[nbouscal]

> The law should be handling sexual harassment.

I think people on both sides of this issue would love it if the law showed itself capable of handling sexual harassment cases. Unfortunately we have way too much evidence that that just isn't the case. The obvious example that comes to mind is Brock Turner getting three months, and that's in the best case where someone is actually convicted. Far too often it never gets to that point, not because the harassment/assault didn't occur, but because the legal system is so utterly shit at handling it. The 'outragism' that so many people decry only exists in the first place because every system that is supposed to prevent or punish these acts has failed so completely.

[ntsplnkv2]

And we have even MORE evidence that companies ALWAYS mishandle these cases with BLATANT conflicts of interest.

You're basically arguing that companies should become their own units of law enforcement with their own punishments as they see fit, with no oversight. That is clearly not going to work. It clearly hasn't.

If the law is unfair, we have the power to change that law. Exceptions always exist but we can not make laws on exceptions. Meanwhile companies continue to allow harassment on a daily basis, Look at Fox News. Multiple cases. Imagine in other corporations?

[nbouscal]

I'm arguing nothing of the sort. While it probably feels good to strawman everyone who disagrees with you, it certainly isn't helping you persuade anyone, nor is it allowing you to learn from other perspectives.

While we may theoretically have the power to change the way law enforcement works on these issues, doing so would be dramatically more difficult than making marginal improvements within the industry itself. We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.