The New Puritans

[eschatological]

I mean, students have been dating and even marrying professors for forever. And why wouldn't you flirt with people at a political event when something so central to who you are (your personal politics) have both brought you to the same event?

From what I can tell, none of these relationships were with his actual students, just students at the school he taught at. I can't tell you how many successful relationships I know of in that category, especially in the grad student age range but occasionally in the undergrad level as well.

I don't know what the definition of "grooming" is in this situation, nor do I understand how it's an abuse of a power structure, if he's not dating his actual students. What's grooming, just fawning over a younger person in a relationship? Why do these young men feel unable to leave the relationship with him? He has.....no power over them, except the normal power of people in a relationship who don't want to get emotionally hurt by breaking up.

I think the student group acted a little eye-rollingly, but I also acknowledge Greenwald and Taibbi have become weird "we must police the Left" type idiots who claim to be liberal but only repeat alt-right talking points. I don't think there's any "latent progressive homophobia" here.

[Milchshake]

I mean, students have been dating and even marrying professors for forever. And why wouldn't you flirt with people at a political event when something so central to who you are (your personal politics) have both brought you to the same event?

From what I can tell, none of these relationships were with his actual students, just students at the school he taught at. I can't tell you how many successful relationships I know of in that category, especially in the grad student age range but occasionally in the undergrad level as well.

I don't know what the definition of "grooming" is in this situation, nor do I understand how it's an abuse of a power structure, if he's not dating his actual students. What's grooming, just fawning over a younger person in a relationship? Why do these young men feel unable to leave the relationship with him? He has.....no power over them, except the normal power of people in a relationship who don't want to get emotionally hurt by breaking up.

I think the student group acted a little eye-rollingly, but I also acknowledge Greenwald and Taibbi have become weird "we must police the Left" type idiots who claim to be liberal but only repeat alt-right talking points. I don't think there's any "latent progressive homophobia" here.

Um no, I'd push back that this is acceptable in any form.

Coed education has not been around forever. Unless marrying your teen bride in the prairie schoolhouse is part of your tradition.
The abuse is way worse at the grad level. The power dynamic is really heightened when your thesis-advisor or someone on the review committee can completely break your career on a whim.

Anecdotally, I've seen too many creepy relationships come out of this dynamic.

Worst case example, the wife enables the creepy predations.
Yale Law dean: Reports that professor groomed female clerks for Kavanaugh 'of enormous concern'. Amy Chua, Tiger Mom and mini Ghislaine Maxwell.

[Kaleredar]

Perhaps the best thing to come from this thread is that “the new puritans” would be a dope band name.

[eschatological]

Um no, I'd push back that this is acceptable in any form.

Coed education has not been around forever. Unless marrying your teen bride in the prairie schoolhouse is part of your tradition.
The abuse is way worse at the grad level. The power dynamic is really heightened when your thesis-advisor or someone on the review committee can completely break your career on a whim.

Anecdotally, I've seen too many creepy relationships come out of this dynamic.

....but none of them were his students? Like, I can't get over that bit. I agree, if he has power as a thesis-advisor or someone on someone's review committee, or the power to "completely break your career on a whim," that would be completely unethical and unacceptable.

As far as I can tell, he was just dating younger men who happened to go to the school he taught at, and who he met at political events on campus. Is there an indication that he had any sort of power over them?

[Thee ANCOM]

Oh yeah wasn't Taibbi the same dipshit claiming the Trump whistleblower wasn't actually a whistleblower because they didn't have their life ruined?

Greenwald in paticular has a real hate boner for the Democrats.

[Milchshake]

....but none of them were his students? Like, I can't get over that bit. I agree, if he has power as a thesis-advisor or someone on someone's review committee, or the power to "completely break your career on a whim," that would be completely unethical and unacceptable.

As far as I can tell, he was just dating younger men who happened to go to the school he taught at, and who he met at political events on campus. Is there an indication that he had any sort of power over them?

He actively pursued them. Why invite a guy like that over to exploit the gray areas of your consent policy? Looks like the responsible parties rescinded that invitation.

Whats clear is, the college Dems found that Morse's behavior made them uncomfortable. They way he insisted at speaking at their engagements. The way he pursued students at that venue.

That's all that anyone needs to really know.

A mayor should be more aware of consent. He wields a lot more power by default, where ever he goes, just by being mayor. Him pleading ignorance to this fact, is not a good look.

In general;
Today, a lot of creepy 30+ guys are outing themselves. Insisting on terms of consent that are only advantageous to them.

Sorry about your mid-life crisis. Go buy some rogaine, buy a camarro, or eat an elkdick like joe rogan. Leave the kids alone.

[eschatological]

So a single mayor.......can't date anyone "too young?" Did he insist on speaking at these engagements, or was he often a speaker at them because he's a well-known progressive in the area? He's not committing adultery, as far as I can tell he can't wield influence over these young men's lives...IDK, it seems a little age-ist to me. If they were also 30-something year old men, but still, say, in grad school, would it then be okay?

I was a member of the Student Democrats, in college.......and moreover, in Boston, MA. And I've never dated anyone substantially younger than me (or older than me). I'm just trying to be reasonable here, and ask why an adult can't date another adult..even if he is mayor? What is the pressure against breaking up with someone who happens to be mayor? Are you honestly saying a mayor can't date his constituents on the off-chance he may be a retributive asshole when they break up with him?

[Endus]

I mean, students have been dating and even marrying professors for forever. And why wouldn't you flirt with people at a political event when something so central to who you are (your personal politics) have both brought you to the same event?

Because you don't want to be seen using your political career to troll for dates? Because you have a sense of professionalism about your role?

From what I can tell, none of these relationships were with his actual students, just students at the school he taught at. I can't tell you how many successful relationships I know of in that category, especially in the grad student age range but occasionally in the undergrad level as well.

Grad students are a bit of a special case, especially doctoral students, since they're more akin to colleagues than subordinates, if they're not your student. Doctoral students often teach courses, themselves. They certainly act as mentors to other students. They're conducting self-directed research that's contributing to their field. Etc.

There's no implication in the article that would suggest there was a natural evolution of a relationship between colleagues, however. It specifically says he was trolling on apps like Grindr and Tinder. That's not the same thing.

I don't know what the definition of "grooming" is in this situation, nor do I understand how it's an abuse of a power structure, if he's not dating his actual students. What's grooming, just fawning over a younger person in a relationship? Why do these young men feel unable to leave the relationship with him? He has.....no power over them, except the normal power of people in a relationship who don't want to get emotionally hurt by breaking up.

The article states it explicitly, even if it's dismissive. He'd meet students, track them down on social media, and then they felt obliged to respond because of his position and influence.

And sure; it may not be something illegal, but that doesn't mean it isn't skeevy. All that this article is about is that a political outreach group working with colleges (the College Democrats of Massachusetts) no longer wants Morse to attend their events. That's it. It isn't even the college itself making this decision.

I think the student group acted a little eye-rollingly, but I also acknowledge Greenwald and Taibbi have become weird "we must police the Left" type idiots who claim to be liberal but only repeat alt-right talking points. I don't think there's any "latent progressive homophobia" here.

Whether you agree Morse acted poorly or not, the idea that this means the entire left are homophobic commie religio-fascists engaging in moral panic is just absolute bat-fucking lunacy.

[eschatological]

He'd meet people at an event, and then add them on Instagram or DM them? The horror!

This is how literally every relationship (friendship and otherwise) has worked for about 10 years now.

The point is, THEY'RE NOT OBLIGED. This is not coercion, legally or ethically. It's making a pass. They're fucking 21, act like it. If you don't like a 31 year old mayor sliding into your DMs.......guess what, block him and don't respond.

[Felya]

Perhaps the best thing to come from this thread is that “the new puritans” would be a dope band name.

Not even that...

[Endus]

He'd meet people at an event, and then add them on Instagram or DM them? The horror!

This is how literally every relationship (friendship and otherwise) has worked for about 10 years now.

The point is, THEY'RE NOT OBLIGED. This is not coercion, legally or ethically. It's making a pass. They're fucking 21, act like it. If you don't like a 31 year old mayor sliding into your DMs.......guess what, block him and don't respond.

And again, literally the only consequence for this we're talking about is this one political activism group decided not to invite him to future events. To quote your own response; the horror!

[eschatological]

And again, literally the only consequence for this we're talking about is this one political activism group decided not to invite him to future events. To quote your own response; the horror!

Except that he's trying to unseat one of the most corrupt Dems in Congress, Richard Neal, and this letter coincidentally came out less than a month away from that Democratic primary.

He hasn't even taught at UMass since last year in the spring. He taught one class once a week to about 30 students, and because of that he's not supposed to date 20k people in what is predominantly a college town?

Hypothetical for you (this hasn't happened): I run a foundation which gives about 300k in grants a year to local NGOs. I would never date anyone from those NGOs. But should I be ethically barred from dating someone from ANY NGO because of the potential threat of me not giving money to their NGO in the future, if it doesn't work out? Or because of the threat that I'd go out of my way to gatekeep their attempts to fundraise at other grant-giving institutions? Even though it's likely, as a progressive and a lawyer, I'm probably well matched with some of these people?

If I'm not barred, then the issue in Morse's case is....age? That they're in college? Cause that sounds exactly like the infantilization of adulthood that Taibbi is talking about.

[Milchshake]

Except that he's trying to unseat one of the most corrupt Dems in Congress, Richard Neal, and this letter coincidentally came out less than a month away from that Democratic primary.

He hasn't even taught at UMass since last year in the spring. He taught one class once a week to about 30 students, and because of that he's not supposed to date 20k people in what is predominantly a college town?

Hypothetical for you (this hasn't happened): I run a foundation which gives about 300k in grants a year to local NGOs. I would never date anyone from those NGOs. But should I be ethically barred from dating someone from ANY NGO because of the potential threat of me not giving money to their NGO in the future, if it doesn't work out? Or because of the threat that I'd go out of my way to gatekeep their attempts to fundraise at other grant-giving institutions? Even though it's likely, as a progressive and a lawyer, I'm probably well matched with some of these people?

If I'm not barred, then the issue in Morse's case is....age? That they're in college? Cause that sounds exactly like the infantilization of adulthood that Taibbi is talking about.

So Tiabbi the argument is;
The students are old enough to consent.
But the students aren't old enough to tell Morse to stay away.

Serious brain worms.

[eschatological]

They're allowed to do whatever the fuck they want.

But criticizing it is also fair game, and, in this case, justified, imo.

- - - Updated - - -

So Tiabbi the argument is;
The students are old enough to consent.
But the students aren't old enough to tell Morse to stay away.

Serious brain worms.

Nice try at shifting the argument.

[Endus]

Except that he's trying to unseat one of the most corrupt Dems in Congress, Richard Neal, and this letter coincidentally came out less than a month away from that Democratic primary.

He hasn't even taught at UMass since last year in the spring. He taught one class once a week to about 30 students, and because of that he's not supposed to date 20k people in what is predominantly a college town?

Hypothetical for you (this hasn't happened): I run a foundation which gives about 300k in grants a year to local NGOs. I would never date anyone from those NGOs. But should I be ethically barred from dating someone from ANY NGO because of the potential threat of me not giving money to their NGO in the future, if it doesn't work out? Or because of the threat that I'd go out of my way to gatekeep their attempts to fundraise at other grant-giving institutions? Even though it's likely, as a progressive and a lawyer, I'm probably well matched with some of these people?

If I'm not barred, then the issue in Morse's case is....age? That they're in college? Cause that sounds exactly like the infantilization of adulthood that Taibbi is talking about.

I don't think it's age; Morse is in his early 30s, and even if he's targeting undergrads, they're 19-22 or so. Maybe a LITTLE iffy, but not worth any real backlash.

What this story sounds like, to me, is that the College Democrats saw Morse using their meetings as a dating pool, rather than engaging politically in any meaningful sense, and leveraging his position to apply some pressure to those he wanted to date. And let me emphasize, so much that I'm going to separate it into an extra sentence by itself; the issue seems to be that there was any such pressure, however lightly or obliquely applied; the College Democrats never accused him of overtly pressuring anyone so we shouldn't consider that their issue (Taibbi does, to his argument's detriment, obviously).

Is that reasonable? Maybe. Maybe not. It's really up the the College Democrats, isn't it? The only negative impact is that Morse is no longer welcome at their events. They're free to make such a decision, right? That's Taibbi's fundamental issue; he's pearl-clutching about how this private organization dared to make a decision about who's welcome at their private events. And I'm like . . . okay? And?

Edit: To be clear; I am not arguing that Morse is a terrible, awful sexual predator. I don't think the College Democrats were, either. I think we're only talking about this because Taibbi blew up a nothingburger into a "LOOK AT THE LEFT EATING THEIR OWN" bit of propaganda horseshit.


Also, regarding your NGO hypothetical, the answer there seems really obvious; if you're currently dating or have a past relationship with one of their staff, you should probably declare your conflict of interest and step out of the financial decision about which NGOs to fund. It doesn't matter how well you can separate the personal from the professional; whatever your decision, it can be argued to be colored, either in conscious or subconscious preference/dismissal, or in the conscious rejection of such where you're more critical or supportive than you'd otherwise be because you're trying to counteract what you presume is internal bias you might hold. Isn't that standard practice? It certainly was in the professional groups I've been part of. Even non-romantic friendships are grounds for declaring a conflict of interest.

[Milchshake]

They're allowed to do whatever the fuck they want.

But criticizing it is also fair game, and, in this case, justified, imo.

- - - Updated - - -



Nice try at shifting the argument.

Nope, that's you with QAnon levels of deflections, " unseat one of the most corrupt Dems in Congress, Richard Neal,"! Corrupt? Tell us more.

I get it, some people are Tiabbi fanboys. He coined the term Vampire Capitalism Squid .... so cool. Don't let him coast on that for 13 years.
Actually, now that i'm more familiar with Tiabbi's creepiness. I'm starting his vampire squids reference was a tell ....

Run away school girls!

[Yuujin]

Just imagine all the dogshit Theo must read through everyday if this is the article she decides to climb on top of and plant her flag in.

[eschatological]

I'm talking a hypothetical person in an NGO that I do not fund. IE, analagous to this part-time lecturer who didn't teach any of the students he slept with. You're saying I should disclose to anyone I ever date that works at an NGO that I make decisions about NGOs to fund....?

This is infantile behavior. Adults would say: "Hey, okay, I won't ever apply to a grant from your foundation, and your foundation will never fund us." That's an adult conversation and sorts it out instantly.

As for your conjecture - it's precisely that. They didn't imply he showed up at any place he wasn't invited, they didn't imply he didn't contribute in the way they wanted......they just say he hit on students afterwards and slid in their DMs. Now, back when I was in university, we were inviting Noam Chomsky to speak, so he didn't hit on students, even 20 years ago, but it's fairly common for a prominent guy to be invited, to come, give a speech open to the public, then there be a little mixer afterwards with the speaker thrown by the organization that's more closed, and intimate. And there's absolutely NO indication he put conscious pressure on anyone, and the "positional pressure" I just don't think exists when a dude is sliding into your DMs and you're......what....afraid to not fuck him because he can open doors for you politically? As long as he's not threatening to close doors, I don't give a fuck whose DMs he slides into, as long as no means no, and it's between consenting adults.

Of course Taibbi is being disingenuous because he wants to make an anti-PC, Left-devouring-itself argument. That doesn't mean he can't be right on this one. I do think this student organization is being overly sensitive and expanding what the idea of "power over someone" is. Should anything be done about it? Nah, the organization is allowed to do whatever they want. But I used to belong to CDMA, and it's disappointing to say the least, imo.

[eschatological]

-snip-!

This is you deflecting, not me. I don't agree with Taibbi almost ever. Just because he's being a disingenuous asshole here to exaggerate for effect doesn't mean he's wrong all the time. I think the CDMA overreacted. I can think that, and criticize them, without thinking they must change their behavior.

Richard Neal became Chair of Ways and Means in the House in 2018. He promised, in a close re-election bid, to get Trump's tax returns. He instantly reneged on it once he was appointed as Chair of Ways and Means. He regularly takes money from corporations, and his top donor in his last election was a PAC called "Votesane" which is headed by REPUBLICAN lobbyists and influencers. He was accused last year of pay-to-play politics in the liberal Boston Globe where wealthy donors who were oh-so-coincidentally having important hearings in front of Ways and Means were wined and dined by Neal. Here's a more in-depth Vice article on it...is Vice liberal enough a source for you? https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3...swamp-creature

You trying to tie me to QAnon is partisanship at its finest. I think I've proven my progressive bona fides time and time again - whereas you seem to want to protect a shady corporate, centrist Dem and attack a rising progressive over what, imo, is nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't fish from thre company pier. Even if it's legal i wouldn't do it for 2 reasons.

1. Getting #metoo'ed
2. If the relationship goes south. Who's the say what will happen?

It gets even stranger if that person is an educator. Especially in a college environment.

He's a part time lecturer who teaches one class a semester, and never dated anyone he taught, as far as anyone has alleged.

[Underverse]

I have mixed feelings on this. One the one hand, I don't think this scenario is representative of a typical or even common mindset and I also believe that organizations are fully within their rights to choose who to invite to their events and who to 'disinvite'.

On the other hand, that's not really what this is about. This is about the growing sterilization of human sexual interactions and delivering 'justice' to nonconformers. As much as I hate to admit it, I have noticed that many of my peers (liberal friends) have adopted zero-tolerance policies towards anything that could potentially make someone uncomfortable. Although I agree that we should try to avoid making people uncomfortable (for example, discouraging younger professors from dating undergrads and graduate students), I also believe that people should have the freedom to operate outside of what is considered a stringent social norm if everyone involved is consenting and no harm is being done - without having to worry about a witch hunt. This kind of public thrashing constitutes a witch hunt, and given that this professor was sleeping with people who are not his students, that can't be justified. Even if he was 65 years old and did the same thing - creepy in my opinion, but doesn't justify the public condemnation and unless he's harming someone, I don't care and it's none of my business.

This is all to say that I find this story to be a microcosm in a larger (but still minority) trend which has been evolving for over a decade. And yes, I would describe it as a certain strain of puritanism. I actually think that concept of this mindset is perfectly apt, because that's really what this is about: controlling other people's sexual endeavors through social leverage because they fall a hair outside of what you consider the norm.