No, I'm not saying "What did she expect?" I'm answering your question about my cynicism. Yes,I think she planned to screw him, and she's only casting herself as a victim because she found him unattractive. If it was just a bad date and she shared the story of how weird and creepy Ansari is, this wouldn't be news.
You're sure about this, are you? She would totally have fucked him if he didn't end up being on the creepy side? Your assumptions here are off base, imo, but typical of the culture.
Yes, I am sure. And jaded.
I agree that men should be more self aware and more externally aware. There is no excuse for Ansari (a) not being aware that she wasn't into this and (b) persisting in efforts to get his dick sucked once he realized she wasn't into it.
But "culture" is not an excuse for decisions you make that you regret later. And I am absolutely sure that when she gave him her number, and then later went out with him, she fully expected that there was at least a high probability that she'd be screwing him by the end of the evening.
Obviously, she's entitled to change her mind when she realizes they're not clicking. But I find her implying that she went to his apartment with NO IDEA that sex might be on the agenda and that Ansari sprung it on her and golly, she just didn't know what to do excerpt go along, to be disingenuous.
Last Edit: Jan 16, 2018 8:18:29 GMT -5 by CG Admin
I've watched this unfold on twitter, noting many including many women who consider themselves feminists believe that based on her initial statements, it wasn't assault, but he was an ass for not realizing she wasn't as into what was happening, but she could have left. (I don't think that part is in dispute)
That is pretty much where I'm at.
It's clear that Ansari is a socially inept little dweeb who really, really wanted to get his dick sucked, and so he was at best oblivious and at worst, willfully so, to very clear DO NOT WANT signals from his date.
But there is no indication, even by her, that he attempted, hinted, or implied any use of force or coercion to keep her there or make her do anything. She just "felt pressured." The only way to construct a lack of consent on her part is to accept the theory that women living under a patriarchy can never truly consent and absent clear and affirmative statements of desire to engage in specific activity, all sexual activity must be assumed non-consensual by default, even if by all external indications the woman engaged in them freely and without coercion or objection.
I have seen this position seriously advanced, and if I believed in an all-oppressive Patriarchy in which women have no agency, it would make a certain amount of sense.
Of course, even if we did adopt a strict "Affirmative Consent" model, the goalposts would just shift - soon, even if she did affirmatively consent, the man would have to prove that she didn't affirmatively consent under some hidden or unspoken duress.
I think Ansari deserves social censure for being an insensitive jerk and a horrible date. But the people calling this "sexual assault" are just diluting that phrase to near-meaninglessness.
Also, let's be honest - this twenty-something hottie wanted to fuck a movie star, and was disappointed to discover that the movie star she bagged was exactly like his public persona - an awkward, unattractive dork. If Aziz Ansari had proven to be more suave and charming and less like himself, she wouldn't be letting herself be put up as a poster girl for sexual coercion because she gave a blowjob to a celebrity and then regretted it.
That article is some really heavy stuff. I too thought the case against Sandusky was nigh irrefutable. Now I have doubts. That said, I haven't read the book, just the review. But it is deeply troubling that it's even possible that Sandusky is in fact innocent.
Again.... it seems the Google algorithm got some things wrong. There are bugs. They should be fixed. They look to me like bugs, not like Google programmers are maliciously targeting conservative sites.
Without getting into whether or not Trump is suffering from dementia, I'll point out that someone who is in mental decline doesn't show it 100% of the time. The fact that sometimes he can appear sharp doesn't mean his faculties aren't waning.
I also remain of the opinion that despising "career politicians' is a peculiar strain of anti-intellectualism and anti-professionalism. Not being a career politician is one reason why half the time, Trump does things without a clue about the implications or repercussions. I know you think him stomping around Washington like a bull in a china shop is a good thing, but I don't think history will vindicate your faith in him. And you think things like his "shithole" and "grab 'em by the pussy" comments are just occasionally unfortunate aberrations, and not a core part of his character.
What you don't do, and what Damore did, is to respond by distributing memos in which you calmly explain that your black and female coworkers are too dumb to be your colleagues and that the fact that they have jobs at your company in the first place is bad not only for you but for them. Never mind the racist and sexist premises here or even the questions of decency and propriety, which can only be politely ridiculous fictions for the libertarian mind — doing this is clearly not in your self-interest, pal, and you have no right to complain when you get canned for doing it.
Damore made himself a PR firestorm and asked for a firing, regardless of his arguments, so that much is true. But The Week is being typically dishonest in paraphrasing Damore's memo. No honest reading of his words has him "calmly explaining that his black and female coworkers are too dumb to be his colleagues."
Here's something else that is "embarrassingly true." You overlooked the rest of the paragraph that is kinda pertinent.
Nah, It wasn't pertinent to the point I was making there, that indeed Google's fact-checking was demonstrably wrong. The rest of the bit--that you quoted--is just opinion.
And in that regard, I think the Gizmodo piece is trying to hard too defend Google, even as the DC piece is trying too hard to paint Google as a villain. Because even though there's an obvious apparent bias with regard to which sites get the fact-checking treatment, some of that is easily explained. The Daily Kos, for instance, is really a collection of blogs and can't be treated in the same way as a site like The DC (though sites like The Nation certainly could be). And I'd note--I guess in defense of Google--that neither Cato nor Heritage get the fact-checking treatment.
Still, if Google is going to run summaries for some sites that include fact-checking, they should be getting it right. Nothing worse than a fact-checker that can't be trusted, for whatever reason. And until Google fixes such blatant errors, it's fair--imo--to criticize them for an apparent double standard.
It's a prototype. That it gets things wrong sometimes should not be shocking or evidence of an anti-conservative conspiracy. I can easily see how such a tool might have wound up pulling a quote from a linked article and incorrectly attributing it to the original source. That's the sort of thing you submit a bug report to fix.
Absent any other evidence, this does not look to me like whatever team is programming the "Fact Checker" is preferentially targeting conservative sites. It's unfortunately true that the number of influential right-leaning sites that are unreliable if not batshit crazy outnumbers the number of left-leaning sites of similar stature with their audiences. There are leftist equivalents of InfoWars, but none that have an audience anywhere near as large, proportionately.
Claiming Google is being all shady-leftist, in this case at least, is about as credible as Trump calling CNN "fake news." I cannot help thinking this is a case where reality has a well-known liberal bias.
At first, I was kind of rolling my eyes at Damore's lawsuit... as much as I think Google made a mistake in firing him, it seems clear they are legally entitled to fire someone because VIPs decided he's an asshole and a PR nightmare.
But the stuff turning up in discovery is... well, as Wired pointed out, the real purpose of the lawsuit is to embarrass Google, and it is definitely doing that.
Maybe not literally stupid - I don't know what her IQ is. But she has never struck me as particularly intellectual, and her readiness to believe the most patently absurd nonsense if it caters to her ego or her preconceptions does not speak well of her critical thinking skills.
And her building a multi-billion dollar empire is more about luck than business savvy. Lightning struck, she became enormously popular (yes, there was some talent and work involved for her to become a media personality in the first place), and once you have that kind of money, it's a heck of a lot easier to make more.
Basically, I think Oprah is a nice person and would be better than Trump (your dog would be better than Trump), but I don't credit her with actually being that smart.
Oh, I agree - I think Oprah is really pretty stupid, and very much a believer in woo-woo nonsense. Whatever grounding she had in the real world (and she did have some, originally) has inevitably been eroded by becoming one of the richest people in the world. When you're surrounded by people whose full-time job it is to kiss your ass and make sure no problem ever troubles you, how can your worldview not be distorted?
I don't want celebrities, I don't want dynasties. But that's very much the direction we are headed.
I don't understand why the course is titled "White Racism" given the description of the course? I don't see anything in the links specifying what the complaints are, either.
Re Opty's comment: I think the difference between being racist toward a person of color as opposed to a white person is that racism toward POC has been systemic and widespread, with real effect outside of personal offense. White people have had the upper hand economically, socially, politically, etc. Racist perceptions of POC as being inferior, uneducated, criminal, etc., have pervaded the education system, employment, the police force, etc.
I think "being racist" on an individual level is essentially just being a bigoted asshole. Bigotry can come from any group toward any other group. It may always be so, because, alas, some humans seem to need enemies. But where the power is... that's from whence the legitimate harm comes. In the case of racism, white people are in control.
Ignoring the extremists, I think people who fight against racism are not being racist toward white people; pointing out white privilege, for example, is not being racist toward white people, but many seem to get offended and call it racist nonetheless.
I also think there has been and will continue to be some pendulum-swinging in the pursuit of balance in this regard.
A lot of nuance gets bleached out by both sides.
I understand the "racism = prejudice + power" formulation. I get it. I don't agree with literally redefining the word "racism" to mean that, because the nuance that gets bleached out on the one side results in the stereotypical but very common arguments on the Internet and in universities where it is confidently asserted that by definition only white people can be racist.
But I do understand that an individual black person being racist towards an individual white person does not have the weight of generations of systematic oppression and all of society behind him that the reverse situation does. So I think white people crying about being insulted and abused for being white and equating it with historical racism against black people are being disingenuous.
But that doesn't mean racism against white people doesn't exist or can't be hurtful.
Repeat argument for men and women, Christians and Jews, etc.