[News] Jake Virtanen on leave from the Canucks after sexual misconduct allegation

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

I think if you are a single pro athlete and you want to hookup it is likely best just to go with a professional and really reduce your chances of getting into a situation where you could be accused of something.

Hiring a pro is illegal.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by SebC

Hiring a pro is illegal.

Now what do we do?

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by SebC

Hiring a pro is illegal.

Would it even be news if a player paid for sex? Who would care?

Edit. Didn't think about sex trafficking and other consent issues with this type of work. How do you find a truly consenting sex worker.

We tackle the hard issues here at CP.

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Now what do we do?

Feel shame for 2 minutes or less.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by SebC

Hiring a pro is illegal.

Oddly, only since 2014.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Would it even be news if a player paid for sex? Who would care?

Edit. Didn't think about sex trafficking and other consent issues with this type of work. How do you find a truly consenting sex worker.

We tackle the hard issues here at CP.

The tabloids certainly made hay with Wayne Rooney’s escapades.

https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/...y-6952363.html

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I'm talking about the publishing industry, where commercially successful writers are regularly dropped by their publishers (and blacklisted by the Big Five cartel that controls most bookstore distribution) for being (a) Republican, (b) Christian, (c) seriously practising any other established religion, (d) politically neutral, (e) insufficiently enthusiastic Democrats, (f) using a plain English word instead of a ‘woke’ euphemism, (g) using last year's euphemism instead of this year's euphemism, (h) not au courant with the trendy left-wing cause of the hour. Of course, all these things can be and are labelled as ‘hateful behaviour’, which is all the excuse the Twitter mobs need. You sound like just the sort of person who would do that, since you trotted out the ‘hateful behaviour’ excuse for a situation you know nothing about.

The point is that bosses themselves are afraid of being fired, cancelled, or boycotted, and few of them, especially in the arts and entertainment fields, have the guts to defy a Twitter mob, or the horse sense to ignore it until the storm blows over and the mob finds a new target. With publishers, what it amounts to is that they are looking for excuses to break their contracts with authors who are making money, and believe they can get the same level of net profit by replacing them with unknown writers who will earn the publishers diversity points while being paid a pittance for their work.

It doesn't work, of course, which is why the Big Five publishers (formerly Big Six, soon to be Big Four) are slowly going down the tubes. Only a constant stream of mergers and acquisitions keeps their sales roughly flat; they buy up new businesses to compensate for destroying the old ones. But that's another story.

Well, that went even better than I ever imagined.

TIL that republicans cant sell books.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zach]

Knew of a girl who met up with him at the Fairmont Vancouver and he came on very aggressively from the start. Don’t think he ever learned what the word No meant.

[djsFlames]

Sounds like he needs to learn how courting works.

If he wants a transactional type of meet up where you can skip all the steps in between, then there is a certain line of work out there that functions that way.

Some guys just don't even have a clue. Even big time celebrities.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

This isn’t cancel culture. Cancel culture applies to things like tweeting a bad joke when you’re 15 years old, not sexually assaulting people.

I assume you had a temporary lapse of judgment, see post 83

[afc wimbledon]

I love cancel culture, its cancelled my gay kid being beaten up at school for being who he is, its cancelled my east indian neighbours being called *aki's and having the crap kicked out of them for no reason, it's cancelled my female friends having to put up with casual sexism and violence in the work place and it has for the most part made repugnant human beings with repugnant attitudes at least shut up and realise we dont want to hear their rubbish.

[Plaedo]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I love cancel culture, its cancelled my gay kid being beaten up at school for being who he is, its cancelled my east indian neighbours being called *aki's and having the crap kicked out of them for no reason, it's cancelled my female friends having to put up with casual sexism and violence in the work place and it has for the most part made repugnant human beings with repugnant attitudes at least shut up and realise we dont want to hear their rubbish.

I don't think Cancel Culture is what you think it is.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Plaedo

I don't think Cancel Culture is what you think it is.

I think the two go hand in hand, in the same way that the racist sexist cultures of the 70's didnt cause rapes and gay bashing directly they just opened the door and invited it in

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Well, that went even better than I ever imagined.

TIL that republicans cant sell books.

Maybe take a minute and read the Harper’s Letter expressing alarm about the climate of growing censoriousness and intolerance we’re witnessing. Its signatories include such notorious alt-right ######bags as Margaret Atwood, Noam Chomsky, Malcolm Gladwell, Michael Ignatieff, Garry Kasparov, Salman Rushdie, and Gloria Steinem.

https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-just...d-open-debate/

The notion that we can shame, censor, cancel, and fire our way to a more just society is delusion of the highest order. As the letter states:

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by zamler

I assume you had a temporary lapse of judgment, see post 83

Typically I would agree, however I have a very strong personal bias against Jake Virtanen because of first hand experience I have with the guy. It’s beyond “he’s a jerk”.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Maybe take a minute and read the Harper’s Letter expressing alarm about the climate of growing censoriousness and intolerance we’re witnessing. Its signatories include such notorious alt-right ######bags as Margaret Atwood, Noam Chomsky, Malcolm Gladwell, Michael Ignatieff, Garry Kasparov, Salman Rushdie, and Gloria Steinem.

https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-just...d-open-debate/

The notion that we can shame, censor, cancel, and fire our way to a more just society is delusion of the highest order. As the letter states:

The false equivalency employed in ‘cancel culture’ is one of the biggest problems.

This is also completely separate from Virtanen’s situation at this point.

Equating everyone who owns the mistakes they made in the past with Harvey Weinstein leaves no room for redemption, learning from the mistake, and becoming a better human.

The same clowns who rail against “cancel culture” and “wokism” can’t figure out they are the antidote for each other if you actually explore the reason each one exists and use that reason effectively.

One wants to acknowledge wrong doing and the other wants people to understand and personally appreciate the wrong doing.

Obviously this depends on the severity of wrong doing. You can’t paint everyone with the same brush or you leave no space for those who want to learn from their mistakes. For those that don’t want to learn from their past or wrong doing... they reap what they sow.

[fastpuck]

It's all about personal accountability. If we take ownership of our actions instead of blaming others, it would go a long way. (And I don't mean the women needs to own up) However, I do think women need to make better choices about putting themselves in vulnerable situations.

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I don't understand why people can't just stay neutral and let things play out.
None of us have any idea if the allegations are true and therefore we don't have to choose a verdict.

The accuser has the right to be heard.
Heard fully, with open ears and an unbiased legal system.
Heard without people digging up her past, assessing her personality or how she dresses or any of that sort of stuff.

The accused also has the right to a defence.
Without being treated as guilty, without people saying he did this or that in high school so must be guilty or he goes to clubs so must be guilty or I hear he's a jerk so must be guilty.

I guess people have a nature to take a position, but any position here is from a clear bias and not from knowledge of anything.
I don't think "he's a jerk so must be guilty" is much better than "she's a s*ut so must be lying".

This is the way. Great post.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by fastpuck

It's all about personal accountability. If we take ownership of our actions instead of blaming others, it would go a long way. (And I don't mean the women needs to own up) However, I do think women need to make better choices about putting themselves in vulnerable situations.

Dude. Da fuq?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Maybe take a minute and read the Harper’s Letter expressing alarm about the climate of growing censoriousness and intolerance we’re witnessing. Its signatories include such notorious alt-right ######bags as Margaret Atwood, Noam Chomsky, Malcolm Gladwell, Michael Ignatieff, Garry Kasparov, Salman Rushdie, and Gloria Steinem.

https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-just...d-open-debate/

The notion that we can shame, censor, cancel, and fire our way to a more just society is delusion of the highest order. As the letter states:

Establishment "thought leaders" worried about losing their places of prominence. More at 11.

Maybe I'll dig up some more thoughtful rebuttals to this letter later, but here are a few of my favourite parts:

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial.

Are they? Any more or less than other times in the past? Is this a bad thing?

But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity.

I know they are trying to keep this short and sweet, but I have no idea what they are even talking about. How is the present situation different from the past?

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.

How so? Because people get called out for saying dumb ####? Sounds more open than ever to me...

We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought.

Hmmm. We want people to argue how we want them to argue? We don't have to agree, but they have to agree to dialogue in the manner we prefer?

It's dumb when people call for immediate retribution. Always has been, always will be. If leaders are too quick on the trigger, that's on them.

More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes.

Actions have consequences. We all face moral and ethical dilemmas. Controversial opinions have always required courage. Put up or shut up.

I'm not really sure what they are asking for. The whole thing reads as "it's great that society is progressing, but we don't want to take any of the collateral damage from it."