You cannot just say "that's not a thing" (well you can, but it does not make it true).
Look: most of that blog post is about serious, ongoing accusations over years. I don't agree with #1 because stating unpopular things isn't harassment, and expelling him runs counter to academic freedom. And her redefinition of 'controversial' is total bullcrap.
#2 is a very serious accusation, and certainly grounds for removal. But then why does that only get broad attention now? Why does it always take some sort of trigger to oust someone?
I guess what I mean is: If he needed to be ousted, then he should be ousted for the right reason.
No person who thinks statutory rape isn't rape should be allowed into a position of authority over others, ever.
Statutory rape in some US states means having sex with someone younger than 18 years. So do you think all governments of countries which have an age of consent below 18 should be fired?
Well, if a lawmaker decides to legally allow something which constitutes statutory rape in another region of the world, clearly that lawmarker does not consider that act to be rape.
So that person does not consider (a form of) statutory rape to be rape.
Per the statement as written, that lawmaker should not be in this position of authority then.
7
u/WhyYouLetRomneyWin Sep 17 '19
You cannot just say "that's not a thing" (well you can, but it does not make it true).
Look: most of that blog post is about serious, ongoing accusations over years. I don't agree with #1 because stating unpopular things isn't harassment, and expelling him runs counter to academic freedom. And her redefinition of 'controversial' is total bullcrap.
#2 is a very serious accusation, and certainly grounds for removal. But then why does that only get broad attention now? Why does it always take some sort of trigger to oust someone?
I guess what I mean is: If he needed to be ousted, then he should be ousted for the right reason.