Respectfully, I am not sure that I can go so far as you are in arguing that JD sexually harassed Rosebud. I will agree that there is arguably a case to be made, and I am happy to see it made. At this point, I am arguing against that case, but I could be convinced otherwise.Lem wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:01 pmThis continued emphasis on how the victim behaved, what she thinks, how she responded, followed by multiple psychological interpretations is really getting uncomfortable. Kish, I believe, recently pointed out that such psychological evaluations of Peterson are inappropriate, I believe that assessment holds here as well.
There is arguably a case of sexual harassment here, which the Open Stories Foundation board and JD handled very, very badly, possibly even illegally. Sadly, it seems there is not much that can be done now, other than to release information. That's been done.
No matter how badly Rosebud and her supporters act, responding to the accusation of sexual harassment by repeatedly and viciously dissecting the behavior, words and actions of the victim when she was responding to said sexual harassment is very, very one-sided. This continued bashing of the victim is why victims don't come forward. I also don't agree with the continued attacks on JD. He and the board got away with something that really doesn't seem to be fixable now. Letting it go doesn't mean JD gets off scot-free, his reputation with me, at least, is severely tarnished. But it's time to let it go.
Furthermore, if a statute does not apply, it does not apply, whether we feel it should apply or not. If you want me to agree that JD is kinda slimy and inclined to exercise poor restraint in his relationships with women who are not his wife, I can definitely get on board with that. It seems to me, however, that we need to decide whether the term sexual harassment is being judged by statute (at X point in time), current mores, or a company policy (at Y point in time). I can't be persuaded to apply whichever standard at any given time (not that you would ask me to). This is why I am, for my own clarity, removing the term sexual harassment from consideration.
I would be grateful if you would tell me which standard you are applying (law, current mores, present Open Stories Foundation policy) so I can be clear what it is we are arguing for here. If you were to say, current mores or present Open Stories Foundation policy, I would say, OK, but what does that mean in terms of the appropriate outcome for something that happened in 2012? I know you have in some ways been painfully clear on this, but I still sense there is a lot of inadvertent sliding around in the conversation, not from you, but in terms of how others may be interpreting you.
Honestly, I have spent a lot more time reading JD and Joanna Brooks and dissecting their words than I have Rosebud's. I generally don't get much from reading Rosebud, and I have not learned a whole lot from what she has said for a decade. The more I read JD and Joanna Brooks, the thinner the margin in favor of Rosebud's accusation becomes, in my opinion. I have been watching JD and Rosebud for years now, and I have yet to see evidence that looks unequivocally damning of Rosebud's alleged bad guys. What I see is that JD is kinda cis-gender hetero and sexist in a garden variety way, and that he lacks good judgment and restraint.
Rosebud has made her psychology an issue by talking about it . . . a lot. DCP doesn't really spend a lot of time ruminating on his own psychology, and so people generally go after his psychology because they don't like him. I have no reason to dislike Rosebud or JP. On any other topic on any other day, we would probably get along well. Why they will attack me now is because I oppose their crusade against Dehlin, which I do think is deeply personal, clearly psychological, and obviously very echo/post-Mormon.
