[Vengeance]

This is what I was talking about earlier.

https://www.reddit.c...ref_source=link

[Vengeance]

Centzon Totochtin, on 16 January 2018 - 09:11 PM, said:

To mods: I would suggest this thread belongs in discussions rather than the inn now

Agree and moved

[D'rek]

worry, on 16 January 2018 - 09:09 PM, said:

I don't think it's a grey area of whether Aziz committed sexual assault. He did. The grey area would be in whether it was criminal sexual assault.

What's the difference?

[worry]

The difference between what our society is broadly inclined to criminally prosecute vs what they're not, I suppose.

[Nevyn]

From the NY Times, a female columnist:

Aziz Ansari Is Guilty. Of Not Being a Mind Reader.


Interesting piece, but I am linking it because I think she phrases some of what I was trying to express in my argument with worry earlier:

Quote

Aziz Ansari sounds like he was aggressive and selfish and obnoxious that night. Isn't it heartbreaking and depressing that men — especially ones who present themselves publicly as feminists — so often act this way in private? Shouldn't we try to change our broken sexual culture? And isn't it enraging that women are socialized to be docile and accommodating and to put men's desires before their own? Yes. Yes. Yes.

But the solution to these problems does not begin with women torching men for failing to understand their "nonverbal cues." It is for women to be more verbal. It's to say: "This is what turns me on." It's to say "I don't want to do that." And, yes, sometimes it means saying piss off.

The single most distressing thing to me about Grace's story is that the only person with any agency in the story seems to be Aziz Ansari. Grace is merely acted upon.

And then another tidbit, on the subject of power

Quote

To judge from social media reaction to Grace's story, they also see a flagrant abuse of power in this sexual encounter. Yes, Mr. Ansari is a wealthy celebrity with a Netflix show. But he had no actual power over Grace — professionally or otherwise. And lumping him in with the same movement that brought down men who ran movie studios and forced themselves on actresses, or the factory floor supervisors who demanded sex from women workers, trivializes what #MeToo first stood for.

Also, because she refers to it, theMargaret Atwood Globe and Mail piece, not about Ansari, but with some interesting comments about movements like this

Quote

In times of extremes, extremists win. Their ideology becomes a religion, anyone who doesn't puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor, and moderates in the middle are annihilated.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 16 January 2018 - 10:13 PM

[QuickTidal]

Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 08:52 PM, said:

Mezla PigDog, on 16 January 2018 - 08:46 PM, said:

This article quite nicely sums up the weirdness of the original Ansari article for me: https://www.theguard...sed-opportunity

Weird, the author doesn't think he leveraged his power to do wrong.

It is almost like she is completely ignoring his implied thread of first not letting her leave and then having her blackballed that he did by saying nothing about it at any time.


All sarcasm aside, that is an excellent article.

Don't be a dickhead on the discussion board. That's the last I'll say to you on this topic.

Edit: I should clarify, not you Mez, I was speaking to Nevyn's comments not your link to the article.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 16 January 2018 - 10:30 PM

[worry]

For the record, I largely hated that piece, and I think Margaret Atwood's essay was wrongheaded, insulting, and frankly, dumb. But I'm not saying that to snipe at you, just to say I don't agree at all with their conclusions. I mean obviously I agree with the concept of women having and showing more agency...but that's like, duh. Of course we both agree on that.

But he's guilty of "not being a mind reader"? That's so far from the actual text of the Grace article it reads like a book report from a kid who rented the movie and only read the back of the box.

In fact, after you went into it a little more, I think the point you were making was better than the one that writer is making. That said, I don't think we have a shortage of that kind of advice, before during or after the #MeToo thing breaking. And I think most of our peer/age groups would agree with it in theory anyway -- I'm just not sure they get exactly what that means or looks like, in practice, and it's making a lot of guys uncomfortable.

I actually got sent by a friend today an article that explains what I'm talking about more eloquently than I have been. Here's the link, but I'll excerpt it too (thanks for doing that, btw): https://www.huffingt...4b0106b7f65b346

Quote

It would be easy to look at the Aziz Ansari story and dismiss it as the #MeToo movement run amok. (Author Caitlin Flanagan has already written Grace’s feelings of violation off as mere “regret,” and described the published account of her experience as “3,000 words of revenge porn.”) The story is messier than most that we’ve heard since The Reckoning began in October. Ansari’s alleged misconduct is not the same as Harvey Weinstein’s ― or Matt Lauer’s or Charlie Rose’s or Kevin Spacey’s or Roy Moore’s or Louis C.K.’s. But if the #MeToo movement is going to amount to sustained culture change ― rather than simply a weeding out of the worst actors in a broken system ― we need to renegotiate the sexual narratives we’ve long accepted. And that involves having complicated conversations about sex that is violating but not criminal.

The sexual encounter Grace described falls into what I see as a gray area of violating, noncriminal sex ― the kind of sex that Rebecca Traister described in 2015 as “bad in ways that are worth talking about”; what Jessica Valenti described on Twitter as an interaction that the “culture considers ‘normal,’” but is “oftentimes harmful.”

This is a kind of sex that is not only worth talking about, but necessary to talk about. Behavior need not fall under the legal definition of sexual assault or rape to be wrong or violating or upsetting. And when nearly every woman I’ve spoken to about the Aziz Ansari story follows up our conversation with a similar story of her own, it’s worth thinking about why that is.

[Malankazooie]

Awww man. Do we have to be serious with this now? Can I still goof it up and rub it in haters faces that Conan O'Brien hasn't been accused (and never will be! Not my Consey!). By the way, for all of you haters who get physically ill at the site of Conan (what a joke), he's going to Haiti to try and win back some goodwill for the US. That's my Consey!

Also, this (tangentially related the #MeToo movement):

[worry]

I do owe Apt a personal apology for my part in serious-ing up his thread. Hopefully it can go back and forth with original intent just as long as nobody goes overboard.

[Malankazooie]

I just like to stay on the lighter side of topics. You guys are way smarter and so much more well read on these serious topics then I am. There have been times when I've been blown away by your posts. I try to keep up but for the most part, but feel inadequate when I try to throw my 2 cents in. So, instead, I try to lighten it up. I will say, I try to read the temperature of the room and when discussions are getting involved and passionate, I try to stay an observer and not ambush it with something goofy.

[Vengeance]

QuickTidal, on 16 January 2018 - 10:26 PM, said:

Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 08:52 PM, said:

Mezla PigDog, on 16 January 2018 - 08:46 PM, said:

This article quite nicely sums up the weirdness of the original Ansari article for me: https://www.theguard...sed-opportunity

Weird, the author doesn't think he leveraged his power to do wrong.

It is almost like she is completely ignoring his implied thread of first not letting her leave and then having her blackballed that he did by saying nothing about it at any time.


All sarcasm aside, that is an excellent article.

Don't be a dickhead on the discussion board. That's the last I'll say to you on this topic.

Edit: I should clarify, not you Mez, I was speaking to Nevyn's comments not your link to the article.

In fairness it this thread was just moved. Prior to that it was in the inn....

[QuickTidal]

Vengeance, on 17 January 2018 - 01:24 AM, said:

QuickTidal, on 16 January 2018 - 10:26 PM, said:

Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 08:52 PM, said:

Mezla PigDog, on 16 January 2018 - 08:46 PM, said:

This article quite nicely sums up the weirdness of the original Ansari article for me: https://www.theguard...sed-opportunity

Weird, the author doesn't think he leveraged his power to do wrong.

It is almost like she is completely ignoring his implied thread of first not letting her leave and then having her blackballed that he did by saying nothing about it at any time.


All sarcasm aside, that is an excellent article.

Don't be a dickhead on the discussion board. That's the last I'll say to you on this topic.

Edit: I should clarify, not you Mez, I was speaking to Nevyn's comments not your link to the article.

In fairness it this thread was just moved. Prior to that it was in the inn....

Fair point.

I still don't think my side of the Conversation deserved mockery.

[Vengeance]

QuickTidal, on 17 January 2018 - 01:30 AM, said:

Vengeance, on 17 January 2018 - 01:24 AM, said:

QuickTidal, on 16 January 2018 - 10:26 PM, said:

Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 08:52 PM, said:

Mezla PigDog, on 16 January 2018 - 08:46 PM, said:

This article quite nicely sums up the weirdness of the original Ansari article for me: https://www.theguard...sed-opportunity

Weird, the author doesn't think he leveraged his power to do wrong.

It is almost like she is completely ignoring his implied thread of first not letting her leave and then having her blackballed that he did by saying nothing about it at any time.


All sarcasm aside, that is an excellent article.

Don't be a dickhead on the discussion board. That's the last I'll say to you on this topic.

Edit: I should clarify, not you Mez, I was speaking to Nevyn's comments not your link to the article.

In fairness it this thread was just moved. Prior to that it was in the inn....

Fair point.

I still don't think my side of the Conversation deserved mockery.

This is true.

[Aptorian]

worry, on 17 January 2018 - 12:38 AM, said:

I do owe Apt a personal apology for my part in serious-ing up his thread. Hopefully it can go back and forth with original intent just as long as nobody goes overboard.

It was inevitable to get serious. I had considered asking for the thread to be moved.

Personally I would chime in on Nevyn's side of the discussion for the past two pages, but I am so damned tired when I get back from work that I can barely form coherent thoughts.

[Primateus]

There are a lot of things wrong with this case. And not just because I really like Parks & Recreation and it just wouldn't be the same if Ansariz turns out to be a sexual predator.

Against him, I think what can be said, has been said. I hope it's not true, but hey, it might be.

But another thing I find just a little bit worrying, is the presupposition of guilt from a whole lot of people. I've perused around on various sites and there are quite a lot of people who have decided that Ansariz is a sexual predator, practically a rapist, and they will not be told otherwise.

That's really why I, in all honesty, fucking hate the MeToo movement (Only thing about it I hate more is that it's also absolutely necessary!) The problem with it is, is that it'll only take one or two cases of a guy guilty of nothing more than being a bumbly buffoon who's bad at sex for the whole thing to topple over.

Or something like that.

Malankazooie, on 17 January 2018 - 12:52 AM, said:

I just like to stay on the lighter side of topics. You guys are way smarter and so much more well read on these serious topics then I am. There have been times when I've been blown away by your posts. I try to keep up but for the most part, but feel inadequate when I try to throw my 2 cents in.

I absolutely agree, and second this notion. Which is why I always try to end my posts with the preface "Or something like that."

[Nevyn]

Primateus, on 17 January 2018 - 11:50 AM, said:

There are a lot of things wrong with this case. And not just because I really like Parks & Recreation and it just wouldn't be the same if Ansariz turns out to be a sexual predator.

Against him, I think what can be said, has been said. I hope it's not true, but hey, it might be.

But another thing I find just a little bit worrying, is the presupposition of guilt from a whole lot of people. I've perused around on various sites and there are quite a lot of people who have decided that Ansariz is a sexual predator, practically a rapist, and they will not be told otherwise.

That's really why I, in all honesty, fucking hate the MeToo movement (Only thing about it I hate more is that it's also absolutely necessary!) The problem with it is, is that it'll only take one or two cases of a guy guilty of nothing more than being a bumbly buffoon who's bad at sex for the whole thing to topple over.

Or something like that.

Malankazooie, on 17 January 2018 - 12:52 AM, said:

I just like to stay on the lighter side of topics. You guys are way smarter and so much more well read on these serious topics then I am. There have been times when I've been blown away by your posts. I try to keep up but for the most part, but feel inadequate when I try to throw my 2 cents in.

I absolutely agree, and second this notion. Which is why I always try to end my posts with the preface "Or something like that."

Well, its not like the facts in the Ansari case are really in dispute in any way, so this is not a case of proof or not.

This is a case of looking at what actually happened, and widely differing viewpoints on how to react to it and how bad it is. And in many cases, the people reacting most strongly to it are doing so not so much as an attack on Ansari, but because they specifically want to have the conversation about how this particular type of behaviour is not ok.

The conversation is barely about Ansari anymore. There are still people mad at him, but most agree the behaviour is not criminal, and there was an immediate private apology and timely public one. But now the story has gone meta, both as the twitterverse at large, and people within the feminist community grapple with how a case like this (and how a story reported in this way) fit into #metoo.

[Abyss]

Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 08:32 PM, said:

...
What I told Abyss was not that he did not have power, but that there was not a power dynamic at play and being used in their interaction.
...

I think that you underestimate the impact of celebrity on normal everyday interactions with 'average' people.

It's not about power over her career or whatever, it`s about who he is and how that affects the people around him.

So, there was POWER at play and being used in their interaction.

[Primateus]

Nevyn, on 17 January 2018 - 03:08 PM, said:

Primateus, on 17 January 2018 - 11:50 AM, said:

There are a lot of things wrong with this case. And not just because I really like Parks & Recreation and it just wouldn't be the same if Ansariz turns out to be a sexual predator.

Against him, I think what can be said, has been said. I hope it's not true, but hey, it might be.

But another thing I find just a little bit worrying, is the presupposition of guilt from a whole lot of people. I've perused around on various sites and there are quite a lot of people who have decided that Ansariz is a sexual predator, practically a rapist, and they will not be told otherwise.

That's really why I, in all honesty, fucking hate the MeToo movement (Only thing about it I hate more is that it's also absolutely necessary!) The problem with it is, is that it'll only take one or two cases of a guy guilty of nothing more than being a bumbly buffoon who's bad at sex for the whole thing to topple over.

Or something like that.

Malankazooie, on 17 January 2018 - 12:52 AM, said:

I just like to stay on the lighter side of topics. You guys are way smarter and so much more well read on these serious topics then I am. There have been times when I've been blown away by your posts. I try to keep up but for the most part, but feel inadequate when I try to throw my 2 cents in.

I absolutely agree, and second this notion. Which is why I always try to end my posts with the preface "Or something like that."

Well, its not like the facts in the Ansari case are really in dispute in any way, so this is not a case of proof or not.

This is a case of looking at what actually happened, and widely differing viewpoints on how to react to it and how bad it is. And in many cases, the people reacting most strongly to it are doing so not so much as an attack on Ansari, but because they specifically want to have the conversation about how this particular type of behaviour is not ok.

The conversation is barely about Ansari anymore. There are still people mad at him, but most agree the behaviour is not criminal, and there was an immediate private apology and timely public one. But now the story has gone meta, both as the twitterverse at large, and people within the feminist community grapple with how a case like this (and how a story reported in this way) fit into #metoo.

See, with regards to his apology. I mentioned I've perused around, and I've seen several claims from commentators that his apology is just standard sexual predator/MRA/PUA behavior. That he knows exactly what to say to make this go away and that it won't change anything about his behavior. They have completely dismissed his apology, not concerned even for a second that he might be genuinely sorry. They have decided his guilt, and like I said, they will not be told otherwise. It's Anakin Skywalker all over again, if you're not with us, you're the enemy.

This is my point, the attitude is, I think, why and how the MeToo campaign risks going down in flames.

And this is especially worrying considering the fact that there ARE real monsters out there, Weinstein, Saville-though-he-is-dead, hell, apparently Steven Segal is a sexual predator himself (Though that doesn't really surprise me), that Roosh guy, to name a few. Yes, I agree, this case is important, but I think Vengy is right.

Vengeance, on 16 January 2018 - 04:48 PM, said:

The fact that we are focusing more on Ansari and Grace having a 'bad date' rather then say Eliza Dushku's abuse at the hands of the stunt coordinate while filming True Lies to me is problamatic. One is two adults and no forcing other then verbal coercion. The other is a 12 year old child being assaulted in a hotel room.

Bad dates shouldn't ruin carrer's. Assaulting children should ruin careers.

Or something like that.

This post has been edited by Primateus: 17 January 2018 - 03:54 PM

[Nevyn]

I saw some anger over the apology too, but you are judging the movement by the first voices in on twitter. In the age out social media outrage there will always be some venting like that. But as I said, the debate since has largely moved past Ansari. It is still up the air just what long term effect this will have on his career. For that matter, I don't consider it a given that say, Louis CK's career is over. How people feel about it today need not be how they will feel about it in a couple years, and a lot will depend on how the celebrities handle themselves both now, and on any attempted restart of their career (and on whether they even try to restart it ... some people don't).

As for why this gets more focus than the Dushku story, when you have one story no one agrees on, and another one everyone agrees on, the one in contention gets talked about more. With Dushku, everyone just agrees Kramer is more or less a monster then moves on.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 17 January 2018 - 04:19 PM

[Abyss]

Nevyn, on 17 January 2018 - 04:13 PM, said:

...

As for why this gets more focus than the Dushku story, when you have one story no one agrees on, and another one everyone agrees on, the one in contention gets talked about more. With Dushku, everyone just agrees Kramer is more or less a monster then moves on.

Sadly, accurate.