AlanShearer wrote:
Sure, I'm game. Just so I'm clear . . . you do NOT think that men who sexually harass women are shit bags. Got it. Just as nobody had defended Bill Clinton's behavior, notwithstanding Windywave's revisionary attempt to characterize the presidential campaign threads, I don't see anyone excusing anyone of harassing behavior or claiming that is acceptable.
But to your point, I don't believe that men who sexually harass women are
necessarily shit bags. Why must everything be black and white, good and evil, etc? Why can't people be complicated and flawed? I know lots of people, men and women, who have done shitty things. But that doesn't define their entire character.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion on that, as am I. I'm sure that Roger Ailes did some good things in his life, but in this regard, if he did these things, he's a shit bag. I feel the same way about MLK and Bill Cosby. I didn't say Ailes (or MLK, or Bill Clinton, or Cosby) has no redeeming qualifications. I just think that if he did these things, he's an asshole.
FWIW, the statement you bolded was sort of to point out the leap of logic Old Hickory was making in making assumptions. Of course I don't think he condones sexual harassment or idolizes harassers. I don't know him well enough to make that judgment. The point of it was that his attempt to label me and marginalize my statements was based on a similar intellectually dishonest leap.
''The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t.''
—Lars-Erik Nelson