Switch Theme:

Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Maddermax wrote:
This story... does not help do that. This is a story about a woman who didn't say no wondering why her non-verbal signals were completely missed and having sex anyway, with someone who had no power of position over her, nor had made any threats against her. It does show that women must be able to say "No" explicitly, and be taught that, especially in sexual encounters with a person you don't know very well, you cannot rely on non-verbal signals alone. Well, a slap would work, but that's still assault if nothing has been done to you. This story is not what needs to be focused on, like Weinstein or Spacey, or even the Orange Menace, along with hundreds of others who use their positions to push others into sex under duress.


Maybe stories like this are even more important to tell because while what happened it's a lot less awful than Weinstein, Trump and the other predators, events like this are way more common.

And it isn't just about women saying no. I think we need to stop putting solutions for this on to women. It is really important for men to realise that when placed in situation where they are scared or intimidated, people will often go passive or even compliant. This isn't the same as forcing yourself on someone, but it's still something we can all agree is horrible and not what any decent person would want to do to someone else.

What it means for men is that it isn't enough to say you never heard 'no'. It means what you need to in order to proceed you should be looking for a clear, enthusiastic 'yes'. It means that if a girl is showing signals you can't quite figure out or if you think she's a bit a unsure then for feth's sake please stop. Don't think you'll convince her just by carrying on, and it's okay because she hasn't said no. Because there's a chance like Ansari you'll end up forcing yourself on a woman who is unsure about how far you'll go to pressure her, and so she's opted to just go quiet.

So yeah, it isn't the same as those really despicable predators. But it's still a story that really needs to be told.
   
Made in us
Combat Jumping Rasyat






 sebster wrote:
Maybe stories like this are even more important to tell because while what happened it's a lot less awful than Weinstein, Trump and the other predators, events like this are way more common.

And it isn't just about women saying no. I think we need to stop putting solutions for this on to women. It is really important for men to realise that when placed in situation where they are scared or intimidated, people will often go passive or even compliant. This isn't the same as forcing yourself on someone, but it's still something we can all agree is horrible and not what any decent person would want to do to someone else.

Am I a Bad Feminist? by Margaret Atwood The article is a little too canuck-centric to quote in full but the general gist:

My fundamental position is that women are human beings, with the full range of saintly and demonic behaviours this entails, including criminal ones. They're not angels, incapable of wrongdoing. If they were, we wouldn't need a legal system.

Nor do I believe that women are children, incapable of agency or of making moral decisions. If they were, we're back to the 19th century, and women should not own property, have credit cards, have access to higher education, control their own reproduction or vote.

...

There are, at present, three kinds of "witch" language. 1) Calling someone a witch, as applied lavishly to Hillary Clinton during the recent election. 2) "Witchhunt," used to imply that someone is looking for something that doesn't exist. 3) The structure of the Salem witchcraft trials, in which you were guilty because accused. I was talking about the third use.

This structure – guilty because accused – has applied in many more episodes in human history than Salem. It tends to kick in during the "Terror and Virtue" phase of revolutions – something has gone wrong, and there must be a purge, as in the French Revolution, Stalin's purges in the USSR, the Red Guard period in China, the reign of the Generals in Argentina and the early days of the Iranian Revolution. The list is long and Left and Right have both indulged. Before "Terror and Virtue" is over, a great many have fallen by the wayside. Note that I am not saying that there are no traitors or whatever the target group may be; simply that in such times, the usual rules of evidence are bypassed.

Such things are always done in the name of ushering in a better world. Sometimes they do usher one in, for a time anyway. Sometimes they are used as an excuse for new forms of oppression. As for vigilante justice – condemnation without a trial – it begins as a response to a lack of justice – either the system is corrupt, as in prerevolutionary France, or there isn't one, as in the Wild West – so people take things into their own hands. But understandable and temporary vigilante justice can morph into a culturally solidified lynch-mob habit, in which the available mode of justice is thrown out the window, and extralegal power structures are put into place and maintained. The Cosa Nostra, for instance, began as a resistance to political tyranny.

The #MeToo moment is a symptom of a broken legal system. All too frequently, women and other sexual-abuse complainants couldn't get a fair hearing through institutions – including corporate structures – so they used a new tool: the internet. Stars fell from the skies. This has been very effective, and has been seen as a massive wake-up call. But what next? The legal system can be fixed, or our society could dispose of it. Institutions, corporations and workplaces can houseclean, or they can expect more stars to fall, and also a lot of asteroids.

If the legal system is bypassed because it is seen as ineffectual, what will take its place? Who will be the new power brokers? It won't be the Bad Feminists like me.


I think I can summarize her points as:
-Women have agency. To put the onus of Aziz's encounter entirely on him partially denies 'Grace' had agency.
-#MeToo is a reaction against an intolerable legal situation where the police and judiciary didn't protect people against sexual assault by people in positions of power. What is legally intolerable about Aziz's situation? If it was rape it occurred last year and he can be still be prosecuted. So why accuse him anonymously without involving law enforcement?
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

 avantgarde wrote:

-#MeToo is a reaction against an intolerable legal situation where the police and judiciary didn't protect people against sexual assault by people in positions of power. What is legally intolerable about Aziz's situation? If it was rape it occurred last year and he can be still be prosecuted. So why accuse him anonymously without involving law enforcement?


Because many people do not have faith in the legal system to actually bring rapists to justice. Whereas the public accusations against high profile people have done more to hold people accountable than the perception of what the police would do.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/16 17:10:40


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 avantgarde wrote:
So why accuse him anonymously without involving law enforcement?


The standard for "gakky Behavior", "Skeevy" and "donkey-cave" are different than the standards for any particular crime. One can share a story of being treated poorly or in a manner that is disrespectful and harmful without meeting any particular standard for prosecution.

Regardless this situation like every other could have easily been avoided with some damn common sense. Here is a very simple metric for if you should get out your dick:

Is someone asking you to do so in way that seems sincere?
* If they are it is probably OK to take out your dick.
* If they aren't, leave your dick in your pants.

It's seriously not complicated. Nobody ever got in trouble or hurt somebody by keeping one-eyed willy in his house.
   
Made in us
Combat Jumping Rasyat






If that's your opinion. Then you should just throw out the legal system and conduct these #MeToo judgements entirely in some ad hoc hybrid court of public opinion and corporate HR sterility.

Because that's the new system, waiting for anonymous denunciations to come down the pipe to furnish clicks for blog level "news" sites like Babe.net and pray our beneficent corporate overlords profits are hurt enough for them toss out scraps.

Gucci.

The solution for #MeToo is not to cast aside institutions and do this all extra judicially but to correct the legal system. Otherwise you're just beholdened to the same power brokers who allowed Weinstein and Spacey to rape to pass judgement and punishment on them for you.

It's seriously not complicated. Nobody ever got in trouble or hurt somebody by keeping one-eyed willy in his house.
One could argue one of the causes of royal unpopularity in pre-Revolutionary France was Louis the XVI's reluctance to smash Marie Antoninette for the first 7 years of their marriage.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/16 17:19:58


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 avantgarde wrote:
If that's your opinion. Then you should just throw out the legal system and conduct these #MeToo judgements entirely in some ad hoc hybrid court of public opinion and corporate HR sterility.

Because that's the new system, waiting for anonymous denunciations to come down the pipe to furnish clicks for blog level "news" sites like Babe.net and pray our beneficent corporate overlords profits are hurt enough for them toss out scraps.

Gucci.



There is no reason to throw out the legal system just because not all kinds of gakky behavior rise to the point of criminal offense and yet people are still willing to hold folks socially accountable for said gakky behavior. If some guy goes around parading about in a nazi uniform shouting racial slurs, he probably hasn't committed a crime in most cases. He is however demonstrating that he's an donkey-cave and folks would be within their rights to condemn him and his behavior with no particular need for the courts to get involved. If he refrained from doing so in public and only did the yelling nazi act in the privacy of his own home with invited guests, folks would still be within their rights to codemn him and his behavior should one of his guests choose to spill the beans.

The courts & the criminal process are for dealing with specifically defined behaviors given specifically defined standards evidence. It has nothing to do with the fact that folks are well within their rights to hear a story say "That sounds credible, and that also sounds gakky". Particularly when the dude in question is going "Yeah, sorry. I guess I didn't realize I was being so gakky"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/16 17:19:08


 
   
Made in us
Combat Jumping Rasyat






But that's not the argument because we already defined a singular punishment for the accused in #MeToo.

Permanent career damage and social ostracisation.

All behavior that falls within that hashtag are subject to that punishment. Fondling a 14 year old girl while you're a district attorney is on a completely different level of acceptable behavior then being too aggressive on a date. Any reasonable person would think the punishment for the former should be more severe than the latter.

In the same way parading around in Nazi regalia professing white supremacy should not be tolerated but hanging that person like he's Amon Goth is not the answer.

It's the lack of nuance in punishment that upsets people not whether the behavior is acceptable.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/16 17:38:11


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Then do something about it. Vote for people who will make positive changes to the system.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 avantgarde wrote:
But that's not the argument because we already defined a singular punishment for the accused in #MeToo.

Permanent career damage and social ostracisation.

All behavior that falls within that hashtag are subject to that punishment. Fondling a 14 year old girl while you're a district attorney is on a completely different level of acceptable behavior then being too aggressive on a date. Any reasonable person would think the punishment for the former should be more severe than the latter.

In the same way parading around in Nazi regalia professing white supremacy should not be tolerated but hanging that person like he's Amon Goth is not the answer.

It the lack of nuance in punishment that upsets people not the whether the behavior is acceptable.


Last I checked nobody is being hanged and no body official or otherwise is sanctioning specific punishments. People are telling stories and folks are deciding for themselves how credible those stories seem and then deciding to what extent they do or don't want to change their interactions and opinions of people based on that. In this particular case the credibility issue isn't a factor as the dude confirmed the events in question took place.

That now some people will think less of him and certain businesses or other entities may choose to no association with him is their own business. "Creeper" is not a protected class.

If you personally want to remain skeptical of people's stories until a greater standard of evidence has been reached, that is your right.
If you personally have no desire to lower your opinion of people or how you interact with them based on these stories confirmed or otherwise, that is your right.

However there is nothing wrong with folks hearing a story, finding it credible and informing their behavior based on that.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Los Angeles

 Chongara wrote:
 avantgarde wrote:
So why accuse him anonymously without involving law enforcement?
Regardless this situation like every other could have easily been avoided with some damn common sense. Here is a very simple metric for if you should get out your dick:

Is someone asking you to do so in way that seems sincere?
* If they are it is probably OK to take out your dick.
* If they aren't, leave your dick in your pants.

It's seriously not complicated. Nobody ever got in trouble or hurt somebody by keeping one-eyed willy in his house.


This seems like the male equivalent of using aspirin as contraceptive.

Where is the need for the woman to exhibit common sense?

 Chongara wrote:
In this particular case the credibility issue isn't a factor as the dude confirmed the events in question took place.

That now some people will think less of him and certain businesses or other entities may choose to no association with him is their own business. "Creeper" is not a protected class.


To be clear Ansari didn't confirm that the events in question took place as the accuser is framing them. He acknowledged that he went out on a date with the person who later felt uncomfortable with the events that occurred. Big difference there. He isn't admitting to inappropriate actions.

Which brings me back to my original question, what about the woman's actions in the Ansari case? Is he really a "creeper" in this situation or was he a person trying to clumsily get laid? Everything I have read about the encounter places the situation in the "bad date" category and nowhere near harassment or inappropriate actions taken on Ansari's part. But headlines about Aziz Ansari's "harassment" flood the internet over the weekend, made the rounds on morning talk shows and now randoms on a miniature gaming board are calling him a "creeper" based on a one-sided, anonymous account. And this is okay in your opinion? All of that character assassination based on one person's account over a date? Why? Because Ansari has a penis and wants to orgasm? Seems pretty Puritanical to me.

And again, what about "Grace's" agency in the situation? She wasn't helpless. She wasn't drugged. She was in no way prevented from interrupting the events that transpired in his apartment. She consented to receiving and providing oral sex and when pushed for more by Ansari, "Grace" declined, and was sent home in an Uber. What part of that encounter is creepy, or makes Ansari a creeper worthy of public shame and potential financial hardship? It sounds like a misfiring date, a scenario that happens on the weekly around the world between singles. Lumping Ansari in with C.K., or Cosby or Spacey does a disservice to the victims of those actual harassers, and gets us no closer to finding a proper way forward in dealing with the actual problem of sexual harassment.

 Chongara wrote:
However there is nothing wrong with folks hearing a story, finding it credible and informing their behavior based on that.

Sure there is, especially if there are real world consequences attached to people believing a false story. A story isn't fact, necessarily. There is a lot of bs and misinformation floating around and often people are unwilling or unable to vet credible sources. Coupled with any retractions to false stories being lost in the ever changing news cycle and "folks hearing a story" can lead to some pretty fethed up consequences for those caught up in nonsense.

This quote from the Atlantic sums up the Ansari situation best in my opinion:

The Atlantic wrote:But we’re at warp speed now, and the revolution—in many ways so good and so important—is starting to sweep up all sorts of people into its conflagration: the monstrous, the cruel, and the simply unlucky. Apparently there is a whole country full of young women who don’t know how to call a cab, and who have spent a lot of time picking out pretty outfits for dates they hoped would be nights to remember. They’re angry and temporarily powerful, and last night they destroyed a man who didn’t deserve it.


   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission





So if what he did was not so bad, then why are people worried that it will "destroy" him?

As she has stated, Aziz made a decision to ignore her feelings and her statements. Her agency is that she can tell the world what he did. If he didn't want it to come out, he should have not done it.

I don't know why Affirmative Consent is so difficult...Or just not being pushy against resistance.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Los Angeles

 AdeptSister wrote:
So if what he did was not so bad, then why are people worried that it will "destroy" him?


Because we are currently in a culture where accusations are taken as fact. Where "facts" are relative, and people just skim headlines and move on.


 AdeptSister wrote:
As she has stated, Aziz made a decision to ignore her feelings and her statements. Her agency is that she can tell the world what he did. If he didn't want it to come out, he should have not done it.

I don't know why Affirmative Consent is so difficult...Or just not being pushy against resistance.


Where these her "non-verbal cues"? "Grace" wasn't very proactive in removing herself from the situation based on what I have read.

Also, "if he didn't want it to come out, he should have not done it" sounds an awful lot like the bad logic used to victim blame women in the past. Can't we apply that here to "Grace"? If she didn't want to be "assaulted" by a man, maybe she shouldn't have gone to his apartment to have wine, gone to dinner and had more wine, and then returned to his apartment to engage in oral sex. Again, where is her part in this? Are we infantilizing her because she is a women? If so, that is horribly sexist! Why is "Grace" immune from any culpability in her actions?
   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission





 AdeptSister wrote:
If you read her original statement on Babe.net, she told him she was uncomfortable and asked him to stop pressuring her multiple times. He said they would just "chill," wait a few moments, and then start pressuring her again.

The reason why people are upset about his behavior is because he wrote a book about dating that basically said not to do crap like that and respect what the woman says.

It doesn't help that articles are ignoring the verbal communication that she said multiple times. She told him “I said I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you.” He acknowledged her statement, stopped for a little while, then started right back up again.



This is all in her original statement: https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355

If you do not believe her statement, that is fine. But I am frustrated how people are actively ignoring what she said.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





To be clear Ansari didn't confirm that the events in question took place as the accuser is framing them. He acknowledged that he went out on a date with the person who later felt uncomfortable with the events that occurred. Big difference there. He isn't admitting to inappropriate actions.


He's admitting to getting his dick out. Framing and appropriateness are subjective, a matter left to the individual. At the end of the day we wouldn't be having this conservation if he'd left it in his pants until asked to otherwise. There would be nothing to interpret, nothing to frame.

Seriously this isn't complicated. Dicks stay in pants, nobody gets in trouble, nobody gets upset. Leaving your pants on is not difficult I manage it all the time and I'm sure you do too.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/16 19:39:14


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Los Angeles

 AdeptSister wrote:
 AdeptSister wrote:
If you read her original statement on Babe.net, she told him she was uncomfortable and asked him to stop pressuring her multiple times. He said they would just "chill," wait a few moments, and then start pressuring her again.

The reason why people are upset about his behavior is because he wrote a book about dating that basically said not to do crap like that and respect what the woman says.

It doesn't help that articles are ignoring the verbal communication that she said multiple times. She told him “I said I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you.” He acknowledged her statement, stopped for a little while, then started right back up again.



This is all in her original statement: https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355

If you do not believe her statement, that is fine. But I am frustrated how people are actively ignoring what she said.


K. And you ignored all of my other points. So?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Chongara wrote:
To be clear Ansari didn't confirm that the events in question took place as the accuser is framing them. He acknowledged that he went out on a date with the person who later felt uncomfortable with the events that occurred. Big difference there. He isn't admitting to inappropriate actions.


He's admitting to getting his dick out. Framing and appropriateness are subjective, a matter left to the individual. At the end of the day we wouldn't be having this conservation if he'd left it in his pants until asked to otherwise. There would be nothing to interpret, nothing to frame.

Seriously this isn't complicated. Dicks stay in pants, nobody gets in trouble, nobody gets upset. Leaving your pants on is not difficult I manage it all the time and I'm sure you do too.


Aspirin then. Good enough for women and men for contraception. Got it!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/16 19:51:35


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


Aspirin then. Good enough for women and men for contraception. Got it!


Aspirin has no functionality whatsoever as a contraceptive. It literally does nothing. In contrast not taking your dong out is remarkably effective at keeping people from thinking you got your dong out at the wrong time. I'm not suggesting some crack pot methodology with no basis in reality, I'm just describing not doing the thing at the center of thise very issue.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Los Angeles

 Chongara wrote:
 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


Aspirin then. Good enough for women and men for contraception. Got it!


Aspirin has no functionality whatsoever as a contraceptive. It literally does nothing. In contrast not taking your dong out is remarkably effective at keeping people from thinking you got your dong out at the wrong time. I'm not suggesting some crack pot methodology with no basis in reality, I'm just describing not doing the thing at the center of thise very issue.


Swing and a miss.

The phrase I am making a play on regards the idea that the best form of contraceptive for women was to keep an aspirin tightly held in place between their legs. I.e. if you don't want to have consequences of sex, don't have sex. It is a stupid argument best left in the past. You've seemed to revive it with your "don't take your dick out" argument.



   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Swing and a miss.

The phrase I am making a play on regards the idea that the best form of contraceptive for women was to keep an aspirin tightly held in place between their legs. I.e. if you don't want to have consequences of sex, don't have sex. It is a stupid argument best left in the past. You've seemed to revive it with your "don't take your dick out" argument.



TIL. First time in my life I've hears that particular colloquialism. Perhaps it is regional?

The key qualifier which I have been very consistent with is "unless asked". It's fine to get your dick out when invited to do so. Don't break it out on a hunch. Don't break it out simply because they haven't said "Please don't get it out". Don't get it out because this one time your buddy got it out in roughly the same circumstances and it worked out fine.

Get it out because you are specifically asked to do so in a way that seems sincere and you're golden.

I get that willy wants to party, but willy has to wait for an invitation. He can't just show up and hope people are gonna be OK with him. Even if they kind of let him stick around without complaining when he shows up out of nowhere, it's possible he's still ruining the festivities.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/16 20:14:54


 
   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission





 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
 AdeptSister wrote:
So if what he did was not so bad, then why are people worried that it will "destroy" him?


Because we are currently in a culture where accusations are taken as fact. Where "facts" are relative, and people just skim headlines and move on.


 AdeptSister wrote:
As she has stated, Aziz made a decision to ignore her feelings and her statements. Her agency is that she can tell the world what he did. If he didn't want it to come out, he should have not done it.

I don't know why Affirmative Consent is so difficult...Or just not being pushy against resistance.


Where these her "non-verbal cues"? "Grace" wasn't very proactive in removing herself from the situation based on what I have read.

Also, "if he didn't want it to come out, he should have not done it" sounds an awful lot like the bad logic used to victim blame women in the past. Can't we apply that here to "Grace"? If she didn't want to be "assaulted" by a man, maybe she shouldn't have gone to his apartment to have wine, gone to dinner and had more wine, and then returned to his apartment to engage in oral sex. Again, where is her part in this? Are we infantilizing her because she is a women? If so, that is horribly sexist! Why is "Grace" immune from any culpability in her actions?


First, you mentioned and are focused on the non- verbal cues. I have been focused on the verbal ones, which have been noted in the my posts and her original post.

Second, your points seem to be arguing that her not violently reacting or her fruitlessly trying to recover the night, is somehow the equivalent of his behavior to decide to continue to pressure her. Her part in this is that she thought/hoped that he would stop. He finally did but it was after she felt victimized. She will have to deal with that for the rest of her life. If you don't think that is so bad, so be it. Making a choice to go on a date is not an invitation to be coerced into sexual activity. You seem to think so.

She has the right to make an accusation. If you do not believe her accusation, that is fine. But you seem to arguing that she shouldn't have made a public statement because you don't think Aziz's behavior was bad enough to warrant it. But the circumstances is that some of his "appeal" is that he was supposed to be a "good dude." People are allowed to challenge that.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Los Angeles

 AdeptSister wrote:
 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
 AdeptSister wrote:
So if what he did was not so bad, then why are people worried that it will "destroy" him?


Because we are currently in a culture where accusations are taken as fact. Where "facts" are relative, and people just skim headlines and move on.


 AdeptSister wrote:
As she has stated, Aziz made a decision to ignore her feelings and her statements. Her agency is that she can tell the world what he did. If he didn't want it to come out, he should have not done it.

I don't know why Affirmative Consent is so difficult...Or just not being pushy against resistance.


Where these her "non-verbal cues"? "Grace" wasn't very proactive in removing herself from the situation based on what I have read.

Also, "if he didn't want it to come out, he should have not done it" sounds an awful lot like the bad logic used to victim blame women in the past. Can't we apply that here to "Grace"? If she didn't want to be "assaulted" by a man, maybe she shouldn't have gone to his apartment to have wine, gone to dinner and had more wine, and then returned to his apartment to engage in oral sex. Again, where is her part in this? Are we infantilizing her because she is a women? If so, that is horribly sexist! Why is "Grace" immune from any culpability in her actions?


First, you mentioned and are focused on the non- verbal cues. I have been focused on the verbal ones, which have been noted in the my posts and her original post.


Which largely seemed feeble up until the point when she wanted the evening to stop, at which point she found her voice and a short time later was safely in an Uber. So, again, why is she immune from accountability for her part of the evening? You and Chongra seem to be arguing that it is all on Ansari to dictate what is and is not appropriate behavior. Why are we infantilizing "Grace?"

 AdeptSister wrote:
Second, your points seem to be arguing that her not violently reacting or her fruitlessly trying to recover the night, is somehow the equivalent of his behavior to decide to continue to pressure her. Her part in this is that she thought/hoped that he would stop. He finally did but it was after she felt victimized.
So he did honor her verbal cues? Not after sticking his penis in her? But before? So, where was the assault?


 AdeptSister wrote:
She will have to deal with that for the rest of her life. If you don't think that is so bad, so be it. Making a choice to go on a date is not an invitation to be coerced into sexual activity. You seem to think so.


Here is where this gak always devolves. You are making assumptions about my position on sexual assault which are so far from the truth that they are laughable. Stop it. Stop it right fething now. I. Do. Not. Think. That. Accepting. An. Invitation. To. A. Date. Is. Grounds. For. Coercered. Sexual. Activity. Full stop. Do not put words in my mouth. Do not make assumptions about this crap, and don't levy your bs accusations against me. Okay?

On point, based on her account I do not see a person who was victimized. I see a person who regretted how a date went and is using that regret as a weapon. She agreed to a date with Ansari. She drank wine with Ansari. She returned to Ansari's apartment for mutual oral sex, and when she didn't want to have penetrative sex she was ushered home in an Uber. Remind me where the coercion took place? Oh, it was Ansari asking repeatedly to have penetrative sex? So what? That is when "Grace" puts on her big girl pants and says "no" and leaves. Which she did. That is called a gakky date, not assault.


 AdeptSister wrote:
She has the right to make an accusation. If you do not believe her accusation, that is fine. But you seem to arguing that she shouldn't have made a public statement because you don't think Aziz's behavior was bad enough to warrant it. But the circumstances is that some of his "appeal" is that he was supposed to be a "good dude." People are allowed to challenge that.


Sure, she can make an accusation. Did I or anyone stat she couldn't? I am arguing that groundless accusations are bad. They are bad for the "cause," which is to destroy a pernicious culture of sexual harassment and assault, because they muddy the waters on what is or is not seen as harassment and assault by the general public. This seems like a groundless accusation, much like the one you made about me a few lines up. This sort of atmosphere where people can make any sort of accusation they please is problematic when the definitions of what is or is not harassment, assault, and rape are becoming further and further unclear.

You think this "Grace" person was victimized. I do not. We both have our "camps" but when actually trying to stamp out this sort of harmful behavior in society we cannot rely on feelings alone to get the job done. That is why the "Grace"/Ansari situation is so problematic to me, because you and others are willing to lump what seems to be a bad date as assault. In what world can we positively move forward as a society if every personal encounter can be labeled as assault? It dilutes the word down to meaningless drivel.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Funny. I believe you are the only one labeling it as assault.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


Which largely seemed feeble up until the point when she wanted the evening to stop, at which point she found her voice and a short time later was safely in an Uber. So, again, why is she immune from accountability for her part of the evening? You and Chongra seem to be arguing that it is all on Ansari to dictate what is and is not appropriate behavior. Why are we infantilizing "Grace?


I've done no such divvying of responsibility and haven't spoken one way or another about her behavior, experience or responsibility at all. Certainly far from any extent that one could fairly call it "infantilizing".

Her role in the matter and whatever mistakes she may or may not have made aren't the subject of my posts even tangentially. I'm speaking specifically to a handful of simple facts:

He got his dick out.
He was not asked to get his dick out.
He was forward about getting her to do stuff with his dick.
gak hit the fan as a direct result of that behavior.

Her actions at the time and reaction later one way or another just aren't particularly material to my point: That one should wait for an invitation before trying to get other people to interact with one's junk. Even if her handling of the situation was the most asinine possible, and the reaction the most overblown possible it has no bearing on that fact.

Even if she is in the wrong in some large capacity (and again, I'm not speaking to that one way or another) he clearly is as well and two wrongs don't suddenly make a right, or a nothing. The fact remains that if he'd done things correctly and waited for a proper explicit invitation this conversation wouldn't be happening. Dude didn't do his due diligence, full stop. Sure there might be other factors and they might have merit to look at in some context but those simply isn't what I'm speaking to.

Even if we throw out the idea of the other persons comfort and look at it from the most cynical, self-interested CYA perspective the proper course of action is still the same on his part.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/16 22:52:24


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




avantgarde wrote:But that's not the argument because we already defined a singular punishment for the accused in #MeToo.

Permanent career damage and social ostracisation.

All behavior that falls within that hashtag are subject to that punishment. Fondling a 14 year old girl while you're a district attorney is on a completely different level of acceptable behavior then being too aggressive on a date. Any reasonable person would think the punishment for the former should be more severe than the latter.

In the same way parading around in Nazi regalia professing white supremacy should not be tolerated but hanging that person like he's Amon Goth is not the answer.

It's the lack of nuance in punishment that upsets people not whether the behavior is acceptable.
If you put everything under the #MeToo banner in the same bucket then that's about you and your lack of nuance or willingness to actually look into each case. You complain about about cases being different but being seen as the same by doing that but nobody is advocating for that approach. The hashtag/movement is about sharing experiences but if you are not willing to actually read and interpret each case on its own merit that's on you being lazy and not on the movement.


DarkTraveler777 wrote:Sure, she can make an accusation. Did I or anyone stat she couldn't? I am arguing that groundless accusations are bad. They are bad for the "cause," which is to destroy a pernicious culture of sexual harassment and assault, because they muddy the waters on what is or is not seen as harassment and assault by the general public. This seems like a groundless accusation, much like the one you made about me a few lines up. This sort of atmosphere where people can make any sort of accusation they please is problematic when the definitions of what is or is not harassment, assault, and rape are becoming further and further unclear.

You think this "Grace" person was victimized. I do not. We both have our "camps" but when actually trying to stamp out this sort of harmful behavior in society we cannot rely on feelings alone to get the job done. That is why the "Grace"/Ansari situation is so problematic to me, because you and others are willing to lump what seems to be a bad date as assault. In what world can we positively move forward as a society if every personal encounter can be labeled as assault? It dilutes the word down to meaningless drivel.
"cause"… like the situation around reporting sexual harassment and assault was so much better before and now it's all getting worse.

A bad date is, if starts to rain and you have to change plans or something like that. The Ansari situation is about him pushing for more even after she decided that she doesn't want to. Not all situations are just about one person forcefully raping somebody. And look at that, we are actually talking about a more grey area-ish situation where things get more complicated like, for example, how women often don't dare to say no just to get it over with and/or because they feel like otherwise the situation could escalate and get even worse (like getting attacked, or this example).

People were even defending Trump's “When you’re a star, they let you do it” comments as if the women wanted it instead of seeing it as what it is: Sexual assault by a person who abused his position of power and influence over other people. Power dynamics are more complicated than just things like that or the Weinstein example. It goes all the way to a waitress not making a fuss when she get harassed/touched because doing so might lead to her losing their job. Should we just ignore that type of behaviour because power asymmetry makes it harder to say something? That's why the #MeToo movement exists so more people find the courage to tell their stories and so that we as society change and make it better for everyone instead of just passively accepting that something bad is happening but ignoring it as long as it's not affecting us.

Is it really only then harassment/assault when you feel like it? Or is it harassment/assault when the victim thinks it was (and this is not about the legal definition, which is a hurdle that's needed in front of a judge)? If a person feels violated then most probably they were violated and you handwringing about the credibility of accusations doesn't change that it was a gakky situation for that person.
   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission





I think that is the crux of the issue: You don't think that the date had sexual coercion that reaches a level that you find problematic. Is that correct? Or am I misunderstanding?

But what I don't understand is that based on your understanding of the date, how it can both be a groundless accusation and something that is no big deal. If what he did was no big deal, then why is bad that she told the public?

EDIT: To be clear, I DON'T see the statements "I don't think that a 'bad date' is newsworthy" and "This is a baseless accusation that is tarnishing someone unfairly "to be the same.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/17 00:03:55


 
   
Made in us
Combat Jumping Rasyat






Mario wrote:
avantgarde wrote:But that's not the argument because we already defined a singular punishment for the accused in #MeToo.

Permanent career damage and social ostracisation.

All behavior that falls within that hashtag are subject to that punishment. Fondling a 14 year old girl while you're a district attorney is on a completely different level of acceptable behavior then being too aggressive on a date. Any reasonable person would think the punishment for the former should be more severe than the latter.

In the same way parading around in Nazi regalia professing white supremacy should not be tolerated but hanging that person like he's Amon Goth is not the answer.

It's the lack of nuance in punishment that upsets people not whether the behavior is acceptable.
If you put everything under the #MeToo banner in the same bucket then that's about you and your lack of nuance or willingness to actually look into each case. You complain about about cases being different but being seen as the same by doing that but nobody is advocating for that approach. The hashtag/movement is about sharing experiences but if you are not willing to actually read and interpret each case on its own merit that's on you being lazy and not on the movement.
My argument is not all #MeToo claims are the same but that #MeToo "punishments" are binary. It's either your ass is grass or it's not. If I thought all the claims (you're implying I think they're all bogus ) were the same why would I advocate nuance in reaction? You wouldn't need it if everything could be labelled cleanly.

Forgive me but you do not get to define what the movement means. Not because you lack authority or wokeness or whatever. But because it's a twitter hashtag that means something different to different people. To some it means an end of powerful people abusing their positions for sexual gratification, to some it's about justice, to others it means an end to sexual harassment/coercion and to others it's a support group for people with similar experiences to share them without being shamed. It's easily a mix and people are going to place more value on certain parts and that's there prerogative.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AdeptSister wrote:
I think that is the crux of the issue: You don't think that the date had sexual coercion that reaches a level that you find problematic. Is that correct? Or am I misunderstanding?

But what I don't understand is that based on your understanding of the date, how it can both be a groundless accusation and something that is no big deal. If what he did was no big deal, then why is bad that she told the public?
You could make the argument the easily attacked claims delegitimizes the movement. I don't think that's a very good one though... Since the point is to allow people to speak without recriminations.

You could also approach it as 'Grace' is sincere but chose a poor writer and poor outlet. Which I think she did. If the story came out from the NYT, WaPo or even Buzzfeed I think it would be treated differently.

Which segues into the anonymity. This opens her up to criticism along the lines of lacking courage, while protecting yourself from backlash is more intelligent then cowardly and having her go public for the sake of credibility is unfair to Grace, it creates an unfair social dynamic where only Aziz has something to lose.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/17 00:06:43


 
   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission





 avantgarde wrote:
Mario wrote:
avantgarde wrote:But that's not the argument because we already defined a singular punishment for the accused in #MeToo.

Permanent career damage and social ostracisation.

All behavior that falls within that hashtag are subject to that punishment. Fondling a 14 year old girl while you're a district attorney is on a completely different level of acceptable behavior then being too aggressive on a date. Any reasonable person would think the punishment for the former should be more severe than the latter.

In the same way parading around in Nazi regalia professing white supremacy should not be tolerated but hanging that person like he's Amon Goth is not the answer.

It's the lack of nuance in punishment that upsets people not whether the behavior is acceptable.
If you put everything under the #MeToo banner in the same bucket then that's about you and your lack of nuance or willingness to actually look into each case. You complain about about cases being different but being seen as the same by doing that but nobody is advocating for that approach. The hashtag/movement is about sharing experiences but if you are not willing to actually read and interpret each case on its own merit that's on you being lazy and not on the movement.
My argument is not all #MeToo claims are the same but that #MeToo "punishments" are binary. It's either your ass is grass or it's not. If I thought all the claims (you're implying I think they're all bogus ) were the same why would I advocate nuance in reaction? You wouldn't need it if everything could be labelled cleanly.

Forgive me but you do not get to define what the movement means. Not because you lack authority or wokeness or whatever. But because it's a twitter hashtag that means something different to different people. To some it means an end of powerful people abusing their positions for sexual gratification, to some it's about justice, to others it means an end to sexual harassment/coercion and to others it's a support group for people with similar experiences to share them without being shamed. It's easily a mix and people are going to place more value on certain parts and that's there prerogative.



I agree that the punishments should not be binary. Like you said, there are nuances. Not all on the #metoo are being treated the same; its based on the level of the crime. Ben Vereen versus Casey Affleck versus Kevin Spacey have all been treated differently.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Los Angeles


 Chongara wrote:
 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


Which largely seemed feeble up until the point when she wanted the evening to stop, at which point she found her voice and a short time later was safely in an Uber. So, again, why is she immune from accountability for her part of the evening? You and Chongra seem to be arguing that it is all on Ansari to dictate what is and is not appropriate behavior. Why are we infantilizing "Grace?


I've done no such divvying of responsibility and haven't spoken one way or another about her behavior, experience or responsibility at all. Certainly far from any extent that one could fairly call it "infantilizing".


From my perspective you were divvying out responsibility when you stated things like:

 Chongara wrote:


Last I checked nobody is being hanged and no body official or otherwise is sanctioning specific punishments. People are telling stories and folks are deciding for themselves how credible those stories seem and then deciding to what extent they do or don't want to change their interactions and opinions of people based on that. In this particular case the credibility issue isn't a factor as the dude confirmed the events in question took place.

That now some people will think less of him and certain businesses or other entities may choose to no association with him is their own business. "Creeper" is not a protected class.


So, you incorrectly stated that he confirmed her story (he didn't), and you labeled him a "creeper" based on an anonymous account of the night. How are you not placing all of the responsibility on his shoulders and ignoring her participation?


 Chongara wrote:
Her role in the matter and whatever mistakes she may or may not have made aren't the subject of my posts even tangentially. I'm speaking specifically to a handful of simple facts:

He got his dick out.
He was not asked to get his dick out.
He was forward about getting her to do stuff with his dick.
gak hit the fan as a direct result of that behavior.


Ah yes. Still incorrect, though. She had oral sex with him. Willingly. So the dick is, ah, out of the bag already, so to speak. What now? Again, he didn't whip his dick out surprise style like Louis C.K., he was trying to move the activities from oral sex to penetrative sex, so your whole "keep your dick in your pants" comes off as a bit Puritanical, and a bit misguided in this instance.
 Chongara wrote:
That one should wait for an invitation before trying to get other people to interact with one's junk. Even if her handling of the situation was the most asinine possible, and the reaction the most overblown possible it has no bearing on that fact.


From Ansari's perspective it seems that invitation was granted. Which is why this whole incident seems like a date gone bad, not sexual harassment, or assault, or rape, or whatever.


Okay Mario, I don't know if you are misreading my posts but let's break this down.

Mario wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:Sure, she can make an accusation. Did I or anyone stat she couldn't? I am arguing that groundless accusations are bad. They are bad for the "cause," which is to destroy a pernicious culture of sexual harassment and assault, because they muddy the waters on what is or is not seen as harassment and assault by the general public. This seems like a groundless accusation, much like the one you made about me a few lines up. This sort of atmosphere where people can make any sort of accusation they please is problematic when the definitions of what is or is not harassment, assault, and rape are becoming further and further unclear.

You think this "Grace" person was victimized. I do not. We both have our "camps" but when actually trying to stamp out this sort of harmful behavior in society we cannot rely on feelings alone to get the job done. That is why the "Grace"/Ansari situation is so problematic to me, because you and others are willing to lump what seems to be a bad date as assault. In what world can we positively move forward as a society if every personal encounter can be labeled as assault? It dilutes the word down to meaningless drivel.
"cause"… like the situation around reporting sexual harassment and assault was so much better before and now it's all getting worse.


What? Honestly, what?

Mario wrote:
A bad date is, if starts to rain and you have to change plans or something like that. The Ansari situation is about him pushing for more even after she decided that she doesn't want to. Not all situations are just about one person forcefully raping somebody. And look at that, we are actually talking about a more grey area-ish situation where things get more complicated like, for example, how women often don't dare to say no just to get it over with and/or because they feel like otherwise the situation could escalate and get even worse (like getting attacked, or this example).


A bad date is also when things are going well and something uncomfortable or awkward immediately changes the mood of the date. Just as you say not all situations are about forcefully raping somebody, not all of these situations can equally be chalked up to victimization on the part of the person claiming victimhood. Based on the evidence shown in "Grace's" account she had the wherewithal to extricate herself from the situation once it crossed a line for her. That Ansari didn't escalate things to violence, or use chemicals/drugs to incapacitate her, and instead called her a ride home and ended the evening amicably (from his perspective) is indicative to me that "Grace" was not a victim in the sense that we discuss victims of sexual assault in this thread. She may have had regrets about how the evening went, she may have been disappointed in her date's behavior, but that behavior does not indicate sexual misconduct to me. Ansari might be pushy, he might be clumsy in romance, but I see nothing that indicates wrong doing.


Mario wrote:
People were even defending Trump's “When you’re a star, they let you do it” comments as if the women wanted it instead of seeing it as what it is: Sexual assault by a person who abused his position of power and influence over other people. Power dynamics are more complicated than just things like that or the Weinstein example. It goes all the way to a waitress not making a fuss when she get harassed/touched because doing so might lead to her losing their job. Should we just ignore that type of behaviour because power asymmetry makes it harder to say something? That's why the #MeToo movement exists so more people find the courage to tell their stories and so that we as society change and make it better for everyone instead of just passively accepting that something bad is happening but ignoring it as long as it's not affecting us.


Awesome soap box, but you are preaching to the choir here. And that is why I find issue with "Grace" and her claim of victimization. She was not victimized by Ansari, at least not in any meaningful way that compares with the victims who have shared their stories with #MeToo. Conflating "Grace's" encounter with Ansari with sexual harassment does a disservice to the entire #MeToo movement. If everything is harassment then nothing is harassment. "Grace" is making the case that by Ansari being too eager for sex he victimized her. That is a slap in the face of real victims who endured worse. "Grace" may have regretted her encounter with Ansari for a lot of reasons, but I don't buy for one second that she was a victim of anything other than a disappointing evening with a guy.

Mario wrote:
Is it really only then harassment/assault when you feel like it? Or is it harassment/assault when the victim thinks it was (and this is not about the legal definition, which is a hurdle that's needed in front of a judge)? If a person feels violated then most probably they were violated and you handwringing about the credibility of accusations doesn't change that it was a gakky situation for that person.


"Grace" had a disappointing night. She is entitled to her perspective and feelings on the encounter with Ansari, but her feelings shouldn't be enough to warrant the public lambasting of Ansari. Her feelings shouldn't be enough to tarnish someone's reputation, sabotage a person's livelihood, and they most certainly shouldn't be given equal treatment and consideration as accusations of harassment, assault and rape made by others in the #MeToo movement.

That people are already judging Ansari as a sexual harasser based on one woman's questionable account of an evening is troubling, and goes back to the point made earlier that these accusations are not insignificant. They can destroy a person's life. If that is merited, like in the cases of Weinstein, Cosby and others where there is ample evidence to back up accusation after accusation, then of course the outcome is appropriate and justified. In this Ansari situation people have their pitchforks out and it is all based on the anonymous postings of a woman who really doesn't seem to have been victimized at all, and instead found herself with a celebrity who only seemed interested in having sex with her. When that didn't happen she went home. Unless more is revealed, then I am afraid I just don't see "Grace's" story as being anything other than regret over a bad hookup.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Since you won't respond to my points this is the last time I am responding to yours.

 AdeptSister wrote:
But what I don't understand is that based on your understanding of the date, how it can both be a groundless accusation and something that is no big deal. If what he did was no big deal, then why is bad that she told the public?


If you can't understand why accusing a male celebrity of sexual misconduct in January of 2018 over a benign romantic encounter is problematic, then I can't help you. I already answered this question of yours earlier, but again, you aren't responding to my posts so I don't think you are arguing in good faith or even reading what I am writing.



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/17 00:26:46


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


So, you incorrectly stated that he confirmed her story (he didn't), and you labeled him a "creeper" based on an anonymous account of the night. How are you not placing all of the responsibility on his shoulders and ignoring her participation?


Yes. Yes he did. He apologized without qualification, as far as I know. An unqualified apology is by definiton an agreement to the events because you can't give an apology for something you didn't think happened. Unless we're also accusing him of being liar, which I'm not. His apology if taken as honest must be an admission or confirmation of the broad factual events of the night.

Condemning his behavior is not any sort of statement on hers. Like he could do what he was doing with literally Adolph Hitler and he'd still be a a creeper. I mean obviously that'd invovle like a time machine or magic so we'd have even more important questions, but the fact it was literally Hitler the worst possible human being with the worst possible behavior wouldn't absolve him.

I'm making no particular endorsement or defense of her, I'm simply condemning him. I'm saying I don't like the smell of his role in this and saying nothing about her role in it.




Ah yes. Still incorrect, though. She had oral sex with him. Willingly. So the dick is, ah, out of the bag already, so to speak. What now? Again, he didn't whip his dick out surprise style like Louis C.K., he was trying to move the activities from oral sex to penetrative sex, so your whole "keep your dick in your pants" comes off as a bit Puritanical, and a bit misguided in this instance.

From Ansari's perspective it seems that invitation was granted. Which is why this whole incident seems like a date gone bad, not sexual harassment, or assault, or rape, or whatever.


An explicit invitation for interacting with a penis is kind of non-ambiguous. It's a request, and no recounting of the evening I've heard has her making a request of him. I'm not against having sex, or only having sex in marriage, or only for certain kinds of sex in certain kinds of positions or anything else "Puritanical" . I'm simply saying that the bare minimum responsibility as the owner of a dong is to only get it out when requested, and only engage in behaviors with it that are requested. Those requests can be as freaky, out of marriage and non-puritanical as you fancy, but they must be requests. That's the standard.

Once you start doing things without a request being made of you everything starts going out the damn window and you have a muddy mess like this one. He it got out early, she went along with it maybe because she sort of wanted to maybe because she felt pressured. We cannot know. He pushed for more, that went over the line for her and now we are where we are. This situation could have turned out so much better than a sad BJ and an apparently fairly shaken & upset woman if he'd just stuck to what was asked of him.

He failed at the bare minimum. If she failed at anything or how is another subject entirely.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2018/01/17 02:00:36


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 sebster wrote:
And it isn't just about women saying no. I think we need to stop putting solutions for this on to women. It is really important for men to realise that when placed in situation where they are scared or intimidated, people will often go passive or even compliant. This isn't the same as forcing yourself on someone, but it's still something we can all agree is horrible and not what any decent person would want to do to someone else.


So no means no and now also yes means no? Man this is so confusing!!!

I think that College Humour (?) skit about the couple who each had to speak to their lawyers before sex might not be a terrible idea.

 Ouze wrote:
Who said that last line? Certainly not anyone in that article you cited.
Eh? Dude, you have Google.

Use it.

Also seems one of the good folks at CNN decided not to #BelieveWomen and attack the victim. Eesh. Ugly.


This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/17 02:06:59


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






I go to a seedy area downtown with my wallet in my back pocket. At the end of the night it turns out it was stolen.

Could I have done more to protect myself? Absolutely. Was it even reckless of me to act as I did? Maybe. Does it mean that people walking around that area should take action to protect themselves? Yes.

Does that make me bear any responsibility for the crime? No. Does that mean any part of the problem is people walking around with their wallets easily pickpocketed? No.

It means there is a problem with theft.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/17 02:10:43


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: