I fully believe this was an accident, but there's a reason lawsuits have a category for "negligence", especially "wanton and willful" or "reckless" negligence Just like jerking off in your office at work may not be intentional exhibitionism but it's not fucking okay
-
-
And yes, the sheer absurdity of the risk he was taking -- the Zoom call hadn't even actually *ended*, he was *still logged in* -- calls into question whether there wasn't some element of deliberate exhibitionism ("fear of getting caught") playing into it
1 reply 1 retweet 38 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @javimorillo
This is it. It's not like the call hadn't actually started and he thought he wasn't on video. It was in the middle of the meeting. He thought he'd turned his camera off, but FFS, he couldn't wait until it was over?
2 replies 0 retweets 22 likes -
Like, I don't think he intended to do it, but like Arthur said, if you're in a closed storage room at work and someone unexpectedly opens the door, you may not have intended anything, but still.
1 reply 0 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @jkfecke @javimorillo
This isn't the equivalent even of having sex in the bathroom in a locked stall or whatever, this is the equivalent of having sex IN HIS OFFICE with the DOOR AJAR
2 replies 2 retweets 28 likes -
It was so risky that it's like this tossup question "Does he have serious impulse control issues or does he have an actual voyeurism risk-of-getting-caught fetish" Either way it doesn't matter, it means he should no longer be trusted to work there
3 replies 2 retweets 34 likes -
Or third possibility: He has so little regard for his co-workers, and for what was going on in the meeting, that he figured he might as well jerk off during it. At the very least, that’s something to be disciplined for.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I agree with that and it certainly looks like he will face professional repercussions. It’s the puritanical shaming on top of all that which, though a human reaction we can all engage in, doesn’t mean it doesn’t itself also have bad consequences
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Make up your mind — are we Puritans, looking to lock a guy in stocks for violating sexual propriety, or are we middle-schoolers at recess, laughing because something funny happened? Because *those are different things*.pic.twitter.com/wBJaZKAuFg
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
They are different, and both suck. Take your pick. Arthur did both, mocking a 60 year old for still having a libido while also proclaiming horror at adultery.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
He's the one who said he had to apologize to his wife for what happened dude And the joke about him being 60 was about him having the judgment and impulse control of a teenager, not the "libido" of one
-
-
Good for him for apologizing to his wife, the person who gets to judge him on that. As for the joke about his age, I don’t see a distinction but, that’s fine. We all sometimes make jokes that fall flat. That’s all.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @javimorillo @arthur_affect and
Public behavior gets public feedback. Nobody consented to be involved in his otherwise unobjectionable sexual act, thereby rendering it *absolutely* objectionable.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.