6" makes this one sound absurd. He was also very gracious and not defensive in the least in his statement, which does nothing but help him seem innocent.
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard the details at all. Hope that's not all it takes for people to lose their livelihood.
 
Bulletproof said:
I hadn't heard the details at all. Hope that's not all it takes for people to lose their livelihood.
Click to expand...

Well it is a fine line in this current atmosphere between addressing legitimate issues and going on a witch hunt. We will see both undoubtedly and hopefully people can see them for what they are. But I am not betting on it. My bet is that, in the facebook/twitter/soundbite generation, we devolve into a full-on media-goaded witch hunt before this fades or ends, whatever that might mean.

The first headline I saw for Keillor basically put him in the same category as Weinstein, which is the media default: sensationalize first, maybe present some facts later. Most people only read headlines anyway, and maybe the blurbs their friends choose to post on FB or tweet, meaning no context, all hype and outrage.

Here is a good article about this situation:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...allegations-stand-out/?utm_term=.43906b876068

Just after MPR’s announcement, which mentioned the alleged victim was “an individual who worked with him,” Keillor emailed another reporter to give his version of an incident:

“I put my hand on a woman’s bare back,” he wrote. “I meant to pat her back after she told me about her unhappiness and her shirt was open and my hand went up it about six inches. She recoiled. I apologized. I sent her an email of apology later and she replied that she had forgiven me and not to think about it. We were friends. We continued to be friendly right up until her lawyer called.”

On Thursday, MPR told the Associated Press that the public radio organization had received “a formal complaint from an individual that includes multiple allegations related to Garrison’s behavior.” In a follow-up interview with the AP, Keillor clarified that he hasn’t seen the allegations MPR is investigating and that the story he shared publicly was the “only incident he could remember.” (The Post has emailed Keillor and has not heard back.)

After his Wednesday show in Pittsfield, Mass., was canceled, Keillor held court at a local restaurant, where he told a reporter for the Berkshire Eagle that he found the whole situation “bewildering.”

“I don’t think that people should talk out of bewilderment,” he said. “My situation is that I’ve worked extremely hard on a show that I love for almost 50 years, and somebody else can torch it in one morning, and so it’s all gone. And it’s a difficult thing to discuss.”
Click to expand...
 
Here come the witch-hunters. Please, do not get me wrong, if the guy did something sexually inappropriate he deserves censure at the very least, but the punishment should fit the crime. Here they full on admit they are firing him over allegations alone. If I did that in my work place I would get my *** handed to me in court. In their own statement they even admit the investigation is ongoing. So what if they find out is it all a lot of horse ****? Will they beg him back? He would have grounds to sue at the very least. Very stupid to take this kind of action over allegations with little to no evidence.

https://www.mpr.org/press/2017/11/2...ing-garrison-keillor-and-a-prairie-home-compa

Last month, MPR was notified of the allegations which relate to Mr. Keillor's conduct while he was responsible for the production of A Prairie Home Companion (APHC). MPR President Jon McTaggart immediately informed the MPR Board Chair, and a special Board committee was appointed to provide oversight and ongoing counsel. In addition, MPR retained an outside law firm to conduct an independent investigation of the allegations. Based on what we currently know, there are no similar allegations involving other staff. The attorney leading the independent investigation has been conducting interviews and reviewing documents, and the investigation is still ongoing. We encourage anyone with additional information to call our confidential hotline 1-877-767-7781.

MPR takes these allegations seriously and we are committed to maintaining a safe, respectful and supportive work environment for all employees and everyone associated with MPR. We want a workplace where anyone who experiences unwanted behavior feels comfortable in reporting concerns to MPR. Discrimination, harassment, retaliation or other inappropriate behaviors will not be tolerated.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, every legal department I have worked in would tell me that if we fired someone without fully investigating that is basically retaliation, which MPR claims is not tolerated.

If he is guilty then he needs to pay somehow, but if not, then MPR needs to have their asses handed to them. The court of public opinion has spoken. Strike first, strike hard, show no mercy.
 
While I love this atmosphere of finally listening to women, I am not sure that all of these guys should be fired so quickly. But then we only hear what is printed, not the actual allegations. For example, in Keillor's case, he told a story prior to any other story being told about him (getting ahead of it to control the narrative). According to his story, it seems premature for the action taken. However, he admits that this is the only situation he can think of, which doesn't mean that a lot of other things didn't happen. It has always been clear that men do not see many situations that they are involved in as harassment and assault. A lot of men see situations as consensual that are not.
 
JazzGal said:
While I love this atmosphere of finally listening to women, I am not sure that all of these guys should be fired so quickly. But then we only hear what is printed, not the actual allegations. For example, in Keillor's case, he told a story prior to any other story being told about him (getting ahead of it to control the narrative). According to his story, it seems premature for the action taken. However, he admits that this is the only situation he can think of, which doesn't mean that a lot of other things didn't happen. It has always been clear that men do not see many situations that they are involved in as harassment and assault. A lot of men see situations as consensual that are not.
Click to expand...

I agree but my issue with his case is that regardless of the allegations they should complete an investigation first. They didn't just suspend him for a while so they could look into it, they completely gutted his legacy and life's work. A bit harsh if it turns out it was a misunderstanding. But at least figure it out first, then take action. This whole "guilty and fully executed until proven that we can only keep saying he is guilty regardless of what the investigation said, because, you know, we all know he is guilty no matter what the facts say, I mean come on" thing that is going on is a bit scary.
 
JazzGal said:
While I love this atmosphere of finally listening to women, I am not sure that all of these guys should be fired so quickly. But then we only hear what is printed, not the actual allegations.
Click to expand...

While I agree, I think scope creep has gone way overboard. For example, I could possibly get in trouble for telling a woman that her hair looks especially nice today. I don't know a single woman who wouldn't appreciate such a compliant and would consider that sexual harassment without other circumstantial reasons.

This sexual harassment line is continuously being redrawn further into wacky prudish territory.

*edit to change to wouldn't
 
Last edited:
franklin said:
While I agree, I think scope creep has gone way overboard. For example, I could possibly get in trouble for telling a woman that her hair looks especially nice today. I don't know a single woman who would appreciate such a compliant and would consider that sexual harassment without other circumstantial reasons.

This sexual harassment line is continuously being redrawn further into wacky prudish territory.
Click to expand...

This has actually been building for a long time. It is part of the whole social shift that caused universities to bring in grief counselors when Hillary lost. It is the "offense and outrage" epidemic. Everything is offensive to someone and the social media boom is fueling the propensity and social acceptance (and complicity) of turning every perceived slight into a reason for mass outrage and to destroy the individual or group. It is rapidly suppressing free thought if you do not agree with what you are supposed to agree with. You will be bullied into submission.

The current #metoo movement, which is a long time coming, is going to ride the wave of this to a lot of people getting decimated who do not deserve it, even while it serves a valid purpose. It is kind of the opposite of most liberal views of say, the death penalty, where the mantra is "The death penalty does not send a message, I would rather let 1000000 guilty men go free than execute a single innocent person" only in this case it is "everyone accused needs to be destroyed, regardless of their innocence or guilt, in order to send a message". Frankly, as a person in a position of power in my job it is more than a little disconcerting.
 
franklin said:
While I agree, I think scope creep has gone way overboard. For example, I could possibly get in trouble for telling a woman that her hair looks especially nice today. I don't know a single woman who would appreciate such a compliant and would consider that sexual harassment without other circumstantial reasons.

This sexual harassment line is continuously being redrawn further into wacky prudish territory.
Click to expand...
If a woman appreciates a compliment about her hair, then you aren't going to be charged with harassment.

However, men often do not understand what is a compliment and what is harassment. If you have any sort of tone or words that suggest anything of a sexual component to the compliment, you might be in trouble. There is a big difference between making a simple statement and adding a whistle or a leer to it. Part of wanting to be treated equal is for men to not make compliments about putting women in a lesser place - and making a woman feel her only value is her looks does exactly that.
 
JazzGal said:
If a woman appreciates a compliment about her hair, then you aren't going to be charged with harassment.

However, men often do not understand what is a compliment and what is harassment. If you have any sort of tone or words that suggest anything of a sexual component to the compliment, you might be in trouble. There is a big difference between making a simple statement and adding a whistle or a leer to it. Part of wanting to be treated equal is for men to not make compliments about putting women in a lesser place - and making a woman feel her only value is her looks does exactly that.
Click to expand...
The problem I see is that I may not be intending to or trying to put any kind of "sexual component" or tone to the compliment, but she somehow perceives it that way. I don't work with women that I see regularly, so I don't have to worry about it, but if I did, I would just simply not say anything. But then I am perceived as an ******* for not complimenting some lady for her hair after she worked extra hard on it.
 
bigb said:
The problem I see is that I may not be intending to or trying to put any kind of "sexual component" or tone to the compliment, but she somehow perceives it that way. I don't work with women that I see regularly, so I don't have to worry about it, but if I did, I would just simply not say anything. But then I am perceived as an ******* for not complimenting some lady for her hair after she worked extra hard on it.
Click to expand...

I never compliment women's looks, attractiveness, lack of or anything else of that nature at work. It is not the place to do that. I am not perceived as an ******* for not commenting on their looks, maybe in other ways though.

Likewise I have never commented on men's looks that I work with and never had anyone get upset.

I have commented about something in a non sexual or looks way. For example I have told a co-worker man and women that their new shoes are cool.

I think the line is pretty easy to see and not cross and have never had an issue with it. Work is never a place for hitting on people in general and you should never sexualize or hit on people if you are their boss or superior in a work place.

I think the majority of women dont want to be hit on at work or have people people comment on their personal appearance. They are not dressing that way for you.

Yes, your wife/girlfriend/friend/family member is different and might expect you to comment and get offended if you dont, that is very different.
 
I found what I thought was a quarter and put it in my pocket, then in the drawer I store all my pocket stuff like keys, wallet, etc. in. A few days later I noticed that it wasn't round, it was more slightly octagonal shaped. It turned out to be a 1979 Susan B. Anthony $1 coin.

That simple thing made my day.
 
JazzGal said:
If a woman appreciates a compliment about her hair, then you aren't going to be charged with harassment.

However, men often do not understand what is a compliment and what is harassment. If you have any sort of tone or words that suggest anything of a sexual component to the compliment, you might be in trouble. There is a big difference between making a simple statement and adding a whistle or a leer to it. Part of wanting to be treated equal is for men to not make compliments about putting women in a lesser place - and making a woman feel her only value is her looks does exactly that.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the part where I said "without other circumstantial reasons". A simple "hi" in the elevator said in the wrong tone or body language can be considered sexual advancement. But I guess my point is there is a difference between a simple compliment, sexual advancement (which is normal human behavior), sexual harassment, and sexual assault.
 
Last edited:
bigb said:
The problem I see is that I may not be intending to or trying to put any kind of "sexual component" or tone to the compliment, but she somehow perceives it that way. I don't work with women that I see regularly, so I don't have to worry about it, but if I did, I would just simply not say anything. But then I am perceived as an ******* for not complimenting some lady for her hair after she worked extra hard on it.
Click to expand...

Perception always trumps intentions, no doubt. This is legally so as well. Intention may help mitigate severity or degree of the offense, but the offense is valid if it is perceived as an offense, period.
 
franklin said:
I think you missed the part where I said "without other circumstantial reasons". A simple "hi" in the elevator said in the wrong tone or body language can be considered sexual advancement. But I guess my point is there is a difference between a simple compliment, sexual advancement (which is normal human behavior), sexual harassment, and sexual assault.
Click to expand...

I told you saying "hey my future baby-mama you fine thang" was NOT an appropriate way to greet people, especially alone in elevators.
 
The frost covering on all the trees in the "canyon" near the point of the mountain this morning on the train. It's beautiful when the fog condenses into snow on the bare trees and all the weeds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top