Blah blah. Complete deflection. Your standard, not mine. Here’s mine: I judge an apology, an amends, a mea culpa, or whatever term you want to use, for myself by myself. You want to use a different standard, fine, I don’t care about debating it, I’m not trying to debate it. I paraphrased your criteria accurately. I go over there and say “What’s your cure for a sexist comment?” you’ll either say “That’s not what we’re talking about here,” or “I don’t see any sexist comments here, go over to the thread where you saw one and take it up with me there.”
I didn’t even think an apology was necessary, it was a throwaway comment on an anonymous message board.
Corry El thanks for that link. I’m gonna check it out later. I’m most familiar with the CDC report, but I’ve been long meaning to dig into the methodology as some have taken issue with it. I want to be able to speak on the stats in a more informed way.
I haven’t set a standard. And even if I had, you are under no obligation to use “my standard.”
If this is indeed your standard you would have the common courtesy and the decency to offer an apology Cub Mistress: and you wouldn’t have used both her apology and her real life pain to make a strawman attack on me.
But as you have chosen not to use your standard then I highly doubt that this is your standard at all.
But you have chosen to “use it” in a completely unrelated thread to attack somebody who didn’t deserve it. So just stop doing that already.
No you did not.
Do not assume what I am going to do.
But Cub Mistress did offer up an apology. And you used Cub Mistress’s real life pain to attack both Cub Mistress and myself. I don’t want an apology from you. But I do think you owe Cub Mistress an apology for dragging them into an issue that you had with me.
In his tweets, Takei denies the event ever happened, and claims he doesn’t recall anyone by the name of the accused. We shall have to see where this goes with time. On the one hand, I have been a Takei fan for some time. On the other hand, the accuser has witnesses who corroborate that he’s told the story about this event for some time now. :dubious:
I think it’s entirely possible the whole thing happened as described, without intent to violate consent. I’m not sure intent matters from a legal perspective, but it matters to me.
Sometimes I wonder why people ever have sex when they’re drunk. It can go so wrong so easily, and not just in a rapey way.
The new standard being promoted is “Yes Means Yes” and that a lack of a “yes” is a “no.” Also in the Louis CK case they’re saying that a yes is actually a no if the victim only said yes because they were mesmerized by the overwhelming power of early/mid-2000’s Louis CK, unknown standup comic and famed writer of “Pootie Tang”.
It means that despite what is often written in literature and commentary, “victim blaming” is a bad idea for the accused unless he/she has clear evidence and confidence that that such “blaming” will have an exculpatory effect.
To secure a conviction for any offense, the prosecution has to prove all the elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The elements of rape are that sex was undertaken (physical element) knowing/suspecting that consent was absent (mental element; of recklessness). Sexual assault short of rape also has recklessness as mens rea.
So, “she never said no”: Accused has admitted to the existence of the physical element and recklessness as to the mental element. Prosecutions work is done.
“she wanted it”: Admitted to the physical element and given a very good indication that recklessness was present. The prosecution has an easier time of it now.
“she is a slut”: A good indication that the physical element was present and that there was recklessness also. Made a conviction more likely.
In real life, at trials, the accused (if he has a half decent lawyer) does not try and indulge in an orgy (!) of victim blaming, unless s/he knows beforehand that it will be exculpatory. The prosecution has to prove all the elements. Shut up and make them do it. Of course this applies as much to the innocnet and guilty.
No you didn’t, and protip: if you find yourself declaring the awesome power of your own arguments, that declaration is almost certainly the only thing those arguments have going for them.
Well, the statement was probably more pertinent Louis CK than to George Takei, I put it here because Takei is the first example of someone in this cycle pointing fingers at an accused person and then scant days later being accused himself. (The second example of this is Richard Dreyfuss.) The torch-and-pitchfork brigade is eating itself at this point.
Who benefits from I Love You Daddy being closed down? The film is, at its heart, a critique of Woody Allen, a man whose name should logically have come up by now but for some reason has not.
Are our 401K plans tied to these studios? A commentator elsewhere said that Louis CK was never getting another cent of his money, and I guess this was my way of saying the creative talents don’t benefit from a hit film the same way investors and insiders do, and the way movies are financed, we may all be more deeply in bed with CK, Weinstein and the worst of the worst than we are consciously aware.
Your “statement reads as an implication” that my outrage might not be as pure or precise or intense as your own, and you know, it probably isn’t.
There’s a weird conflation here of who is doing the accusing. These men may have condemned, but they were not accusers.
Does this mean you believe that Woody Allen had women come forward with their stories about Louis CK? This reads as a really extreme attempt to marginalize accounts of sexual improprieties. Please explain what you mean specifically.
You made you statement following your questioning who benefits. It’s still not clear to me who you think benefits from the revenue loss you are describing.
I’m not sure I follow this at all. To be blunt, I want to know if you’re saying these stories are made up to benefit unknown third parties (like Woody Allen) for unknown reasons, because that’s the way your statement read to me.
No goddammit it is not. Sexual desire is NOT the new evil. There is nothing new about this evil, which isn’t sex, but forced or coerced sex. What is new are the voices who were once silenced. That’s the only new thing. Sorry if you find it unpleasant. Okay, not really sorry.
Spice Weasel, Banquet Bear, and This is the End…all of your posts are starting to rise to be more so just about personal feelings about personal members on these boards, so from here on, please take the discussion about it to the Pit instead of hijacking this thread further.
So what in the world does that have to do with feminism? Does that disprove the patriarchy?
You’re talking about some legal concepts. Feminism is about real life. The majority of rape incidents never make it to trial. And the majority of people saying those things aren’t the actual accused but those defending them in the public eye.
If a few incidences took place many years earlier and there is no indication a pattern of sexual predation continued I think forgiveness would be in order. Compulsive behaviors of any kind can easily over ride moral guidelines until a level of maturity is reached.