"At the very least a creep"
Can you clarify what the rules are with regards to someone being 'a creep'. Is it anyone who does not behave like a Nun [or other strict religious fanatic type of non-gendered language]?
That's a very bold statement based on the testimony of three people from a person's entire life of human interaction.
"He has already made apologies"
And is that not enough? Should one have to keep apologising for something that isn't illegal? For not even breaking any rules? I apologise when I'm about to take someone's pawn in chess, doesn't mean I'm making an existential point about the nature of my humanity.
What exactly has 'happened'… I'm sorry, the 'rules' keep changing too quickly to keep up… Or are you going to argue 'it's always been bad to be a 'creep'. Whatever that is in a legal sense…
"There are people who support such behaviour"
Well there's a strange use of terminology. I can't say I'm donating to charity in order to encourage specific individual's human behaviours, no. I guess I'd be tempted to support any individual who has been treated like scum for no good reason if such a thing/support group existed though. Surely anyone with a moral compass would?
"Ignoring impact on others"
Three specific people to be exact? Yes?
"who cares they're only women"
They are three human beings who are, in this case, female. I believe in other cases there have been male complainants. I guess being heterosexual makes you open to anti-women jibes whereas being anti-male is only the province of homosexuals? Sounds absurd to me, does that to you?
LOL. Yeah, thy each held each other down and waterboarded alcohol into each other…
It would certainly be game, yes, but free? According to the female's own testimony even in this state Avellone left without 'sealing a win', because, apparently, the woman 'lied' to him (?) in saying she had a period. Because any other method just wouldn't work, would it… Her 'options' in this sitution were just so limited weren't they…
"She dressed in a sexy way, so asking for it"
No mention has been made of how anyone dressed. People are attracted to each other. That's life. Rejecting people is something people do about 20 times more often a day than they do accepting people, it's an everyday life skill that one learns by natural osmosis. I'm very sorry, but it's a hideous precedent to set to imply women have zero impact on any activity they themselves find themselves in, though I can assure you "what they were wearing" isn't usually an accepted reason nowadays.
Everyone complaining about sexual stuff is leftist/SJW & people not finding offence in MCA's acts are rednecks, rightists or Nazis - must be easy to live in simple world"
I'm not aware of anyone making political statements on this case, only human statements. Traditionally, Republicans attacks Democrats on their sexual 'laxity', because the Republican party likes to advertise itself to religious voters, namely the Protestant Puritans, one of the strongest voting blocks in the USA.
The irony of this movement is that it did stem from the radical feminist wing of modern politics. An issue of 'abuse of power' and 'equality of relationships in the workplace' and other such traditionally 'leftist' ideals. The irony being that it just happens to be something the right has always preached anyway, that of a minimalistic sex life. My experience has been that the people on the right are absolutely loving this trend and that people on the left are literally eating themselves over the hypocritic irony of the stance.
What would be the true 'simplistic' way to look at this kind of situation? How about just sticking to the legal precedents? No?
And finally, I apologise for splitting up your post in this manner, I know you don't like it when people do long posts splitting up your post into quotes, and I apologise for making a long post as I know you hate long posts, However, I felt it was a situation which merited it. I apologise if you are angered/offended by this.