lol

Definitely not worth the effort

Isn't that what you have been trying to argue, since I made the comment about the video linked?

I'm not seeing any sexual harassment from the video towards the person making the claim.

So you wasted both of our time by trying to prove there was sexual harassment and now you're not trying to because it is too much effort because there is none.
Btw the male in the video being attacked is the only one that is being harassed in the video; if he is claimed to have sexually harassed anyone.

Pretty sure it has always been that harassment is in the eyes of the person claiming harassment and not the person accused of harrassing.

I.e. two women mud wrestling isn't harassment or obscene, offensive, what have you until one part claims that it is.

no, I wasted my time by assuming you would read things and learn from them. not a mistake I plan to make again.

Harassment != Sexual Harassment

Some people get so confused with the two and link the definition to sexual harassment when it never happened.

They are usually the type, that are very easily manipulated in life and one of the best types of people to hire.

Also they'll never do what you asked in a debate when confronted, they ignore rational ways to end conflict and will refuse every necessary step to prove their point. Basically they pretend to have been attacked and express some sort of insult as they run away defeated.

Not quite sure what you're trying to say here. My point was that any sort of harassment is how a person observes and reacts to the event in question and has nothing to do with the how the person who initiated the event intended it to be observed.

So while you see nothing wrong with a video about two women mud wrestling, as soon as someone does, it's sexual harassment. In fact I would say sexual harassment has a lower bar for qualification than regular harassment. Generally in other forms of harassment a pattern of intentional victimization has to occur. With sexual harassment a single incident is enough to warrant intervention by HR, management, etc.

You are actually wrong about that.
There are clear guidelines to follow, to classify 'x' as sexual harassment.

Its a good thing too, or the world would be even more chaotic.

Assert your way to victory!

Not really. If something can be construed as sexual in nature and someone doesn't approve, it can be enforced as sexual harassment. It won't always happen that way, say if there was a lude joke and HR just said it violated their code of conduct or something, but it doesn't have to be that way. That was sort of my whole point earlier in the thread - there are still human enforcement decisions even when there are written rules.

It's not like I have to grope someone or ask for sexual favors for it to qualify as sexual harassment.

A company doesn't just tailor their own version of the law.

You seem to have a tough time letting go of the fact, the creator of the script for that video, failed at their main task in demonstrating sexual harassment.

The man's original plan in the video was to show the mud wrestling, to his black male friend. The female coworker walked in unannounced to the man's cubicle, completely showing disrespect for the man's space or privacy and ultimately taking the dominate role in the scene.

She sees the video clip, sadly we cannot see and we must acquire the possibilities that the women were clothed or not clothed. Yes, it was linked from a porn site but we all know; there are men getting aroused by just staring at feet online. Anything that could be, watched in life, could stimulate a certain crowd of people sexually.

So why is my client, guilty of committing a sexual harassment act to the female.
If the roles were reversed and it had been a female playing male mud wrestling and a male coworker had walked in, would there have been this sexual harassment filed? I'm guessing not but mainly because the males realize the world shouldn't revolve around them and would not see any harassment at him.

The female snapped, has shown disrespect to my client and is now harassing my client with false claims.
She should be required to see therapy and have a better life.

I haven't even watched the video so not at all would be my answer to your second comment. I was just using mud wrestling video as an example since it became a central point of a lot of the discussion.

Yes people should tailor their rules to the applicable laws in their jurisdiction (or more restrictive than those laws) for what qualifies as sexual harassment.

You are right that maybe I had conflated some of the qualifications for sexual harassment with qualifications for regular harassment, but I certainly think you're wrong in that 1 incident cannot be construed as sexual harassment even if there is no direct verbal or physical contact with the person claiming harassment.

Fairly irrelevant. No one should expect privacy at a workplace nor are they allowed such privacy outside the bounds of their personal property or person. If the woman didn't have a problem with the clip then sexual harassment didn't occur. When she did, then it does. It's that simple.

Semi-irrelevant if they are clothed or not depending on the clothing or if a person finds one act sexually stimulating while another doesn't.

No reason why he couldn't report it if the roles were reversed. Trolling?

Now you're definitely trolling.

Yep get called a troll by someone that hasn't even watched the video that the argument is about; if sexual harassment was committed or not.

Did not expect that ^^, in the Discussions about computer programming but I guess anything is possible. Just further proves how unintelligent people are that hold their belief; once someone feels wronged, they are in the right and they believe the law dances for them.

Nothing was irrelevant in my posts but the fact that you're a troll or so unintelligent to discuss without even watching the video, means i'm done with this with you and I do claim I'm right.
Nobody on here can win the argument and sadly I hoped to see someone do it.

Maybe someone that hasn't already shown idiocy can attempt it.

this is the whole point of the discussion. and its ludicrous that this is the way things work. it allows people to arbitrarily and unjustly claim that they are victims of harassment. github was simply the trigger because they are perpetuating and validating it.

For someone pretending to have paid such close attention to the video, you missed the part where he told her to "take a look at this, mud wrestling." He directed her attention to the porn he was watching.

Pretty lol to miss that when you're pretending to understand law, like how you pretended to understand investing in politics.

Maybe it's time to lay off the blatant misogynist language, ya think? Calling all women self-centered might be one of those things site owners don't appreciate on their forums.

Mud wrestling != porn

You act as if you can classify anything as porn, if someone or party believes it to be porn.
Yet, the men didn't do anything to label it as porn to them.

Unrelated note, i've seen cheerleading acts with more sexual connections than mud wrestling.

If my client had intention of showing the video to his black male friend and decided to include the female coworker that walked into his or even the company's space.
I see no issue with my client, directing her to what is being shown and agreeing with her request to not further display it when asked.

The problem here is that the victim being labeled as a sexual harasser did nothing to the woman that felt attacked.
She should seek therapy and become a happier person that doesn't believe her coworkers are trying to turn her into the office sex symbol.

I'm waiting for when you will take the legal definition of sexual harassment or even the one you posted in the thread and link where the offence illustrates with the definition.

Or you can try to round up your crew from politically unchained and we can see which monkey throws the most with dodging to provide a logical rational argument to how she was sexually harassed.

Wouldn't bother with this thread anymore if you're not a misogynist jackass. There's no debating with ****ing braindead clowns who legitimately think that watching mud wrestling videos at work is okay.

Watching mud wrestling videos at work is usually not okay(depending on the employer).
I agree with that statement and is a breath of fresh air for this thread to have that clarification in the open.

Think you need to watch the second encounter with the boss again. Or maybe a first time.

Edit

Also

Pure gibberish that shows you haven't read the law and have no clue what the issue in the video is.

The pure gibberish is having to read, watch the video again or an attempt at turning the conversation away from simply linking the definition of sexual harassment to the person that claimed to have been sexually harassed.

It is pretty simple to write out how the person was sexually harassed if she was sexually harassed.

First, he was telling sexist jokes where she heard them and she asked him to stop. He told her she should just laugh cuz they're funny.

This was reported.

Next, he was on a porn site watching mud wrestling. (We're they naked? Doing sexual things? No one can know, except iosys who is 100% sure mud wrestling is never sexual in nature.) He directed her to watch an inappropriate and potentially sexually offensive video, which she was offended by.

Again, reported to the boss.

I'm glad I could read websites and watch videos for you. But you should really try it for yourself sometime.

And yes, that was extremely simple. Strange how you're incapable of understanding such simple things.

I seriously thought your comments were bashing the woman so badly you were intentionally trolling.

Maybe you were trying to use sarcasm to prove how accusations can get out of hand quickly or be misconstrued? I didn't mean to offend you so I apologize if I did.

It's really the only way to classify harassment without being completely ineffective otherwise.

If the harasser could always just say "I didn't mean it that way" then they could be allowed to get away with whatever.

Does it give some people at the extreme room to drop bs accusations? Absolutely. Is it worth going backwards to remedy such false accusations? Probably not . It still doesn't eliminate human intervention in the enforcement process, though when humans are involved mistakes will be made as well.

I'm unaware of how the law states; a joke and video of mud wrestling of a certain gender, that is witnessed by someone of the gender; can claim sexual harassment if the person just happens to be the gender of the content shown.
Specially when there is nothing sexual harassing, about the content or any resemblance or connection to the person claiming sexual harassment besides being a certain gender.

You are not connecting the definition to any; sexual harassment committed towards the female in the video.
Just outlining parts that the female doesn't agree with viewing or listening to and were stopped after she said it is not ok with her.


This whole thing reminds me of United States v. Microsoft: Deposition by Bill Gates.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_2m1qdqieE

The 12 parts are worth watching for anyone that is interested in law or viewing a piece of tech history.
How is it connected you might ask, well that is worth finding out on your own if you have the time.

of course someone could lie and say "i didn't mean it that way", but the issue is now brought to light and any subsequent cases would be looked at differently since now we have a history of this repeating. at that point it shouldn't be too hard to distinguish whats going on.

so i disagree strongly that its not worth fixing. false accusations are the exact reason why we have "innocent until proven guilty", because an unjust conviction is far worse than a real offense slipping through without being caught. further, it sets an awful precedent that is already playing out with the examples posted of bad stuff happening simply because someone felt 'victimized' by the most ******ed of issues. but if you disagree, thats fine. at least you get the point of the discussion, unlike these other trolls