Oh. It is private information now?
Do you really think that ‘Grace’ really intended to put a warning beacon on Ansari, as opposed all the other guys who were “all the fucking same”? Only his behavior was so egregious that it warranted the warning beacon?
People generally think of it that way, so that is the intention, yes.
…yyyyess?
I mean. Yes?
Of course.
I think egregiosity wasn’t the only dimension that led to the decision, his background and fame probably entered into it as well (amplifying the significance and reach of what she was saying) but yeah, basically. She was putting out a warning beacon about this guy. That’s exactly what I think she thought she was doing. I would expect the journalist even played on that.
And who determines if he is “actually” apologetic?
And what exactly is he apologizing for, as well?
Assuming it’s an accurate account, does this not fit the definition of sexual assault? A sexual act in the absence of explicit consent?
If we are going for an unrealistic outside-the-courtroom standard of “guilty beyond reasonable doubt” doesn’t it strongly suggest that probably this was a sexual assault?
He does.
If he’s actually apologetic, he’ll be able to easily get people to come around because really nobody is thinking of what he did as a big deal anyway, and he’s adorable AF, and he does feminism well.
If he’s not actually apologetic, but is willing to pretend, then a little more complicated.
If he’s not actually apologetic, and is not willing to pretend, then much complication ensues.
What is he apologetic for? Whatever he has come to believe he has done wrong.
To me that is not at all believable. It was intended to humiliate him by exposing what should had been private in order to punish for his “offense”.
No, not at all.
Oh okay, then he decided that he was properly apologetic. All is forgiven then?
Ah, if he’s “actually apologetic” something to be judged by a jury of his peers, eh?
Okay, once again, who is determining if he is apologetic enough? Who is determining his sincerity?
And what if what he feels he did wrong is not the same as what you feel he did wrong?
In any case, there is no exception carved into revenge porn laws for “but I thought I had a good reason for doing it,” and that’s as it should be.
No.
Usually the sexual act of sexual assault implies more than a kiss and it was in the context of having given consent for kissing, heavy petting, and mutual oral sex. Her communicating anger at him did not clearly express withdrawal of that consent. No question that if it did go down in that way in reality then he was at best really really stupid and anchored into a false narrative of what was going on. But no that does not fit the definition of assault.
It’s difficult to tell because none of us were there and we haven’t had a full account of how things happened on Aziz’s end. However, he didn’t deny anything out right.
I’ll remain agnostic on this…
I CERTAINLY hope that people on both sides realize that they weren’t there to tell if these “non verbal signals” were that apparent enough.
[Moderating]
This is getting awfully personal for CS. Address the content of a post, not the poster.
No other consequencees, you say?
Stranger
This guy is in trouble. There are witnesses.
I think he’s above reproach. Not very far above it though. But he’s been reproached so I guess I’m wrong. I would’ve just said, learn from this. To both of them.
Exactly. The solution to his problem is obvious only if he is a public relations robot. Which, I get the feeling, is the proper way for him to act at the moment in your opinion.
How can we figure out what was intended?
My assumptions are based on the kinds of assumptions I find reflected in my facebook feed, which is chock full of millenial SJWs and middle aged queer people, for the record. 
This gives me certain expectations as to what the woke kids these days can be expected to try to do–or, admittedly, rationalize themselves into trying to do…
I don’t know if it’s the proper way for him to act, somebody just asked me how he can get back into people’s good graces and I suggested some ways.
Of course he has to be a public relations robot–and that’s part of why I said it’s “simple”, because he is a public relations robot. It’s basically his job as a celebrity comedian and writer etc.
You skipped a crucial sentence from my post, making it look like I definitively said there were no other consequences, when in fact I indicated what I was saying was far from definitive.
Why did you do that? 
As to your link, it’s… a petition started and signed by some (small number of, btw) randos. Tell me when Netflix stops carrying the show…
I’m finding not much clear on the kissing angle–it looks like it’s very dependent on context, and of course would doubtfully be prosecuted on its own (which doesn’t make it not a crime).
As to your second point, I am at a loss. The idea that angrily saying “you guys are all the same” does not at the least make consent to kiss no longer explicit is… I just… I have no idea how you can think this as a decent human being.
I think you are a decent human being of course. I just have no idea how you can think what you just said and be a decent human being at the same time.
Just to check, are you saying she broke some revenge porn laws?