Reply With Quote
The rallying call of today's cuck.
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...
The backlash to this story at least proves there is a limit to the MeToo . 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.
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
yeah, no they won't
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...-in-your-nuts/
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-16-2018 at 02:42 PM.
Chappellestradamus tbh
https://vimeo.com/183089808
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.
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 ty 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
The "movement" has not reached some kind of limit.
As long as a public good is achieved, then an innocent victim here and there is acceptable.
Right?
*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?
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) cir vents 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
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.
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.
non sequitur, irrelevant, you male chauvinist pig
The lady doth protest too much
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 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 bull 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.
Agreed. I think rape and sexual violence are bad things that should be stopped. And I encourage any movement dedicated to stamping that 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 cons utes sexual assault, etc.). That's why I don't agree with Sam Bee: we don't know what exactly cons utes 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 cons utes 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 bull , 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.
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.
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 “Grace” who had a ty, disappointing date with a bag and decided to label it sexual assault.
Last edited by Monostradamus; 01-19-2018 at 03:34 PM.
this is so out of hand.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
