Current Events > Is #metoo sexual McCarthyism?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I heard this phrase for the firat time in this video from the CBC. Jaimie Watt says it here and I found it interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goOus0a1HvM
---

Or or or or....there's a lot of garbage dudes who have been getting away with terrible things and people are just now feeling empowered to call them out and are actually seeing some consequences now.
---

Only if you think demonizing commies is comparable to demonizing sexual assaulters.
---

Due process has nothing to do with non-court related issues. It's why you can get fired for things that aren't proven. People can choose to view you negatively or stop associating with you. That's not a violation of any type of legal rights.
---

not in the slightest
---

26_Sandman_39 posted...

It's why you can get fired for things that aren't proven.

I feel like there should be laws against wrongful terminations. Oh wait, there are and they get ignored.

There aren't, it's called at will employment. If you want more protections for workers, I sure hope you're a big supporter of unions and vigorous enforcement of discrimination laws.
---

That's sadly just how it is.
---

26_Sandman_39 posted...

At will employers cannot terminate for political beliefs, religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, or etc. They should not be able to terminate for accusations that haven't been proved in the court of law.

So they should not be able to terminate anyone until there's a court ruling?
---

scar the 1 posted...

26_Sandman_39 posted...

At will employers cannot terminate for political beliefs, religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, or etc. They should not be able to terminate for accusations that haven't been proved in the court of law.

So they should not be able to terminate anyone until there's a court ruling?

You can be fired for being an incompetent worker, that seems perfectly reasonable within an employers right. But should you be able to fire someone for the mere accusation of a crime? Water gets much more dicey in the second scenario, it doesnt seem as fair, they could potentially fire an innocent human being
---

legendary_zell posted...

Or or or or....there's a lot of garbage dudes who have been getting away with terrible things and people are just now feeling empowered to call them out and are actually seeing some consequences now.

just on the law of averages, some of them have to be innocent. and it's too dangerous to let our society devolve into allowing shit like this. people's lives are being ruined. careers worked on for decades are just being destroyed overnight with a single email sent by someone to the right person. we should be trying harder to actually prove they are real before we end people's lives. and yes, some people will die over this. it hasn't happened yet, but I promise eventually some celebrity is going to commit suicide after they get accused. and if we later find out they were innocent, it's gonna feel horrible.

Joseph McCarthy was a great American and a family friend of the Kennedys. R.I.P.
---

Kazi1212 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

26_Sandman_39 posted...

At will employers cannot terminate for political beliefs, religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, or etc. They should not be able to terminate for accusations that haven't been proved in the court of law.

So they should not be able to terminate anyone until there's a court ruling?

You can be fired for being an incompetent worker, that seems perfectly reasonable within an employers right. But should you be able to fire someone for the mere accusation of a crime? Water gets much more dicey in the second scenario, it doesnt seem as fair, they could potentially fire an innocent human being

The accusation of being an incompetent worker should be proved in court, according to the post I'm responding to.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

26_Sandman_39 posted...

At will employers cannot terminate for political beliefs, religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, or etc. They should not be able to terminate for accusations that haven't been proved in the court of law.

So they should not be able to terminate anyone until there's a court ruling?

You can be fired for being an incompetent worker, that seems perfectly reasonable within an employers right. But should you be able to fire someone for the mere accusation of a crime? Water gets much more dicey in the second scenario, it doesnt seem as fair, they could potentially fire an innocent human being

The accusation of being an incompetent worker should be proved in court, according to the post I'm responding to.

His post was worded that way but I really doubt thats what he meant, I mean it seems pretty safe a guess to me that no one would claim employees can only be fired after the accusation justifying their firing has been proven in a court of law. But who knows, maybe that is what he meant, I just rather give a more charitable interpretation to people posts. Regardless, whether a firing is just or within the legal guidelines can always be challenged in court if the employee wishes to do so. I think the bigger question here is should something like sexual assault allegations be enough for just grounds for termination even if it hasnt been proved? I dont think that has such an easy answer

Additionally, employees can win damages against employers in court if it turns out the company didnt have justification to fire someone on accusations such as being a incompetent worker. By that similar reasoning, can an employee sue an employer for firing him for sexual assault allegations if those charges later turn out to be false? I just dont think its as easy an answer people are making it out to be.
---

26_Sandman_39 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

26_Sandman_39 posted...

It's why you can get fired for things that aren't proven.

I feel like there should be laws against wrongful terminations. Oh wait, there are and they get ignored.

There aren't, it's called at will employment. If you want more protections for workers, I sure hope you're a big supporter of unions and vigorous enforcement of discrimination laws.

At will employers cannot terminate for political beliefs, religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, or etc. They should not be able to terminate for accusations that haven't been proved in the court of law.

This is extremely misleading and mostly incoreect. It is illegal federally to fire someone because of race or gender. If a company does that, they can be sued for that. It isn't illegal to fire someone for religion, or sexual orientiation in every state but in some states it is, but I don't think any state has legal protections for political beliefs.
---

Howl posted...

26_Sandman_39 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

26_Sandman_39 posted...

It's why you can get fired for things that aren't proven.

I feel like there should be laws against wrongful terminations. Oh wait, there are and they get ignored.

There aren't, it's called at will employment. If you want more protections for workers, I sure hope you're a big supporter of unions and vigorous enforcement of discrimination laws.

At will employers cannot terminate for political beliefs, religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, or etc. They should not be able to terminate for accusations that haven't been proved in the court of law.

This is extremely misleading and mostly incoreect. It is illegal federally to fire someone because of race or gender. If a company does that, they can be sued for that. It isn't illegal to fire someone for religion, or sexual orientiation in every state but in some states it is, but I don't think any state has legal protections for political beliefs.

New York and California comes closest to having legal protections for political beliefs
---

Kazi1212 posted...

I think the bigger question here is should something like sexual assault allegations be enough for just grounds for termination even if it hasnt been proved?

No. That's basically what was happening to a bunch of male college students thanks to abuse of Title IX. They were prevented from defending themselves adequately with due process while the supposed victims got clear advantages according to campus rules, making the college investigations "guilty until proven innocent". A mere allegation should never be enough in such cases...
---

I think the work place reformation aspects of the movement are great and have been long overdue.

With that said, there are definitely some cases where it is being used for attention or to avoid personal responsibility, like the Aziz Ansari incident. I don't think that's enough to justify calling the entire movement McCarthyism, but I do think those shaky instances should be called out (and was glad people did with Aziz).
---

Pastryarchy posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

I think the bigger question here is should something like sexual assault allegations be enough for just grounds for termination even if it hasnt been proved?

No. That's basically what was happening to a bunch of male college students thanks to abuse of Title IX. They were prevented from defending themselves adequately with due process while the supposed victims got clear advantages according to campus rules, making the college investigations "guilty until proven innocent". A mere allegation should never be enough in such cases...

I can understand temporary leave or suspension or something until the charges have cleared or the person has been proven guilty. But to terminate someone with just an accusation seems to go a bit too far imo. I mean, our entire system is predicated around innocent until proven guilty, it just seems totally antithetical to American culture
---

lilORANG posted...

Only if you think demonizing commies is comparable to demonizing sexual assaulters.

It's the process in which they demonize a group.

It's a witch hunt.
---

Kazi1212 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

26_Sandman_39 posted...

At will employers cannot terminate for political beliefs, religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, or etc. They should not be able to terminate for accusations that haven't been proved in the court of law.

So they should not be able to terminate anyone until there's a court ruling?

You can be fired for being an incompetent worker, that seems perfectly reasonable within an employers right. But should you be able to fire someone for the mere accusation of a crime? Water gets much more dicey in the second scenario, it doesnt seem as fair, they could potentially fire an innocent human being

The accusation of being an incompetent worker should be proved in court, according to the post I'm responding to.

His post was worded that way but I really doubt thats what he meant, I mean it seems pretty safe a guess to me that no one would claim employees can only be fired after the accusation justifying their firing has been proven in a court of law. But who knows, maybe that is what he meant, I just rather give a more charitable interpretation to people posts. Regardless, whether a firing is just or within the legal guidelines can always be challenged in court if the employee wishes to do so. I think the bigger question here is should something like sexual assault allegations be enough for just grounds for termination even if it hasnt been proved? I dont think that has such an easy answer

Additionally, employees can win damages against employers in court if it turns out the company didnt have justification to fire someone on accusations such as being a incompetent worker. By that similar reasoning, can an employee sue an employer for firing him for sexual assault allegations if those charges later turn out to be false? I just dont think its as easy an answer people are making it out to be.

Oh I understand that that's not what he meant, but essentially I feel like those would be the implications. To me there's not a clear line between what's inappropriate behavior on one end, and unprofessional behavior that affects the work negatively on the other.
Likewise, to respond to your bigger question, let's say that the boss in question has direct knowledge of the sexual assault. Should they still need to be proved? That's another complication to the whole hardline opinion of "it should be proved in court". Not to mention, getting a conviction in court can take quite a long time.
---

Love people who engage in actual mccarthyism calling movements like this mccarthyism as a pejorative
---