Aziz Ansari #himtoo

[Starbuck1975]

Current one had 40 years in the spotlight, and anyone with half a brain could of googled it. But hey, liberal tears are worth it....lol

I grew up in NYC, so Trump has always been a presence, especially since I listened to Howard Stern. There was never a question in my mind who he is.

The irony in all of this is that Trump was a fairly prototypical limousine New York Democrat, until he decided to become a populist conservative.

 

[Perknose]

The irony in all of this is that Trump was a fairly prototypical limousine New York Democrat, until he decided to become a populist conservative.

IOW, neither, just a relentless self-promoter willing to take any political path looks convenient.

 

[Jaskalas]

Solution?
AMAZON plan to put camera, microphone in every BEDROOM...

 

[jackstar7]

Stop looking to tech to solve a human problem.

 

[jackstar7]

I don't like Al Franken, James Franco, the brothers Affleck or Aziz Ansari. I consider Hollywood a toxic place and male celebrities sit at about a zero on my empathy scale.

What bothers me is social media and the mob mentality it enables, not a good thing no matter how good the underlying intentions.

What really shocks me is that we've not seen any rock stars ensnared in the #metoo movement. The debauchery of the Sunset Strip hair metal era alone should fill the queue for months.

You describe it as a mob mentality, but each time, there are plenty of people standing against the allegations and the purported outcome.

It might be the majority that's scaring you, but that doesn't make it a mob. It just makes you a typical conservative.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Stop looking to tech to solve a human problem.

I would dare say it's by far a better solution than pretending that after Millennia you'll suddenly be able to beat the success rate of a machine when it comes to humanity. If tech can solve a human problem, let tech solve a human problem.

 

[jackstar7]

I would dare say it's by far a better solution than pretending that after Millennia you'll suddenly be able to beat the success rate of a machine when it comes to humanity. If tech can solve a human problem, let tech solve a human problem.

It doesn't though. It just eradicates privacy.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

It doesn't though. It just eradicates privacy.

Humanity makes sacrifices all the time. Hell, this very story and stories like it is the solution to centuries of behavior against women. In exchange, we get public notice as a goal point, regardless of validation or merit. We've chosen this, and people in this very thread have advocated that the sacrifice it presents to privacy and perhaps catching up a few innocents is worthwhile to the cause.

So if humanity isn't doing enough to solve the problem, then lets get a little closer using technology at the sacrifice of privacy. I'm not sure why those who advocate for the necessity of the pendulum swinging, even if it swings too far, suddenly have a problem when the pendulum is inevitably going to start swinging back again. If you are wanting the problem addressed, then address it.

 

[jackstar7]

And terrorists will be stopped by complete surveillance!

 

[thecoolnessrune]

And terrorists will be stopped by complete surveillance!

You're being silly. This #metoo phenomenon doesn't completely stop the problem either. Tech might be a way to solve just a little bit more of the problem. You've been going through this whole thread saying that you're fine with this pendulum swing. You have no problem with people's bedroom lives, no matter how deplorable or non-deplorable, being put out on social media in the pursuit of justice, even if it can't be legal justice and even if it can't be validated. So why on earth do you have a problem with an OPT-IN technology solution to some of the problem that can provide real validation?

 

[jackstar7]

You're being silly. This #metoo phenomenon doesn't completely stop the problem either. Tech might be a way to solve just a little bit more of the problem. You've been going through this whole thread saying that you're fine with this pendulum swing. You have no problem with people's bedroom lives, no matter how deplorable or non-deplorable, being put out on social media in the pursuit of justice, even if it can't be legal justice and even if it can't be validated. So why on earth do you have a problem with an OPT-IN technology solution to some of the problem that can provide real validation?

Because it is silly. People are free to do it. It's not going to do anything to solve the problem.

It's also an abdication of active responsibility. Men could just act responsibly and respectfully and that would solve more of the problem. People in power don't want to have to think about what they're doing, they just want to give in to their basest impulses and desires without consideration. That needs to change.

 

[Jaskalas]

Men could just act responsibly and respectfully and that would solve more of the problem.

The new problem we face is the social media lynch mob that is attacking people, using mere word for evidence.

 

[jackstar7]

The new problem we face is the social media lynch mob that is attacking people, using mere word for evidence.

You mean just like it has always done, only now it's giving weight to these women's words for basically the first time?

Social media speeds up the process, but it doesn't change how court of public opinion has always worked.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Because it is silly. People are free to do it. It's not going to do anything to solve the problem.

It's also an abdication of active responsibility. Men could just act responsibly and respectfully and that would solve more of the problem. People in power don't want to have to think about what they're doing, they just want to give in to their basest impulses and desires without consideration. That needs to change.

I can't understand why you think that having something that can provide actual evidence for actual legal justice would do less to solve the problem than social media blast campaigns? If there were to be a choice of only one, I'd think something that collects actual evidence would be worlds better than something that was complete word of mouth. Neither of these symptoms are preventing the problem from occurring. They both only mean anything after the act has already been done. They both seek a form of justice. They both serve as a warning of consequences to people who would take advantage of someone else. But only one provides the solid evidence needed that can see someone put in actual prison. Why, of the two systems we're discussing, do you think a social media blast campaign works, but something that captures legal evidence for actual legal measures would not work?

 

[jackstar7]

That's the mindset of evidence above all, rather than responsibility above all.

And it's a false choice. You can push these tech means, but I'd rather devote time to pushing the cultural change. Also, all the of these tech means sound more like collective evidence against allegations, not evidence that will prove criminal activity.

 

[cytg111]

And terrorists will be stopped by complete surveillance!

Yea and for privacy issues, we just device a really really smart AI to shift through all our privates... if it is not a real human being sniffing your underwear it cannot, per definition, be a violation of privacy - problem solved!

 

[Starbuck1975]

You describe it as a mob mentality, but each time, there are plenty of people standing against the allegations and the purported outcome.

It might be the majority that's scaring you, but that doesn't make it a mob. It just makes you a typical conservative.

An ill informed majority driven by emotion is a mob.

I didn't realize that believing in due process and the rule of law made me a conservative.

 

[Starbuck1975]

A feminist that gets it:

Aziz Ansari Is Guilty. Of Not Being a Mind Reader.
https://nyti.ms/2EIbKzZ

 

[thecoolnessrune]

That's the mindset of evidence above all, rather than responsibility above all.

And it's a false choice. You can push these tech means, but I'd rather devote time to pushing the cultural change. Also, all the of these tech means sound more like collective evidence against allegations, not evidence that will prove criminal activity.

Speaking of false choices, why do you think that a method that leaves everything currently existing in tact and provides a means to have actual evidence somehow reduces responsibility? I don't understand how it could be spun that way. You purport a choice I never offered. I said "if there were only one", and I thought my language made it clear enough there doesn't have to be just one. I see no reason why there needs to be only one, and why you have to stop pushing whatever it is you want to push. This is another option that has the possibility of chipping away at the problems presented in this social media campaigns. If you have any evidence or explanation for your last statement, I'd appreciate it. I could be reading it wrong. Are you saying that these devices could be used as evidence against allegations made, but that somehow they wouldn't prove criminal activity? Why couldn't they prove criminal activity if it occurred in that vicinity, and why is evidence against allegations a bad thing?

Yea and for privacy issues, we just device a really really smart AI to shift through all our privates... if it is not a real human being sniffing your underwear it cannot, per definition, be a violation of privacy - problem solved!

Can you or anyone really point anywhere in this thread where someone stated that these Tech-based methods will solve the problem? I'm fairly certain I particularly mentioned it was a possible solution to a part of the problem. The only people I see saying it will solve the problem (implying totality) is you and jackstar7, and I'm rather confident that it's being stated in a facetious manner. Right now, this looks like you guys are just setting up a straw man.

 

[jackstar7]

But also we're not in some position to stop it. If society wants it, it'll adopt it.

I'd rather not discuss tech solutions though. I prefer to discuss the human ones. The root of the problem.

 

[cytg111]

Can you or anyone really point anywhere in this thread where someone stated that these Tech-based methods will solve the problem? I'm fairly certain I particularly mentioned it was a possible solution to a part of the problem. The only people I see saying it will solve the problem (implying totality) is you and jackstar7, and I'm rather confident that it's being stated in a facetious manner. Right now, this looks like you guys are just setting up a straw man.

Its dead serious for me and the point was delivered with a hefty dose of sarcasm. What can I say, I am a privacy nut. All this data can certainly be used for good but there is another side to the coin, cambridge analytica being of noteable current relevance.
I advocate using all the tech available as long as data is constrained, encrypted, locked down and out of the hands of incompetent private firms.

 

[Vic]

In order for no to mean no, it must be communicated clearly and without ambiguity. By "Grace's" own account, that didn't happen. Aziz was anything but a gentleman, but it seems that he clearly communicated his expectations while she didn't with hers.

 

[zinfamous]

A feminist that gets it:

Aziz Ansari Is Guilty. Of Not Being a Mind Reader.
https://nyti.ms/2EIbKzZ

In order for no to mean no, it must be communicated clearly and without ambiguity. By "Grace's" own account, that didn't happen. Aziz was anything but a gentleman, but it seems that he clearly communicated his expectations while she didn't with hers.

I definitely agree with this. Her complaints about her body temperature and eyebrows and expressions--it's like she thinks she is part of a movie, and her date is actually the audience that is capable of watching her "very obvious" expressions from the vantage point of being outside of his own body to actually see them....and of course understand them.

What I gather from her account is that she was probably willing (stayed around despite three clear opportunities to leave and despite claiming to be very uncomfortable), but Aziz was just a pushy klutz about everything. It seems more like she gave him every opportunity to just be "smoother," but she ended up disappointed in the end.

 

[Jaskalas]

Babe, What Are You Doing?

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.​

An interesting take that the story was poorly presented and started an unhelpful conversation VS a question on the grey and blurred lines of consent. The idea that people can or may be coerced, in various ways, into something they're ultimately uncomfortable with.

 

[Phokus]

CNN tore the accuser a new one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4bAULTwAJU&feature=youtu.be

I agree with this. I have 0 doubt that this girl would have left in an instant if Aziz wasn't a celebrity. She dumped her date at a party just to go after him (insanely shitty thing to do), and when it became obvious that he was just going for a hookup rather than possibly making her a girlfriend, she gave mixed signals because she still wanted something from him.