How exactly do you tie mud wrestling to any of that?

Did you miss the part where they said it was a porn site multiple times?

Guess you'd be the angle-shooting white guy in that video.

"What's wrong with strip club videos? They hadn't even taken their clothes off yet!"

not surprisingly i have a big problem with that definition.

If a porn site finds the need to link to mud wrestling.

We must assume it is not ok to watch anymore?

Well this probably doesn't belong in the programming forum anymore. From a programming productivity point of view I don't see how this actually would be a detriment to productive code development.

You already failed miserably once at not knowing what words meant. Do we need to do this again?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0d4f33a031ac1

as soon as someone mentions cops, the chick starts shouting 'sexual harassment'. she then later cries rape. if no witnesses/video, who gets the benefit of the doubt? and how serious of a claim is that? loosely thrown around accusations ruin peoples lives, and women KNOW this. some (like here) will abuse it because they know there is absolutely no recourse towards them. its a freeroll

So we've descended to "sexual harassment at work isn't the problem, fake sexual harassment claims (by violent lunatics at the beach) are the real problem"?

Who could have foreseen this?

remove your parenthesis and thats whats been said all along. not just for sexual harassment, but anything that anyone takes "offense" to. you really think we're all here saying that true abuse should be allowed?

Let's see what you say at the start of this post.

Looks like the answer is yes.

Remember that whole "if you can't take the abuse, get out of the github" exchange?

now i'm certain that you are trolling. not surprising that you refuse to acknowledge the wrong in the lifeguard video

Now who's trolling? You refuse to acknowledge my acknowledging the wrong in the video.

It's all beside the point, of course. A diversionary tactic. Desperately seeking out any ludicrous example to support your argument and ignoring the mountains of everyday evidence that doesn't support what you want to believe.

Yes there are people who will abuse rules. No one ever said there aren't. But the rules are in place to protect the large amounts of people who suffered due to the lack of rules. You get that, right?

Like, sexual harassment laws didn't spontaneously burst into existence when some feminazi was on her period and hating all men. Laws were introduced to counter the actual harassment actual women were actually enduring every day.

Its about ETHICS IN GAMING JOURNALISM people!

of course. the point is simply that the growing trend of abuse of the rules is becoming a problem. do you agree? maybe you just think the extent of the problem is not very large while i, and others, think it is

Show me stats that agree with you in any meaningful way, not some lol video, and I'll agree it's a problem.

But I think you'll find there are more legitimate claims than false claims by several orders of magnitude.

so its exactly what i said. you don't think its a problem. i do. nothing really else to talk about

The sound of someone not supporting an assertion.

I thought programmers were science-based, demand proof, whatever else it was.

assertions were made. then real time examples have come up since then that support the assertion. you ignore the examples because apparently there isn't enough of them. i guess once the # of illegitimate claims > # of legitimate claims, only then the discussion is valid. you are likely correct about those #s, so feel free to exit this thread and we'll let you know if/when that expression evaluates to true

One highly ludicrous example isn't indicative of a widespread issue. Sample size and all that.

I've already said that, when there are rules, there will be abuses of those rules. I'm granting that.

As I also said, I think the amount of abuses of those rules are sufficiently low so as not to outweigh the benefits of the rules, be it sexual harassment laws or online codes of conduct.

The responses so far have been "here's one guy who had something closed" or "here's one girl who cried rape in the middle of a 3 on 1 brawl," which as bad as they may be, again, nowhere near the amount of crap others deal with in the absence of rules.

It's not a good look to imply that women KNOW they can exact their revenge on men who cross them thanks to the almighty false sexual harassment claim. (Which the lol video you provided hardly addressed, because we were talking about workplace harassment, not random assailants claiming harassment when they start to lose a fight)

What are you 11 years old?

Go show this video and the convo to your wife and she will probably notice how easily confused you are by your emotions.

What words did I exactly fail at understanding, you are staring at a brick wall spelled out that you're wrong and you are now believing I somehow failed at understanding the English language lmfao.

Really? Pretending you didn't have no clue what sexual harassment was? You realize we can go back and look at posts on this forum, right?

I've never once said, "I have no idea what sexual harassment is" but I have been writing that there is no harassment in the video targeting the woman that filed it.

You for some reason, seem to think that since the man got the mud wrestling video linked from a porn site. The mud wrestling is now an inappropriate video without even seeing the contents of the video; you are asserting that the video, gives the woman the right to have filed harassment.

I'm asserting that the video being mud wrestling does not have anything to deal with harassing the woman.
Also you questioned that the motion of the other male coworker, telling him that we shouldn't be watching it, is grounds for proving it is inappropriate to watch.
Yes it may be inappropriate to watch during company time but it could have been a football game or any other video and have the same reaction from the guy.
So the woman doesn't gain anything in proving she was harassed from that.

I still believe the woman should be told to see therapy and have company pay the expense.
She is a liability more so, than the guy showing the video that is just being human.

No, you just demonstrated it. And continue to even after a definition was provided.

No I have not. You are ignoring what I write and believing something that makes you feel right, when you're wrong.

If you want, you can take the definition that you provided and try to use what I wrote to prove it was sexual harassment at her.