Comment by stickfigure
1 day ago
I feel like taking risks today, so I'm going to publicly stake out a position that I haven't heard yet:
1. From reading the two women's statements (and between the lines of his), I believe the guy probably is a bad person.
2. Despite this, he shouldn't be cancelled from his profession.
We as a society need to be able to compartmentalize our lives to some degree. Unless you work in tiny companies your whole life, some of the people you work with will be trumpers, socialists, pro-lifers, had 5 abortions, religious fundamentalists, gay, anti-vaxers, teetotalers, swingers, or maybe even all of the above. Everyone believes something that someone else considers cancelworthy. It shouldn't matter; you're at work, not a social club.
We should be able to narrow our cancellations somewhat. Tell everyone that the OP is a terrible human being, sure! Cancel his dating life. If someone is a terrible employee, cancel her work life! But leave her family alone. You're welcome to kick me out of your religious revival, and you probably don't want me at your AA meetings either.
I get it, especially on the conference circuit in a small tight-knit professional community, the line between personal and professional can get muddy. But this isn't new; something like 20% of Americans met their spouse at work. I think we just have to navigate it ad hoc. People can and do maintain professional relationships while still cutting those people out of their social life.
It looks like this guy leveraged his high status in the community to sleep with young naive starry-eyed women, plus was a dick about it. I guess there are groupies in every scene. Still, these weren't employees. They weren't even coworkers. I think it would be weird to accuse Gene Simmons of "exploiting his position as a rock star to have sex with women". He's said many times that was kind of the whole point!
I guess what I'm saying is... probably the two public testimonials from women were enough to get the job done. Sometimes just word getting around should be enough.
I agree with your second point but your first point undoes it.
You’re an observer on the internet who knows none of these people and came to a conclusion based on just their words alone. Which is exactly what causes these things to happen.
Let’s be real: absolutely nothing about this situation should lead you to believe them over him.
Everyone judges, and with incomplete information. I don't want to cancel the guy but if my (hypothetical) daughter took an interest in him, I'd make sure she read those two public letters. It would be irresponsible to say "well it's just their words" unless those two women don't exist and it's all made up by an LLM.
At any rate, "he didn't do it" is missing the point I'm trying to make: We shouldn't professionally cancel him even if he's 100% exactly as painted.
I understand and agree with your wider point but again your other point needs to be addressed.
“Well it’s just their words” is exactly the right reaction to have.
There is no other evidence presented whatsoever. It is quite literally just their words.