No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

[thoreau]

Generally the first allegation is followed pretty quickly by a bunch more. Not with Keillor. Reporters haven't even been able to pry out details of the original allegation.

There's got to be more to this story. Either Keillor did something worse/more than he claims or his accuser is up to no good. And since he is protesting his innocence I don't think this will just go down the memory hole.

One way or the other, I hope that there is a clean answer, not an ambiguous case with enough contested and undecidable details that partisans from both flanks of the culture war can retreat to their own bubbles of epistemic closure and regard him as (circle one: a part of the rape culture/a victim of the SJWs).

[Dangerman]

There's a line between 'I can explain why you shouldn't' and 'creepy/gross' that turns into a motte and bailey. I can tell a friend, 'don't touch people you just met, even if it's in a friendly way, it's about personal space'. I can't seem to get people to define 'creepy' beyond "I don't like that".

[pistoffnick]

Chef Mario Batali

[lunchstealer]

There's a line between 'I can explain why you shouldn't' and 'creepy/gross' that turns into a motte and bailey. I can tell a friend, 'don't touch people you just met, even if it's in a friendly way, it's about personal space'. I can't seem to get people to define 'creepy' beyond "I don't like that".

And more importantly, "I don't like that from you." That's where the subjective standard is pretty gnarly. I'm fairly certain that there are 1000 behaviors and innuendo jokes that Stevo would get an, "Oh, you, you're so naughty," where if I were lucky I'd get a "Dude. Really. Ew. Stop it."

[Fin Fang Foom]

Man, Ryan Lizza's getting fired so hard I gotta wonder what he did.

[Highway]

There's a line between 'I can explain why you shouldn't' and 'creepy/gross' that turns into a motte and bailey. I can tell a friend, 'don't touch people you just met, even if it's in a friendly way, it's about personal space'. I can't seem to get people to define 'creepy' beyond "I don't like that".

And more importantly, "I don't like that from you." That's where the subjective standard is pretty gnarly. I'm fairly certain that there are 1000 behaviors and innuendo jokes that Stevo would get an, "Oh, you, you're so naughty," where if I were lucky I'd get a "Dude. Really. Ew. Stop it."

I think a lot of the point is that most guys don't *ever* do those things. Yeah, there's a gray line with subjective standards when you're at the border, but I think a lot of the point is that there's this huge DMZ near the border. Don't go near the actual line. And yeah, maybe with things you say it has a lot to do with charisma. I know I don't have much charisma, certainly not as much as some of my friends. And yeah, I'm more awkward than they are. But I also don't push it. And I doubt lunchstealer pushes it. Those 1000 things, you don't do them, because you know that you'd make people uncomfortable. But if a guy 'doesn't know' that, but keeps doing them, then someone should tell him, because he obviously can't read the signs (or he can, and he actually acts that way because he can 'get away with it'). "That {thing you just did} right there? Don't do that; you can't pull it off and it makes you a creep." "Oh, I can't tell my friend he's being a creep, that's mean." Well, who is going to? Someone who shouldn't have to? Someone else who's in a situation where they're a lot more scared of the consequences, or feels like they have to humor him?

[the innominate one]

In response to the line of discussion last articulated by Highway, lunchstealer and Dangerman:

I can't find it online, but this reminds me of the SNL sketch about proper office conduct where they were doing a Goofus and Gallant type comparison between Chris Parnell and some super handsome guest of the week. Polite requests to have lunch by Chris' nerdy character were deemed inappropriate and resulted in calls to HR. The super handsome guy acting identically or even squeezing a boob at one point received a radically different response.

[Jadagul]

In practice a lot of what "creepy" actually means is "does not accurately read the reactions of other people and respond appropriately." Sometimes the emphasis is on the last part, because the creepy person is a jerk. Sometimes the emphasis is on the first part, because the creepy person is clueless.

And sometimes the emphasis is really on the middle part, where no one likes the creepy person to begin with and therefore they never get positive reactions to anything.

[lunchstealer]

In response to the line of discussion last articulated by Highway, lunchstealer and Dangerman:

I can't find it online, but this reminds me of the SNL sketch about proper office conduct where they were doing a Goofus and Gallant type comparison between Chris Parnell and some super handsome guest of the week. Polite requests to have lunch by Chris' nerdy character were deemed inappropriate and resulted in calls to HR. The super handsome guy acting identically or even squeezing a boob at one point received a radically different response.

They just re-did that one with Keenan Thompson as the pervy old [don't recall but blue collar type in an otherwise white collar office] and one of the dignified white guys as the innocent-but-percieved-as-super-creepy HR director. I thought it was an interesting choice to do in the current #MeToo climate.

[Kolohe]

He was the security guard.

They might have been making it an age thing, or as you allude to a class thing. (They definitely didn't make it a black / white thing)

I don't think it particularly worked and that's aside from their timing was off (as it was for most of that episode.

[Mo]

I'm ... uh ... shocked?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ ... rce=Direct

[dhex]

I like the connection being made between hrc loss and all the male writers who got dinged for sexual harassment.

[dbcooper]

I like the connection being made between hrc loss and all the male writers who got dinged for sexual harassment.

Yeah, that idiot who lasted 5 mins as NY Times editor. Gawd.

[Mo]

Mrs. Mo and I were supposed to have lunch in one of Batali's restaurants in Westchester this coming Saturday with some friends. That has since changed.

[dhex]

Well he always was a salami expert.

[Eric the .5b]

In practice a lot of what "creepy" actually means is "does not accurately read the reactions of other people and respond appropriately." Sometimes the emphasis is on the last part, because the creepy person is a jerk. Sometimes the emphasis is on the first part, because the creepy person is clueless.

And sometimes the emphasis is really on the middle part, where no one likes the creepy person to begin with and therefore they never get positive reactions to anything.

And sometimes it's just all the guys who think they're the suave motherfucker while they're not.

[Jadagul]

In practice a lot of what "creepy" actually means is "does not accurately read the reactions of other people and respond appropriately." Sometimes the emphasis is on the last part, because the creepy person is a jerk. Sometimes the emphasis is on the first part, because the creepy person is clueless.

And sometimes the emphasis is really on the middle part, where no one likes the creepy person to begin with and therefore they never get positive reactions to anything.

And sometimes it's just all the guys who think they're the suave motherfucker while they're not.

I would say that falls under "clueless". They are bad enough at reading reactions that they think they are being suave when they are, in fact, not being suave.

Obviously it can be hard to tell which is actually happening, and often it's a mix (e.g. people who aren't very good at reading reactions because they don't care enough to pay attention).

[Eric the .5b]

In practice a lot of what "creepy" actually means is "does not accurately read the reactions of other people and respond appropriately." Sometimes the emphasis is on the last part, because the creepy person is a jerk. Sometimes the emphasis is on the first part, because the creepy person is clueless.

And sometimes the emphasis is really on the middle part, where no one likes the creepy person to begin with and therefore they never get positive reactions to anything.

And sometimes it's just all the guys who think they're the suave motherfucker while they're not.

I would say that falls under "clueless". They are bad enough at reading reactions that they think they are being suave when they are, in fact, not being suave.

Obviously it can be hard to tell which is actually happening, and often it's a mix (e.g. people who aren't very good at reading reactions because they don't care enough to pay attention).

Sure. It's just that I never actually see the scenario where someone acts perfectly fine and creeps someone out. I only ever see guys act like unsocialized idiots and then get surprised at the reaction.

[Jadagul]

Sure, so both one and two involve the guy acting like an unsocialized idiot.

But the middle category definitely happens; a good example is "a homeless person trying to talk to most people under, like, any circumstances whatsoever." Almost anything they're going to do will be inappropriate/intrusive, because they're talking to someone who doesn't want to talk to homeless people.

[Eric the .5b]

Sure, so both one and two involve the guy acting like an unsocialized idiot.

But the middle category definitely happens; a good example is "a homeless person trying to talk to most people under, like, any circumstances whatsoever." Almost anything they're going to do will be inappropriate/intrusive, because they're talking to someone who doesn't want to talk to homeless people.

Maybe HR departments are too tough on homeless people, then...

[Sandy]

In response to the line of discussion last articulated by Highway, lunchstealer and Dangerman:

I can't find it online, but this reminds me of the SNL sketch about proper office conduct where they were doing a Goofus and Gallant type comparison between Chris Parnell and some super handsome guest of the week. Polite requests to have lunch by Chris' nerdy character were deemed inappropriate and resulted in calls to HR. The super handsome guy acting identically or even squeezing a boob at one point received a radically different response.

Well, there's this, which kind of illustrates the point:

[pistoffnick]

I can't find it online, but this reminds me of the SNL sketch about proper office conduct where they were doing a Goofus and Gallant type comparison between Chris Parnell and some super handsome guest of the week. Polite requests to have lunch by Chris' nerdy character were deemed inappropriate and resulted in calls to HR. The super handsome guy acting identically or even squeezing a boob at one point received a radically different response.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/ ... 1966?snl=1

[the innominate one]

Thanks, pistoffnick. That's it. And I was wrong, it wasn't Chris Parnell, it was Fred Armisten.

Sandy's video is similarly illustrative of the point.

[the innominate one]

[dhex]