Times Up!

[vy65]

Was Grace frozen, terrified, stuck? No. She tells us that she wanted something from Ansari and she was trying to figure out how to get it. She wanted affection, kindness, attention. Perhaps she hoped to maybe even become the famous man’s girlfriend. He wasn’t interested. What she felt afterward—rejected yet another time, by yet another man—was regret. And what she and the writer who told her story created was 3,000 words of revenge porn. The clinical detail in which the story is told is intended not to validate her account as much as it is to hurt and humiliate Ansari. Together, the two women may have destroyed Ansari’s career, which is now the punishment for every kind of male sexual misconduct, from the grotesque to the disappointing.

Twenty-four hours ago—this is the speed at which we are now operating—Aziz Ansari was a man whom many people admired and whose work, although very well paid, also performed a social good. He was the first exposure many young Americans had to a Muslim man who was aspirational, funny, immersed in the same culture that they are. Now he has been—in a professional sense—assassinated, on the basis of one woman’s anonymous account. Many of the college-educated white women who so vocally support this movement are entirely on her side. The feminist writer and speaker Jessica Valenti tweeted, “A lot of men will read that post about Aziz Ansari and see an everyday, reasonable sexual interaction. But part of what women are saying right now is that what the culture considers ‘normal’ sexual encounters are not working for us, and oftentimes harmful.”

I thought it would take a little longer for the hit squad of privileged young white women to open fire on brown-skinned men. I had assumed that, on the basis of intersectionality and all that, they’d stay laser focused on college-educated white men for another few months. 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.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/01/the-humiliation-of-aziz-ansari/550541/

Aziz Ansari, rapist.

[Blake]

#himtoo

[boutons_deux]

ugh, like the takedown of Franken, anonymously assassinating AA is disappointing.

but, women have a point, "no means no"

Will other women now accuse AA?

Will Master of None be cancelled? ratings plunge?

Will people boycott butt-grabbing G H W Bush's funeral?

[Chucho]

LOL, greasy. Hell, if it means more unfunny people off TV, then I guess it's a win.

[koriwhat]

LOL, greasy. Hell, if it means more unfunny people off TV, then I guess it's a win.

:tu

[DarrinS]

Never heard of him

[Blake]

https://media.giphy.com/media/TTEz6K9wCFA0o/giphy.gif

[DarrinS]

https://media.giphy.com/media/TTEz6K9wCFA0o/giphy.gif

Ok. I’ve seen him on a TV show or something.

[spurraider21]

Ok. I’ve seen him on a TV show or something.
parcs and rec

master of none

[DarrinS]

parcs and rec

That’s the one

[spurraider21]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WI4TSNIWqw

[DarrinS]

Rhymes with disease I’m sorry? :lol

[pgardn]

He was funny as the antithesis of the Indian Stereotype.

[Chucho]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WI4TSNIWqw

That was funny?

[Will Hunting]

LOL, greasy. Hell, if it means more unfunny people off TV, then I guess it's a win.
This. I’ve never found the guy funny, he got popular because millenials think it makes them look tolerant to find an extremely whitewashed Muslim guy funny.

[boutons_deux]

He was funny as the antithesis of the Indian Stereotype.

He's Muslim

[boutons_deux]

This. I’ve never found the guy funny.

He's non-white

[Chucho]

This. I’ve never found the guy funny, he got popular because millenials think it makes them look tolerant to find an extremely whitewashed Muslim guy funny.

The way he's funny is though high energy and mannerisms, more slap stickish ala Jim Carrey and it almost seems like he's aware of that so tried really hard to be something he isn't good at being and it shows. It's painfully obvious he tries really hard to be a "smart" comedian, but he just comes off...just bland and unfunny.

The most I enjoyed him was in that movie with that ugly jew kid from ZombieLand where they have to rob a bank because Danny McBride, playing the same character he always plays, is forcing them to. It was because he was basically Arab Kevin Hart.

[Chucho]

He's non-white

And non-funny.

Arab Kevin Hart at best, just no where near as bankable. Or funny.

[DarrinS]

Who was the plump Indian chick in The Office?

Same thing.

[Will Hunting]

Who was the plump Indian chick in The Office?

Same thing.
The Office....there’s a TV show I never understood the humor in.

[Pelicans78]

He's Muslim

And Indian.

[Chucho]

And Indian.

Tee hee, Boots is stupid.

[DarrinS]

The Office....there’s a TV show I never understood the humor in.

So, you also hate Parks and Rec?

[Will Hunting]

So, you also hate Parks and Rec?
Only seen 1 or 2 episodes and wasn’t a fan. I find Amy Pohler or however you spell it painfully unfunny.

[spurraider21]

i never watched parks and rec regularly, maybe seen somethin like 15 episodes total, but i found it funny when i tuned in. the office is pretty great imo...

tho u can basically just watch youtube cutups of "the best of ron swanson" and thats all you really need from parks and rec tbh. same with watching funny clips of Ari Gold instead of watching entourage

i mean...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSYZAf1ra5s

[Spurtacular]

#himtoo

:lmao The rallying call of today's cuck.

[Cuppycake Gumdrop]

The backlash to this story at least proves there is a limit to the MeToo shit. People know the difference between a sexual assault and a dude just trying too hard to get laid, and they'll speak up if someone is accused of assault incorrectly. Women will think twice before claiming a consensual sexual experience they didn't personally enjoy was assault.

[boutons_deux]

I read one strong MeToo lady say AA's companion had only a 'bad date' and should have walked out on AA. She was not defending AA's assholiness

[spurraider21]

The backlash to this story at least proves there is a limit to the MeToo shit. People know the difference between a sexual assault and a dude just trying too hard to get laid, and they'll speak up if someone is accused of assault incorrectly. Women will think twice before claiming a consensual sexual experience they didn't personally enjoy was assault.
:tu

[Trainwreck2100]

The backlash to this story at least proves there is a limit to the MeToo shit. People know the difference between a sexual assault and a dude just trying too hard to get laid, and they'll speak up if someone is accused of assault incorrectly. Women will think twice before claiming a consensual sexual experience they didn't personally enjoy was assault.
yeah, no they won't

[boutons_deux]

The View Defends Aziz Ansari: ‘Whatever Happened to Stop or I’m Going to Knock You in Your Nuts?
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-view-defends-aziz-ansari-whatever-happened-to-stop-or-im-going-to-knock-you-in-your-nuts/

[Monostradamus]

Chappellestradamus tbh

https://vimeo.com/183089808

[sickdsm]

Had to Google it up to be honest. The story that is, not AA. Non story IMO. I feel like as a guy, I actually connected with him more. I imagine celebrities are not expected to be average, they either come across as mesmerizing or in this case very disappointing.

[vy65]

yeah, no they won't

It’s clear from responses like Flanagan and Weiss’s that the editors of Babe were either courting a bad faith conversation, or didn’t realize the conversation they were opening up to begin with. Either way, the incident kept all of us from having the conversation we should be having. Because Babe did not have the range or depth to present Grace’s story for what it is—a starting point to discuss the ways consent can feel blurring, no matter how clear we might wish it were, and our lack of language to describe this—we all ended up opening up a conversation that did us no good at all. The story had the unfortunate effect of leaving the door a little wider for self-righteousness, allowing detractors to reiterate their shitty assumptions about millennial women and their motivations instead of questioning a set of injustices so commonplace that many people seem not to register them as injustices at all. And while Babe screwed up its execution of the story, it’s the grotesque priorities of the echo chamber that are really wronging Grace: once again, the comfort of the powerful remains, and the woman telling her story is reduced to a vessel.

https://jezebel.com/babe-what-are-you-doing-1822114753

[vy65]

It’s clear from responses like Flanagan and Weiss’s that the editors of Babe were either courting a bad faith conversation, or didn’t realize the conversation they were opening up to begin with. Either way, the incident kept all of us from having the conversation we should be having. Because Babe did not have the range or depth to present Grace’s story for what it is—a starting point to discuss the ways consent can feel blurring, no matter how clear we might wish it were, and our lack of language to describe this—we all ended up opening up a conversation that did us no good at all. The story had the unfortunate effect of leaving the door a little wider for self-righteousness, allowing detractors to reiterate their shitty assumptions about millennial women and their motivations instead of questioning a set of injustices so commonplace that many people seem not to register them as injustices at all. And while Babe screwed up its execution of the story, it’s the grotesque priorities of the echo chamber that are really wronging Grace: once again, the comfort of the powerful remains, and the woman telling her story is reduced to a vessel.

https://jezebel.com/babe-what-are-you-doing-1822114753

952568652066443264

953069652636180480

953342779362603014

952923357930053642

The "movement" has not reached some kind of limit.

[RandomGuy]

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/01/the-humiliation-of-aziz-ansari/550541/

Aziz Ansari, rapist.

As long as a public good is achieved, then an innocent victim here and there is acceptable.

Right?

[vy65]

*yawn*

Your failure to engage the merits of the topic are noted and logged for future reference

[RandomGuy]

*yawn*

Your failure to engage the merits of the topic are noted and logged for future reference

I directly addressed your OP.

Sucks to be the guy, but hey a wider social good was achieved in not allowing abuse and other ills to go on unchecked.

Wasn't that your point?

[RandomGuy]

The backlash to this story at least proves there is a limit to the MeToo shit. People know the difference between a sexual assault and a dude just trying too hard to get laid, and they'll speak up if someone is accused of assault incorrectly. Women will think twice before claiming a consensual sexual experience they didn't personally enjoy was assault.

+1

[vy65]

I directly addressed your OP.

Sucks to be the guy, but hey a wider social good was achieved in not allowing abuse and other ills to go on unchecked.

Wasn't that your point?

There were, I think, at least two points made: 1) #metoo is/has become/ing a witch hunt 2) AA is not some watershed moment where the movement has realized it's gone too far.

I don't think the "wider social good" point is as simple as you make it sound. Fighting sexual abuse is a good thing which I am all for. However, if the way in which that's accomplished is through a "movement" that:

a) circumvents any procedural mechanisms that allows the accused to defend themselves

b) has elements that seek to re-articulate what consent means to some pretty unreasonable shit

c) reinforces gender norms by portraying men as aggressors and women as victims; and

d) attempts to police acceptable vs. unacceptable sexual behavior. Philosophers like Foucault have written volumes on why that's a bad idea.

is, to me, net worse than a world where the "movement" didn't exist. It's done more harm than good.

[boutons_deux]

So all the women who've been harassed, abused, raped must spend $10Ks to hire lawyers to go thorugh "procedures" to go after their attackers?

The more accessible "procedure" to for a victim to go the employer, producer, etc, and we know that doesn't work, except to have the victim fired and/or career blocked.

Fouc Foucault. acceptable vs unacceptable sexual behaviour? It doesn't need the law or police to enforce "no means no"

Vy comes out blatantly s white male chauvinist sexual predator pig.

[vy65]

Vy comes out blatantly s white male chauvinist sexual predator pig.


A whore doesn't fuck a man for his good looks, but for his money.

Anybody think this was the only whore, legal age or not, that Trash has fucked?

[boutons_deux]

:lol non sequitur, irrelevant, you male chauvinist pig

[vy65]

The lady doth protest too much

[RandomGuy]

There were, I think, at least two points made: 1) #metoo is/has become/ing a witch hunt 2) AA is not some watershed moment where the movement has realized it's gone too far.

I don't think the "wider social good" point is as simple as you make it sound. Fighting sexual abuse is a good thing which I am all for. However, if the way in which that's accomplished is through a "movement" that:

a) circumvents any procedural mechanisms that allows the accused to defend themselves

b) has elements that seek to re-articulate what consent means to some pretty unreasonable shit

c) reinforces gender norms by portraying men as aggressors and women as victims; and

d) attempts to police acceptable vs. unacceptable sexual behavior. Philosophers like Foucault have written volumes on why that's a bad idea.

is, to me, net worse than a world where the "movement" didn't exist. It's done more harm than good.


“People like me had to wade through a sea of prehensile dicks to build the world we now enjoy, and part of enjoying that world is setting a higher standard for sex than just Not Rape,” said Bee. “And women get to talk about it if men don’t live up to those standards — especially if that man wrote a book about How to Sex Good,” she added, pointing to a picture of Ansari’s 2015 book, Modern Romance: An Investigation.

And to those contending that women are disingenuously lumping all sorts of sexual misconduct together as equally bad … well, Bee flat-out rejected that idea.

“We know the difference between a rapist, a workplace harasser, and an Aziz Ansari,” Bee insisted. “That doesn’t mean we have to be happy about any of them.”

Sure there are some nutters in the movement, just like there are in just about any movement. I think women have had to deal with a lot of shit up to now. I trust them to have the sense to call out excesses for what they are, as some have started to do. Women, in general, like men, in general, can show some common sense.

There is a fine line to walk here, but given the amount of petty powerplaying bullshit that is bubbling to the top of the cesspool, it would seem that a re-alignment of norms might be in order.

Given that women comprise more than half our species, and a large part of our economy/workforce, it would seem to be worthwhile to make sure that they are as happy and productive as possible. Given the size and number of voices raised in the discussion so far, that shows a problem that needs addressing.

[vy65]

Sure there are some nutters in the movement, just like there are in just about any movement. I think women have had to deal with a lot of shit up to now. I trust them to have the sense to call out excesses for what they are, as some have started to do. Women, in general, like men, in general, can show some common sense.

Agreed. I think rape and sexual violence are bad things that should be stopped. And I encourage any movement dedicated to stamping that shit out. Here, however, there is nothing in the "movement," other than one's mere say-so, that enables those involved to separate the "nuts" from those who are reasonable. There's also the added problem that the issues are nuanced and deal with issues that are difficult to define and are going under transformation (i.e., what exactly is a non-verbal cue, what exactly constitutes sexual assault, etc.). That's why I don't agree with Sam Bee: we don't know what exactly constitutes rape, harassment, assault, etc... because the scope of those terms, regrettably, are now up for debate.

And on top of that, you have the issue of conflicting agendas/goals: is it just a matter of combating sexual assault/workplace harassment - or - something broader like re-defining consent or re-defining what constitutes assault.


There is a fine line to walk here, but given the amount of petty powerplaying bullshit that is bubbling to the top of the cesspool, it would seem that a re-alignment of norms might be in order.

It is good to hear you acknowledge that there is a fine line to walk. I agree: there is one. However, I don't think that a movement being carried out on social media is particularly adept at walking said fine line. You lose a lot of nuance when you're limited to 240 characters.

That said, I don't know what you mean by petty powerplaying bullshit, maybe you can elaborate on that, along with what a "re-alingment of norms" entails, whose norms they are, etc...


Given that women comprise more than half our species, and a large part of our economy/workforce, it would seem to be worthwhile to make sure that they are as happy and productive as possible. Given the size and number of voices raised in the discussion so far, that shows a problem that needs addressing.

There's a post-structuralist critique to be made here, but I've leave that to someone else. In any event, this is irrelevant to the points being made above, so I'll leave it be.

[Spurminator]

I think all of this has lead to good discussion and as long as it doesn't destroy Aziz's career (which I don't think it will) it was a good conversation to have for all parties about roles and responsibilities in the mating ritual.

[Monostradamus]

Even if it doesn’t “destroy” Aziz’s career, it’s still incredibly unfair that he got roped into this at all, and that he’ll always have this reputation as a creep when the whole thing should have stayed private. If anybody needs to be doxxed and exposed, it’s this bitch “Grace” who had a shitty, disappointing date with a douchebag and decided to label it sexual assault.

[Splits]

this shit is so out of hand.

[Spurminator]

Even if it doesn’t “destroy” Aziz’s career, it’s still incredibly unfair that he got roped into this at all, and that he’ll always have this reputation as a creep when the whole thing should have stayed private. If anybody needs to be doxxed and exposed, it’s this bitch “Grace” who had a shitty, disappointing date with a douchebag and decided to label it secual assault.

I don't really think anything long-term will come of it. I agree it sucks for him but his response was good and he'll be winning awards again next year. What "Grace" and other women like her have learned from this, hopefully, is that you're not going to get universal sympathy for publicly shaming someone over a regretted sexual encounter.

[vy65]

I don't really think anything long-term will come of it. I agree it sucks for him but his response was good and he'll be winning awards again next year. What "Grace" and other women like her have learned from this, hopefully, is that you're not going to get universal sympathy for publicly shaming someone over a regretted sexual encounter.

One problem I have with this is: why didn't the "universal sympathy" realization happen with T.J. Miller?

[Spurminator]

I'm not convinced TJ has suffered long term career damage either. That wasn't nearly as big a story, and he denied it.

But there was also actual violence alleged in his case.

The one I think may have been disproportionately affected is Louis CK. That seemed like kink shaming for the most part.

[vy65]

I agree with your assessment on their respective careers, but the point I thought you were making is that we've reached some watershed moment where society won't tolerate accusers who are primarily out to publicly shame a star. I don't see why that would happen with AA when it didn't happen with TJ Miller given the speciousness of the claims at issue. Nor am I ok with the standard being whether one suffers career damage or not: false accusations are wrong in their own right regardless of whether they cause long term harm or not.

[Spurminator]

Nah I don't think it's a watershed. As long as it generates clicks, unfair career-impacting gossip will continue to spread whether it's Aziz's sexual aggression or Jennifer Lawrence's private photos.

[Splits]

lol sexual aggression

dude had a couple of drinks and tried to get some tang

[Spurminator]

lol sexual aggression

dude had a couple of drinks and tried to get some tang

Sexual aggression isn't necessarily bad. It's part of the game.

[RandomGuy]

The backlash to this story at least proves there is a limit to the MeToo shit. People know the difference between a sexual assault and a dude just trying too hard to get laid, and they'll speak up if someone is accused of assault incorrectly. Women will think twice before claiming a consensual sexual experience they didn't personally enjoy was assault.

True that.

Personally, I simply trust that women generally have sense enough to pushback against hysteria.

I can't blame women for addressing a long buried problem, or wanting it addressed.
.

[boutons_deux]

Sexual aggression isn't necessarily bad. It's part of the game.

Only if both agree to play,

[rjv]

d) attempts to police acceptable vs. unacceptable sexual behavior. Philosophers like Foucault have written volumes on why that's a bad idea.


At first, the "me too" movement was more focused on direct examples of blatant forms of sexual assault; egregious acts that are indisputably criminal. Since that time, it does appear that there is a different kind of discourse taking place but one that has made many men feel uncomfortable because many males (who would otherwise be what we have usually regarded to be 'douchebags') aren't so sure of whether or not they fall into this binary cataloguing of assailant/victim. I think what Focault would argue is that if we really want to make any progress on this subject it would necessitate a deeper examination of systematically duplicitous practices. What we are seeing now is an epiphany where women are recognizing internalized patriarchal standards and are reacting against this form of 'power'. Of course, I think most feminists or members of the movement would stay away from Foucault because of his relativistic-and deterministic- traits so they would disagree on point 'd'.

[vy65]

At first, the "me too" movement was more focused on direct examples of blatant forms of sexual assault; egregious acts that are indisputably criminal. Since that time, it does appear that there is a different kind of discourse taking place but one that has made many men feel uncomfortable because many males (who would otherwise be what we have usually regarded to be 'douchebags') aren't so sure of whether or not they fall into this binary cataloguing of assailant/victim. I think what Focault would argue is that if we really want to make any progress on this subject it would necessitate a deeper examination of systematically duplicitous practices. What we are seeing now is an epiphany where women are recognizing internalized patriarchal standards and are reacting against this form of 'power'. Of course, I think most feminists or members of the movement would stay away from Foucault because of his relativistic-and deterministic- traits so they would disagree on point 'd'.

Reading tea leaves (obviously), but I don't think MF would be at all on board with this. One of the guiding themes of his philosophy was skepticism of sexual liberation; he saw liberation as a transference of power where the individual took over the responsibility for policing one's (sexual) acts from repressive institutions. I think he'd also be highly suspect of the way in which all these movements merge sexuality with criminality in a repressive way. He'd be critical of the confessional act of hashtagging one's sexual abuse as analogous to a church confession or the psychiatrist's couch. I think, most of all, he'd be highly critical of the really facile way the movement understands sexuality: women are victims, men are aggressors, fight the patriarchy (whatever that is), etc... I think Spurminator put it best: sexual aggression isn't necessarily bad.

These are complicated and nuanced issues. Reducing them to a hashtag is, at best stupid, and at worst really regressive. I agree with you that Foucault would use this as an opportunity to perform yet another genealogy on sexuality. But I have a really hard time thinking he'd be on board with the movement.

[RandomGuy]

Agreed. I think rape and sexual violence are bad things that should be stopped. And I encourage any movement dedicated to stamping that shit out. Here, however, there is nothing in the "movement," other than one's mere say-so, that enables those involved to separate the "nuts" from those who are reasonable. There's also the added problem that the issues are nuanced and deal with issues that are difficult to define and are going under transformation (i.e., what exactly is a non-verbal cue, what exactly constitutes sexual assault, etc.). That's why I don't agree with Sam Bee: we don't know what exactly constitutes rape, harassment, assault, etc... because the scope of those terms, regrettably, are now up for debate.

And on top of that, you have the issue of conflicting agendas/goals: is it just a matter of combating sexual assault/workplace harassment - or - something broader like re-defining consent or re-defining what constitutes assault.

It is good to hear you acknowledge that there is a fine line to walk. I agree: there is one. However, I don't think that a movement being carried out on social media is particularly adept at walking said fine line. You lose a lot of nuance when you're limited to 240 characters.

That said, I don't know what you mean by petty powerplaying bullshit, maybe you can elaborate on that, along with what a "re-alingment of norms" entails, whose norms they are, etc...

There's a post-structuralist critique to be made here, but I've leave that to someone else. In any event, this is irrelevant to the points being made above, so I'll leave it be.

Social media campaigns do offer some inherent mechanism for feedback. Nutters with strong opinions will dominate, but the vast majority of people, women in this case, tend to be in the middle bell-curve of common sense-ness.

I think we collectively tend to correct extreme overreaches.

[rjv]

Reading tea leaves (obviously), but I don't think MF would be at all on board with this. One of the guiding themes of his philosophy was skepticism of sexual liberation; he saw liberation as a transference of power where the individual took over the responsibility for policing one's (sexual) acts from repressive institutions. I think he'd also be highly suspect of the way in which all these movements merge sexuality with criminality in a repressive way. He'd be critical of the confessional act of hashtagging one's sexual abuse as analogous to a church confession or the psychiatrist's couch. I think, most of all, he'd be highly critical of the really facile way the movement understands sexuality: women are victims, men are aggressors, fight the patriarchy (whatever that is), etc... I think Spurminator put it best: sexual aggression isn't necessarily bad.

These are complicated and nuanced issues. Reducing them to a hashtag is, at best stupid, and at worst really regressive. I agree with you that Foucault would use this as an opportunity to perform yet another genealogy on sexuality. But I have a really hard time thinking he'd be on board with the movement.

Yes, I agree on this. One of MF's more agreeable observations (to myself, at least) is that the problem with our revolutions is that they tend to be modeled upon the very same bourgeoisie models that they are opposing which would then lead to one form of unjust power replacing the previous form of unjust power. Some of the #me too movement is falling under this veil; that is, it is acting as if it is a revolutionary process, but it is just reconstituting power which is then allowing these systemic injustices to perpetuate themselves in a different form. But, there is a certain human dignity that exists that many women have been denied (and to a much greater extent in other classes, races and countries), and I would agree with someone such as Chomsky (in a manner akin to the argument he posited in his famous debate with MF) that we can strive for a more just social environment. Perhaps I wouldn't go as far as Chomsky, but I would at least propose some form of absurd justice similar to the kind Camus often spoke of, with the caveat that political doctrine can be a dangerous thing.

[vy65]

Yes, I agree on this. One of MF's more agreeable observations (to myself, at least) is that the problem with our revolutions is that they tend to be modeled upon the very same bourgeoisie models that they are opposing which would then lead to one form of unjust power replacing the previous form of unjust power. Some of the #me too movement is falling under this veil; that is, it is acting as if it is a revolutionary process, but it is just reconstituting power which is then allowing these systemic injustices to perpetuate themselves in a different form. But, there is a certain human dignity that exists that many women have been denied (and to a much greater extent in other classes, races and countries), and I would agree with someone such as Chomsky (in a manner akin to the argument he posited in his famous debate with MF) that we can strive for a more just social environment. Perhaps I wouldn't go as far as Chomsky, but I would at least propose some form of absurd justice similar to the kind Camus often spoke of, with the caveat that political doctrine can be a dangerous thing.

:tu to much of this. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the net effect of #metoo, but that's because I think Foucault won the debate you're referring to and I've never been a Chomsky fan.

[rjv]

:tu to much of this. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the net effect of #metoo, but that's because I think Foucault won the debate you're referring to and I've never been a Chomsky fan.

i would have called it a draw. i can't categorically agree with either, thus my deference to camus.

[rjv]

not unsurprisingly, james franco was left out of the best actor nominations despite having been a lock just a month ago. the ramifications of the allegations against him are sure to have affected that nomination bid (especially when you take into account that it appears the Academy rushed to throw Denzel Washington into the category as a 'last minute' substitute.