Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

She could have meant any number of things, all of which are things that I'd let her define because she just told me I was pressuring her to do things she didn't want to do.

JFC. Nevermind.

Originally Posted by Adder

I was not referring to one incident. That you are aware of only one incident involving Gopher athletes does not mean that I am. Nor was I remarking exclusively on victims of Gopher athletes as indicated by the "maybe" part of what I wrote.

You are so full of shit and are looking for loopholes in the most Sebby way possible. If you're trying to argue that you didn't bring up a woman blowing a football player (or players) in connection with this Aziz Ansari account for the very specific reason of trying to link feelings of physical coercion, intimidation, etc. to this, you are absolutely lying about your intentions.

Originally Posted by Adder

"Grace" told you that she felt not in control of the situation and compelled. You responded by saying that she was not physically intimidated.

This is gray area stuff and it doesn't help that we're relying on the journalism of babe.net that was not particularly good, but according to you he was aggressive and according to her she felt violated. That's enough for me to think he should have acted differently, she was victimized on some level even if not actionable, and there's actually a story there.

Uh, no. What happened here was Aziz thought he was getting a hook-up. She thought she was at the beginning of a meaningful relationship. He acted like a dick. She didn't like it. I do not believe she was victimized. And I do not think this is a fair story for an article. If this were a different time, I think he may have responded with a piece that would actually give way more clarity to what happened. (And no, I don't mean in a "I'm a star and I will shut you down" way.) But I sure as hell wouldn't advise him, in the current climate, to do so.

Originally Posted by Adder

I'll refrain from returning the personal shot, but I think I'm okay on the affirmative consent front, thanks.

?

What personal shot is that? I have been exposed to discussions and training on affirmative consent on a number of occasions from 1989 through last year. Even if that wasn't my point, how is "speak for yourself" a personal shot when we're talking about whether or not we've been trained/exposed to the concept of affirmative consent?

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't think she's done anything she should regret - aside perhaps from not finding an outlet that would write about it better - and that she has every right to out him for being a jerk, if that's all it was.

It is very hard for me to believe in 2018 that you see something nefarious in a woman speaking publicly choosing anonymity. And yes, Ansari is definitely doing the right thing in not outing her, which he what he would have done if he was running the typical defense playbook.

I wasn't trying to say that there was something nefarious in her choosing anonymity. I was trying to point to the asymmetry in how she published her account -- his privacy was shredded, while she kept hers. Notice how you use the language of legal rights to defend her choices ("she has every right to out him") and to describe him ("perpetrator") even though you don't think he assaulted her. I agree that she has the "right" to write what she did, but I don't think she should have done it, just as I agree that he did not "assault" her, but don't think he acted as he should have. He surely has the "right" to out her, but you say he is "definitely doing the right thing" in choosing not to, a question you pointedly duck as to what she did to him. Still not clear why you think her decision to out him is justified except that the page hits make it all worth it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't think she's done anything she should regret - aside perhaps from not finding an outlet that would write about it better - and that she has every right to out him for being a jerk, if that's all it was.

It is very hard for me to believe in 2018 that you see something nefarious in a woman speaking publicly choosing anonymity. And yes, Ansari is definitely doing the right thing in not outing her, which he what he would have done if he was running the typical defense playbook.

Idk what happened that night. But I know he’s funny and entertaining as all fuck, and nothing written in that piece provides any reason to stop watching him.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think we both agree that he did not violate any law in what he did with her, even if he was jerk, and she did not violate any law in what she did to him with her story. (You call him a "perpetrator," a term usually used to describe a criminal, but I'm going off what you said earlier.) As you say, she absolutely could have written the story without naming him, though fewer people would have read it. If you pretend that she wasn't trying to hurt him by writing the article, you can also pretend that naming him was justified in order to get a bigger audience for her message, but that kind of end-justifieds-the-means view seems hard to stomach when the message of her piece ostensibly is advocating a sexual politics based on more mutual respect.

I think they both have done things now that they should regret, and he at least has said that (privately and publicly), while she is hiding behind the anonymity she has chosen (and note that he hasn't outed her).

I don't mind the anonymous aspect of the article. What I do mind is that they were in contact the next day and he apologized and made it clear there was a disconnect between what he was feeling and what she was feeling about the encounter. After knowing this is how he felt, I'm not sure writing a very detailed piece about just her feelings makes a lot of sense (especially after reading that account). To write that article like he's just another in a line of scumbag celebrities who force women to do what they don't want to do seems a bit much.

I say this with the understanding that in the grand scheme of things given how much bullshit women have had to endure in every field since the beginning of time, the relative danger to Ansari's career shouldn't really be the primary focus of anyone's critique. And given who he is and how he has been very thoughtful about the very issues at play in the article, (i) I think he will recover and (ii) to a certain extent, he is fair game to be called out when his behavior doesn't live up to his art.

But, damn. He texted her first and clearly thought the whole night went differently. He said it was fun meeting her and after hearing how she felt, said, “I’m so sad to hear this. Clearly, I misread things in the moment and I’m truly sorry.”

She came to the conclusion that she was sexually assaulted.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I don't mind the anonymous aspect of the article. What I do mind is that she contacted him and he apologized and made it clear there was a disconnect between what he was feeling and what she was feeling about the encounter. After knowing this is how he felt, I'm not sure writing a very detailed piece about just her feelings makes a lot of sense (especially after reading that account). To write that article like he's just another in a line of scumbag celebrities who force women to do what they don't want to do seems a bit much.

I say this with the understanding that in the grand scheme of things given how much bullshit women have had to endure in every field since the beginning of time, the relative danger to Ansari's career shouldn't really be the primary focus of anyone's critique. And given who he is and how he has been very thoughtful about the very issues at play in the article, (i) I think he will recover and (ii) to a certain extent, he is fair game to be called out when his behavior doesn't live up to his art.

But, damn. He texted her first and clearly thought the whole night went differently. He said it was fun meeting her and after hearing how she felt, said, “I’m so sad to hear this. Clearly, I misread things in the moment and I’m truly sorry.”

She came to the conclusion that she was sexually assaulted.

TM

It's just an unhappy story all around. I guess I am reacting poorly to the implicit notion that because he was a jerk, the way she handled it shouldn't be questioned. They clearly were not on the same page, and it seems to have really hurt her. Again: an unhappy story all around. I don't think I know his stuff, but nothing he did that night makes me feel better about him. And reading her account doesn't make me want to hear more from her.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's just an unhappy story all around. I guess I am reacting poorly to the implicit notion that because he was a jerk, the way she handled it shouldn't be questioned. They clearly were not on the same page, and it seems to have really hurt her. Again: an unhappy story all around. I don't think I know his stuff, but nothing he did that night makes me feel better about him. And reading her account doesn't make me want to hear more from her.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...ason-2/525804/

Read that and tell me you don't want to watch his series.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...ason-2/525804/

Read that and tell me you don't want to watch his series.

TM

It sounds great. I imagine it's the sort of TV I would watch if I watched anything other than soccer and (very recently) nature documentaries (with our foreign exchange student, who is fascinated by them).

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I wasn't trying to say that there was something nefarious in her choosing anonymity. I was trying to point to the asymmetry in how she published her account -- his privacy was shredded, while she kept hers. Notice how you use the language of legal rights to defend her choices ("she has every right to out him") and to describe him ("perpetrator") even though you don't think he assaulted her. I agree that she has the "right" to write what she did, but I don't think she should have done it, just as I agree that he did not "assault" her, but don't think he acted as he should have. He surely has the "right" to out her, but you say he is "definitely doing the right thing" in choosing not to, a question you pointedly duck as to what she did to him. Still not clear why you think her decision to out him is justified except that the page hits make it all worth it.

She did not do anything to him. She had no need to protect the privacy of someone who was a jerk to her. Even had he not been a jerk to her, he will not be harassed, stalked, threatened or otherwise be put in physical danger because of this. She would be. The two things are not comparable.

[LessinSF]

Do I want to stay downtown or Wicker Park (or somewhere else like Logan Square)? Thanks in advance,

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

She did not do anything to him. She had no need to protect the privacy of someone who was a jerk to her. Even had he not been a jerk to her, he will not be harassed, stalked, threatened or otherwise be put in physical danger because of this. She would be. The two things are not comparable.

You are totally ducking the question. The question is not whether she "needed to protect his privacy" -- she made her own decision to violate it. She could have written about what happened without naming him, and that piece could have been a part of the important conversation many people think we are having but without trading on the page hits it got from revealing salacious details about a celebrity. I think we all understand that she did it at least partly out of revenge. You are working hard to avoid identifying any other justification for what she did.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Do I want to stay downtown or Wicker Park (or somewhere else like Logan Square)? Thanks in advance,

Not downtown. Stay in a neighborhood. It's been years since I was in Wicker Park, but that instinct seems right. Depends on where you need to be during the day.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Do I want to stay downtown or Wicker Park (or somewhere else like Logan Square)? Thanks in advance,

How many days, and for work? If just traveling you might want to stay at a couple different places. From the Moth I've been in the loop, Hyde Park and Evanston. The Miracle Mile stuff is north of the loop. I'd say in the loop is best for public transport to other areas, and good on its own for places to drink/eat/see.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You are totally ducking the question. The question is not whether she "needed to protect his privacy" -- she made her own decision to violate it. She could have written about what happened without naming him, and that piece could have been a part of the important conversation many people think we are having but without trading on the page hits it got from revealing salacious details about a celebrity. I think we all understand that she did it at least partly out of revenge. You are working hard to avoid identifying any other justification for what she did.

https://twitter.com/lauren_kelley/st...84675610578946 It looks like she didn't seek babe.net out, they sought her out. And sooner or later, her identity is going to come out, because if they heard about her through the grapevine, someone in that grapevine without journalistic ethics is going to speak up. I feel really bad for her when that happens. And this doesn't help improve my already poor feelings towards babe.net.

More here: http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/15/medi...iew/index.html

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

https://twitter.com/lauren_kelley/st...84675610578946 It looks like she didn't seek babe.net out, they sought her out. And sooner or later, her identity is going to come out, because if they heard about her through the grapevine, someone in that grapevine without journalistic ethics is going to speak up. I feel really bad for her when that happens. And this doesn't help improve my already poor feelings towards babe.net.

More here: http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/15/medi...iew/index.html

Hopefully everyone moves on before she's outed.

eta: This piece is good: https://jezebel.com/babe-what-are-you-doing-1822114753

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

She did not do anything to him. She had no need to protect the privacy of someone who was a jerk to her. Even had he not been a jerk to her, he will not be harassed, stalked, threatened or otherwise be put in physical danger because of this. She would be. The two things are not comparable.

It’s teasing the threshold of defamation/false light.

If this sort of sexual doxxing continues, someone’s going to target a litigious Peter Thiel type, and we’ll see Hulk Hogan v. Gawker, Part Deux.