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
-
-
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
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likes -
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 -
Replying to @0youngbs @arthur_affect and
Yes & he is paying a professional price for his stupidity. These days, people get the added punishment of public shaming from many who some day might do something equally stupid. Unless he did this on purpose, which I am now genuinely confused about given some reactions
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
We won't ever know if it was intentional or not barring the ability to read his mind The point is his actions were so absurdly reckless it almost doesn't matter -- like why it's perverse to call someone running someone over driving 80 mph through a crosswalk a "car accident"
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @0youngbs and
I think intent is relevant even if not as a matter of judgment here. Ppl do unintentionally stupid stuff all the time & we see these public pile-ons. Toobin is rich/will be fine, but i don’t take pleasure in the glee with which people shame not just the famous but regular folks..
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @javimorillo @arthur_affect and
...for mistakes—not for purposely predatory behavior. Screw those people.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
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.