TakeYouToTasker

Exactly this. People have lost their damn minds.

Again, I don't mind that Brandon is gone. While I think he did an absolutely outstanding job keeping the team profitable towards the end of the Ralph years, and is a major reason the team is still in Buffalo; I think his value has declined, and that it may have been time to move on from him. And that's fine. And it entirely the Pegula's right as employers. However, if what you speculate is accurate, that would be an objectively awful thing for an employer to do: to seek to scandal out an employee who became inconvenient to the ambitions of the wife of the owner. Important to note: I'm not saying that's what happened. I recognize you aren't saying that's what happened. What I'm saying is that sort of thing should be viewed as absolutely unacceptable behavior by an employer.

I understand the standard, I'm saying that the standard is wrong. As I said upthread: I reject a guiding philosophy under which businesses get to dictate how people should behave in their personal lives based on how willing others are to sue them, and the hands-in-pockets, strangely humanist-yet-Puritanical, untrusting outcomes all of this dictates.

As I've said here many times, I am open to the possibility that Russ Brandon is a serial abuser and is guilty of grossly inappropriate conduct at work, which would justify him being forced out. I truly am. If that's what happened, it would be justified. My point here, is that we don't know, and yet there is a rush to vilify.

Yeah, I can see how you might feel that way when someone tries to inject the sanity of the middle ground, which is the presumption of innocence (and yes, I understand this isn't a legal proceeding, and that the Pegula's have every right to force Brandon out of his role), into a loud and robust chorus of "BURN THE WITCH! BURN THE WITCH!" This chorus, indulging when not fully embracing the beliefs of third wave feminists, is celebrating the firing of a man for what appears to be consensual sex with a co-worker. If this is what is now being defined as sexual misconduct, then it should be argued against on moral grounds. The Pegula's, nor any other employer, should feel empowered to dismiss anyone because of what consenting adults they choose to sleep with. It's none of their damn business.

I'll just go ahead and stop you right there. If the average environmentally focused liberal understood supply chains or operational opportunity cost they wouldn't be an environmentally focused liberal.

Then we are having two different conversations. As I said in one of my first several posts in this thread, I respect the Pegula's right, which I 100% support, to negotiate Russ Brandon's exit. That is their decision, and I am far more generous in supporting the right of the employer to discharge any employee for any reason than most you'll encounter. That is not what is in dispute. What I am arguing against is the moral underpinnings of a guiding philosophy which directly ties how people should behave to how willing we are to sue people, and the hands-in-pockets, strangely humanist-yet-Puritanical, untrusting outcomes all of this dictates. I understand that you're arguing the law, because the law is on your side. I'm arguing that I think it's wrong to presume the accused is guilty simply because he's been accused. And again, this shouldn't be controversial. Edit: And if what he was fired for was dipping his pen in the company ink, the only scandal is that Kim Pegula feels herself meta enough that she should be able to dictate to people who they should !@#$.

Right, so we've now determined that raping, pillaging, murdering are healthy male behavior... And we've determined that going to work naked and jerking or at your desk are essentially the same thing as asking a woman out, or placing your hand on her shoulder. I'm participating in this thread: What the hell are you on about?

I understand how it works in practicality. I'm not arguing that. What I'm saying is that it's wrong.

Hardly, and I'd say you're being dismissive of reality. It's an incredibly one sided process. There's a reason that the #metoo movement has precipitated a large scale pullback by men in the work place, exiting mentor relationships, being less willing to work/travel with female co-workers in a 1:1 capacity etc. There is a very real push to "believe the accuser" as opposed to finding the truth. This is a real thing. I don't know that's the case with Brandon. Could be that he's a POS, and was serially abusive and grossly inappropriate, but until I know for sure, I won't celebrate his, or anyone else's dismissal (or recusal) on these grounds. This shouldn't be controversial. As an aside, your lecturing anyone about their biases is the height of irony.

People are people first, wherever they are. I don't stop being a man, and a woman does not stop being a woman, no matter where we are; and in today's world we spend more time with the people we work with, at work, then we do anywhere else or with anyone else. Work makes up the overwhelming majority of most people's entire social circle. It is OK to make an advance towards someone you find attractive, even at work.

Give me a list of things you feel are "normal healthy male behavior" on this list.

Like I said, Joe, in this environment I'm always hesitant to celebrate this sort of thing because it's always too one sided. Again, I'm not saying he shouldn't be gone. I'm just saying that I'd want to know exactly why before I'd celebrate it. This shouldn't be controversial. This is fair, and should absolutely be part of the conversation.

Tell me what Russ Brandon did that was wrong.

He is (was) an at will employee, and his employers did choose to fire him. That's their right, and one I support fully. I do not, however, in this environment, on the heels of a runaway #metoo movement built by individuals actively seeking to harm powerful men by pathologizing normal healthy male sexuality, trust anyone making this sort of decision unless they present evidence. I understand why you do, because we all know where your bread is buttered. P.S. I don't really care about your opinion about my "optics". I'm concerned with realities, not optics; and the reality is that this sort of thing happens far too frequently to men guilty of nothing more than being men; but they are presumed to be guilty of whatever they are charged with, and it's wrong.

What do you mean "taking advantage"? By definition "consensual relationship" generally means no advantage was taken, but rather any advantage was freely given. The standards should be applied evenly, otherwise we are living in a caste system. If you learned anything other than that, I believe what you learned was wrong. (Important to note, that's not a personal judgment about you, but rather about the material being discussed.)

If it's a repeated thing with the same woman, that rises to the level of harassment. Possibly. If it's different women, it's les likely. Either way, we don't know, so I'm not celebrating. On principal.

He is losing his livelihood at a time he didn't plan to. For anyone, regardless of compensation levels, that's a step towards financial ruin. And even if you are happy to see him go, which is fair, are you so eager to see him gone that you don't mind seeing him hustled out the door on nebulous charges of "workplace misconduct"? I'm not.

What rules did Russ Brandon break? And do you mean rules, or laws? And what constitutes just law here? Do you mean "Don't run up and grab a woman by her breasts"? Because I think we can all agree on that one. Or do you mean "Don't do anything that has the potential to make a woman feel briefly awkward or uncomfortable?" Because I don't think I can agree there.

I haven't seen it for the same reason I stopped watching Star Wars films: I have no desire to spend my money to be inundated with social justice themes. These !@#$s can, and do, get their money from someone else.

It's sabermetrics impact on the game. It isn't going away.

That's the thing about advances. You don't know if they are unwanted, or otherwise, until after you've made the advance. We should not be attempting to pathologize normal male sexuality, not even in the work place.

While I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion here, both because of Brandon's (some would say deserved) unpopularity amongst the fan base, and because of a rush by SJWs and those afraid to confront them, to assume the guilt of any man accused of misbehavior; before I celebrate steps towards the financial ruin of another human being, I'd like to hear/see the evidence, know how the investigation was conducted, and hear Brandon's side. Until then I stand opposed, on principle.

1. Field of Dreams 2. Trouble with the Curve 3. Bull Durham 4. The Sandlot 5. A League of Their Own

You know we're talking about government boondoggles and unions negotiating protections for labor here, right? And while I am in 100% agreement with you in demanding that government become more efficient, and do more with less; I'm rather surprised (pleasantly) to find you as an ally here, and hope that you'll take this exact same view and impose it on education, social programs, etc.