[worry]

To be clear, I couldn't care less that Jason Alexander didn't "sexually" harass McCormack or that he didn't get "sexual gratification" from what he did. Sexual abuse is just one of many ways men exert their will on women or their power over women in ways that cross a very obvious line. The ruthlessness of what people do at a poker table is irrelevant in terms of whether it's okay to (attempt to) humiliate someone by hijacking their body, and what he did goes way beyond competitive psychological warfare. Men assume they can get away with a lot of what they do to women, even if it's at a subconscious level, and they're proven right time and again. And it's obvious that in the moment Jason and others thought what he was doing was "fair play". But it should be obvious to everyone, at the very least upon reflection, that what he did was unacceptable.

[Vengeance]

QuickTidal, on 16 November 2017 - 08:35 PM, said:

Alternative Goose, on 16 November 2017 - 08:14 PM, said:

3. I agree with Kazoiee. Alexander is being a dick in the video but in no way does McCormack come off as being distressed or visibly uncomfortable. She jokes about what Alexander is doing. That exchange after she loses is in no way upset or sour. She also has no problems sitting down on the actors couch afterwards.

Right but that assumes that it hasn't silently upset her. Just because those emotions aren't fully on her face, doesn't mean he's free and clear of basically pulling some rank ass bullshit, or that she wasn't affected by it.

It's like when people see someone using a handicap sticker on their car who doesn't "look" handicapped and get mad calming they aren't handicap. You don't know their life. You don't know what internal stuff is going on.

I don't really care about something that has silently upset someone. If you are upset then let people know. If you are silent then I (along with the majority of the world) will assume that everything is fine. As I tell my wife "I am not a fucking mind reader, If you want me to know something say it." To worry about someone being silently upset is fucking stupid and a horrible way to go through life.

[Mentalist]

Vengeance, on 16 November 2017 - 08:58 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 16 November 2017 - 08:35 PM, said:

Alternative Goose, on 16 November 2017 - 08:14 PM, said:

3. I agree with Kazoiee. Alexander is being a dick in the video but in no way does McCormack come off as being distressed or visibly uncomfortable. She jokes about what Alexander is doing. That exchange after she loses is in no way upset or sour. She also has no problems sitting down on the actors couch afterwards.

Right but that assumes that it hasn't silently upset her. Just because those emotions aren't fully on her face, doesn't mean he's free and clear of basically pulling some rank ass bullshit, or that she wasn't affected by it.

It's like when people see someone using a handicap sticker on their car who doesn't "look" handicapped and get mad calming they aren't handicap. You don't know their life. You don't know what internal stuff is going on.

I don't really care about something that has silently upset someone. If you are upset then let people know. If you are silent then I (along with the majority of the world) will assume that everything is fine. As I tell my wife "I am not a fucking mind reader, If you want me to know something say it." To worry about someone being silently upset is fucking stupid and a horrible way to go through life.

I hate to say it, but on principle, I must agree with Venge. The only way to avoid misunderstanding festering is to air out your grievances. Empathy is great, but you should not reasonably expect a complete stranger to instantly on understand what you are feeling "inside" .

Different situations have different social norms- especially in a competitive setting. Now, I wouldn't do half the things vengy claims to do in poker (I'm actually one of those assholes who plays tight, then eventually gets bored and starts calling every hand, throwing serious players off their game, and then keeps hitting lucky breaks, pissing everyone off). But when I play soccer, I've been known to pay absolutely no attention about what happens to be between me and the ball- including when I've played in co-ed. And I've been likewise ruthlessly taken down by girl players half my size. So sometimes it's really not about gender.

[worry]

I think focusing on whether he could read her reaction is a sidetrack from the fact that he did it to her in the first place. If he had tried to do it and it was unsuccessful, the problem would still be that he tried to do it. Abyss's epilepsy analogy is right on target. If someone sent your epileptic kid a strobe-light effect video with the intent of triggering a seizure, successful or not the outcome doesn't take away from the intent. There's no misunderstanding JA's intent.

Different situations have different norms -- you're right. It's more acceptable to punch your rival in a boxing ring than it is at, say, his or her wedding ceremony. But we all already know that. That doesn't mean there aren't any clear lines. Frankly, it's helpful to have your lines drawn on what's acceptable and unacceptable behavior ahead of time, so you don't find yourself hemming and hawing in defense of something indefensible. For instance, locker room talk. It is, in fact, more normal for men in a locker room setting to talk openly about id-level sexual stuff with their buddies. Does that mean boasting about sexual assault is more acceptable in a locker room than any other setting?

[QuickTidal]

Vengeance, on 16 November 2017 - 08:58 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 16 November 2017 - 08:35 PM, said:

Alternative Goose, on 16 November 2017 - 08:14 PM, said:

3. I agree with Kazoiee. Alexander is being a dick in the video but in no way does McCormack come off as being distressed or visibly uncomfortable. She jokes about what Alexander is doing. That exchange after she loses is in no way upset or sour. She also has no problems sitting down on the actors couch afterwards.

Right but that assumes that it hasn't silently upset her. Just because those emotions aren't fully on her face, doesn't mean he's free and clear of basically pulling some rank ass bullshit, or that she wasn't affected by it.

It's like when people see someone using a handicap sticker on their car who doesn't "look" handicapped and get mad calming they aren't handicap. You don't know their life. You don't know what internal stuff is going on.

I don't really care about something that has silently upset someone. If you are upset then let people know. If you are silent then I (along with the majority of the world) will assume that everything is fine. As I tell my wife "I am not a fucking mind reader, If you want me to know something say it." To worry about someone being silently upset is fucking stupid and a horrible way to go through life.

I'm not sure how to respond to this to be honest.

I guess introverts need not apply?

[Silencer]

Yeah, you all need to take a step back. No one is changing anyone's minds it seems and unless you have something more to add to the Poker discussion other than "but I think you're wrong" it might be time to let it go and cool off.

[worry]

Hmm, I don't think I said anything mean, personal, or (over)heated. Apt was just making a joke there, I think.

Edit: nm, I see now it was a more general request.

This post has been edited by worry: 17 November 2017 - 01:19 AM

[Malankazooie]

Silencer, on 17 November 2017 - 12:10 AM, said:

Yeah, you all need to take a step back. No one is changing anyone's minds it seems and unless you have something more to add to the Poker discussion other than "but I think you're wrong" it might be time to let it go and cool off.

I will add that celebrity poker is some of the worst television/video trash I've ever seen. I want that 30+ min. back dammit. That someone mulled over that garbage and pulled from it that Jason Alexander so called "weaponized" a woman's body against her..... wow, people need to find a hobby or something. Maybe devote that time to a local charity or something, but damn, do something better with your time, kay?

[amphibian]

I'm going to chime in and say that what Alexander did could only be done to a woman and specifically a lactating woman.

It's not like he pulled an equal opportunity jerk move. This was targeted specifically to McCormack because of her biological situation.

That's wrong, especially for a charity tournament with your supposed friends. You're supposed to try hard, but not go full cutthroat or attack unfairly your friends in that context.

So I am much more in line with Quick Tidal and Abyss on this.

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

Chiming in here to remind us that, earlier in this thread, involuntary lactation was compared equivalently to anaphylactic shock and epileptic seizures. If I were a breastfeeding woman, I'd be offended. Same if I had epilepsy or allergies.

Aside, I think this forum used to be better about discussing controversial topics without evolving into personal attacks and anger. Maybe y'all have forgotten the central tenets of the MBotF?

Don't let the Trumpian hysteria turn you against your fellow forumites and sybarites. People can think differently without being terrible human beings.

This post has been edited by Whisperzzzzzzz: 17 November 2017 - 02:37 AM

[King Lear]

Why would you be offended though?

[worry]

Whisperzzzzzzz, on 17 November 2017 - 02:31 AM, said:

Chiming in here to remind us that, earlier in this thread, involuntary lactation was compared equivalently to anaphylactic shock and epileptic seizures. If I were a breastfeeding woman, I'd be offended. Same if I had epilepsy or allergies.

I'm having a little trouble parsing that for some reason. You'd be offended by the comparison or by the breach of boundaries in each case? If it's the latter, we're on the same page, but if it's the former, then it's a mischaracterization of the comparison: it was between deliberately causing someone else to lactate, without her consent, in order to dominate her in some way...and deliberate triggering of other conditions one has no control over, such as epilepsy.

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

King Lear, on 17 November 2017 - 02:43 AM, said:

Why would you be offended though?

Two of three are lifelong conditions that can, at minimum, cause extreme difficulty and anxiety in daily life; at medium, severe bodily harm; and, at maximum, kill you. The other can't.

It's the same reason I wouldn't say a leaky bladder is equivalent to a cancerous tumor.

EDIT: In response to Worry, I wouldn't actually feel offended. That was just my trademark poor wit. I just don't think the comparison is Apt. At best, I'd say it's D'rek. I Worry you won't see what I Meanas though. Please don't be so Quicktidal to take Vengeance on me.

This post has been edited by Whisperzzzzzzz: 17 November 2017 - 02:58 AM

[Abyss]

Ok ok ok everyone breath, moi included, and let's shift it back to shitty Hollywood people....

[King Lear]

I think it's pretty clear people were looking for a non-gendered equivalent to an involuntary body response. I don't think it's downplaying how serious those conditions are? If people had specified a mild epileptic fit or a mild allergic reaction it wouldn't really change anything. While unlikely to be fatal to the parent, breastfeeding actually can cause extreme difficulty and anxiety in daily life. I'd say someone triggering lactation deliberately to try and humiliate and distract you on television to win a game would fall under a more uncommon example of that. Also, perhaps look up mastitis. Or cracked nipples. Or people who think breastfeeding is evil and harass who doesn't 100% formula feed (actually maybe don't, it's not a fun rabbit hole).

Anyone who has/had any of those conditions please feel free to correct me, but I really don't think many people would necessarily feel offended by the comparison because all it's really saying is that deliberately causing these responses is a shit thing to do, even if the potential for physical harm is not necessarily equivalent.

[Aptorian]

To change the subject, and mood, this bear accidentally slapped itself in the nuts:

[Malankazooie]

My Consey's name has not come up yet (keeping fingers crossed). Suck it! Those who think Conan is a sexual deviant butt hats!

[Abyss]

oh he's totally a complete bugnuts sexual deviant, he just doesn't inflict it on unwilling victims.

[Malankazooie]

Jameis Winston is the latest name. He's quarterback for the NFL's Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Been accused of groping an Uber driver. Not surprising at all. Google search the trouble he got in while he was at Florida State University.

[Nevyn]

Malankazooie, on 17 November 2017 - 07:21 PM, said:

Jameis Winston is the latest name. He's quarterback for the NFL's Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Been accused of groping an Uber driver. Not surprising at all. Google search the trouble he got in while he was at Florida State University.

I wouldn't call him the latest name. As you said, already known ****bag