|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 19 2013 03:06 Shiori wrote:
Meh, there's nothing wrong with shaming him, IMO. What he said to that woman was definitely somewhat inappropriate for a televised interview, but it's a far cry from rape-related offenses. I think the woman, or her co-hosts, would have had the right to be a little uncomfortable at what he said, but beyond telling him not to say it again, they didn't really have the right to do much, which is the way it should be imo.
I agree that anyone has the right to be uncomfortable with what he said.
I'm merely pointing out that calling him a creep for being sexually forward is equivalent to calling a woman a slut for being sexually forward, and this is (in theory) an ethical problem for feminists like Kwark.
|
United States41958 Posts
On June 19 2013 03:03 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 02:16 KwarK wrote:
Joking about how her low cut dress will render him unable to control his instincts and he'll be unable to help himself. Good joke. He's really, really fucking creepy all the time. Whenever he says or does anything I get constant ringing "sexual predator" alarm bells and I'm not alone in that. Joking about rape doesn't suggest you are a sexual predator any more than joking about homicide suggests you are a murderer. Russell Brand is extremely sexually aggressive, but creep-shaming him because of that is essentially male slut-shaming. He is not unlike the male version of an extremely flirty woman.
Depends on how self aware the person joking is. It absolutely can suggest that and I think in Brand's case it does make him really creepy. He doesn't distinguish between between being really forward and being rapey which implies he has no clue that there's a difference. Someone who could tell the difference could say the same words with a different inflection to a different audience and it'd be obvious they didn't genuinely mean that should the interviewer lean forwards again they'd be unable to stop themselves from forcibly having her right there, with Brand it's not.
|
On June 19 2013 03:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 03:03 sunprince wrote:On June 19 2013 02:16 KwarK wrote:
Joking about how her low cut dress will render him unable to control his instincts and he'll be unable to help himself. Good joke. He's really, really fucking creepy all the time. Whenever he says or does anything I get constant ringing "sexual predator" alarm bells and I'm not alone in that. Joking about rape doesn't suggest you are a sexual predator any more than joking about homicide suggests you are a murderer. Russell Brand is extremely sexually aggressive, but creep-shaming him because of that is essentially male slut-shaming. He is not unlike the male version of an extremely flirty woman. Depends on how self aware the person joking is. It absolutely can suggest that and I think in Brand's case it does make him really creepy. He doesn't distinguish between between being really forward and being rapey which implies he has no clue that there's a difference. Someone who could tell the difference could say the same words with a different inflection to a different audience and it'd be obvious they didn't genuinely mean that should the interviewer lean forwards again they'd be unable to stop themselves from forcibly having her right there, with Brand it's not.
So just to clarify, your argument is that Brand was not joking, but actually literally meant that he would rape her right there if she leaned forward again?
|
United States41958 Posts
On June 19 2013 03:10 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 03:06 Shiori wrote:
Meh, there's nothing wrong with shaming him, IMO. What he said to that woman was definitely somewhat inappropriate for a televised interview, but it's a far cry from rape-related offenses. I think the woman, or her co-hosts, would have had the right to be a little uncomfortable at what he said, but beyond telling him not to say it again, they didn't really have the right to do much, which is the way it should be imo. I agree that anyone has the right to be uncomfortable with what he said. I'm merely pointing out that calling him a creep for being sexually forward is equivalent to calling a woman a slut for being sexually forward, and this is (in theory) an ethical problem for feminists like Kwark.
I have repeatedly distinguished between forward behaviour and rapey behaviour. Forward behaviour doesn't get you labelled a creep by me. Rapey behaviour does. The negative connotation of creepy behaviour is that it's rapey which given that that is the condition I use to describe someone as creepy seems fair.
Also I'm a fan of reclaiming slut rather than seeing it disappear. It's a great word.
|
I'll admit, he was definitely a bit creepy. I find a lot of guys creepy, but if it reception is like what I seen from Mika then I can only say whatever. She could have offered some pushback, then the rest of the interview takes a different tone and Brand crosses lines.
I digress on tastefulness. I stand firm on the entertainment value of the clip with one caveat. If I was the current Lord of Mika's ring, I'd be rather pissed to watch some smooze woo your girl on national television. Brand knew she was taken, recognized her signals and poked away(bad methaphor is bad) at the obvious shamefully. Would I leave my girl alone with him? Probably not.
|
United States41958 Posts
On June 19 2013 03:14 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 03:12 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2013 03:03 sunprince wrote:On June 19 2013 02:16 KwarK wrote:
Joking about how her low cut dress will render him unable to control his instincts and he'll be unable to help himself. Good joke. He's really, really fucking creepy all the time. Whenever he says or does anything I get constant ringing "sexual predator" alarm bells and I'm not alone in that. Joking about rape doesn't suggest you are a sexual predator any more than joking about homicide suggests you are a murderer. Russell Brand is extremely sexually aggressive, but creep-shaming him because of that is essentially male slut-shaming. He is not unlike the male version of an extremely flirty woman. Depends on how self aware the person joking is. It absolutely can suggest that and I think in Brand's case it does make him really creepy. He doesn't distinguish between between being really forward and being rapey which implies he has no clue that there's a difference. Someone who could tell the difference could say the same words with a different inflection to a different audience and it'd be obvious they didn't genuinely mean that should the interviewer lean forwards again they'd be unable to stop themselves from forcibly having her right there, with Brand it's not. So just to clarify, your argument is that Brand was not joking, but actually literally meant that he would rape her right there if she leaned forward again?
No, my argument is that he believed he was being forward by joking about literally raping her right there and using the justification of her clothing for doing it whereas in fact he was being really creepy because Brand cannot tell the difference between stating sexual desire and excusing rape.
|
"Be careful because that's a low cut dress. I'm only flesh and blood, I have instincts."
I don't really want to be the advocate of something considered a rape joke but I'm struggling to see where you're getting "super creepy vibe" from. I hear joke the entire time.
|
United States41958 Posts
On June 19 2013 03:17 mordek wrote:
"Be careful because that's a low cut dress. I'm only flesh and blood, I have instincts."
I don't really want to be the advocate of something considered a rape joke but I'm struggling to see where you're getting "super creepy vibe" from. I hear joke the entire time.
How would you interpret that if not "your dress is going to make my instincts force me to have sex with you so you should be careful and avoid leaning forward again because I can't help myself"?
How is that different from the "she was asking for it by her clothing" rape defence? He was not serious that he would do it but nor did his telling of it make it clear he was parodying people who believe that clothes can force a man to have sex with someone due to instinct, he wasn't joking about how stupid that rape apologism was, the joke was that he was being so forward with her. Being forward is not the same thing as being creepy.
|
On June 19 2013 03:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 03:17 mordek wrote:
"Be careful because that's a low cut dress. I'm only flesh and blood, I have instincts."
I don't really want to be the advocate of something considered a rape joke but I'm struggling to see where you're getting "super creepy vibe" from. I hear joke the entire time. How would you interpret that if not "your dress is going to make my instincts force me to have sex with you so you should be careful and avoid leaning forward again because I can't help myself"?
Maybe he's just worried about popping a boner on national TV?
EDIT: The obvious point is that there's a difference between "having instincts" and "acting on instincts." There's no reason to presume that he's talking about raping her.
|
United States41958 Posts
On June 19 2013 03:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 03:21 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2013 03:17 mordek wrote:
"Be careful because that's a low cut dress. I'm only flesh and blood, I have instincts."
I don't really want to be the advocate of something considered a rape joke but I'm struggling to see where you're getting "super creepy vibe" from. I hear joke the entire time. How would you interpret that if not "your dress is going to make my instincts force me to have sex with you so you should be careful and avoid leaning forward again because I can't help myself"? Maybe he's just worried about popping a boner on national TV?
True, although I didn't interpret it like that. Had he been a better and less creepy comedian that would have been acceptable, "if you lean forwards again the viewers at home will see me pitching a tent" would have worked without being creepy for example.
|
On June 19 2013 03:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 03:17 mordek wrote:
"Be careful because that's a low cut dress. I'm only flesh and blood, I have instincts."
I don't really want to be the advocate of something considered a rape joke but I'm struggling to see where you're getting "super creepy vibe" from. I hear joke the entire time. How would you interpret that if not "your dress is going to make my instincts force me to have sex with you so you should be careful and avoid leaning forward again because I can't help myself"? How is that different from the "she was asking for it by her clothing" rape defence? He was not serious that he would do it but nor did his telling of it make it clear he was parodying people who believe that clothes can force a man to have sex with someone due to instinct, he wasn't joking about how stupid that rape apologism was, the joke was that he was being so forward with her. Being forward is not the same thing as being creepy.
I see it three ways with no context:
1) He's being dead serious: He cautions the woman and admits a weakness. Awkward to say but not creepy.
2) He's joking: He wants to make a joke about the way women anchors dress. Also awkward but not creepy.
3) He's a sexual predator: He knows what he wants and instead of saying "I want to have sex with you" he tries to hint at it in a way that's disarming because he can't help himself but is conscientious enough to know he can't be too blunt.
You've decided 3 is the correct interpretation. Then we remember he's a comedian on a tv show where he makes fun of everyone that works there and goes on to say he prefers stand-up because at least when your in person you can explain yourself if someone takes your joke seriously. So no, my rapist alarms did not go off when he made the joke. It may be tasteless but you've taken it too far. Edit: I took it more like xDaunt is, which is still uncalled for in my opinion but not criminal. We're not defending a rapist, we're defending a comedian's joke.
Let's say you want to make a cultural/societal comment (you're a comedian after all) and you'd like to address the sexualization and objectification of women in the media. Suddenly, you're on tv with a female anchor who has a low cut dress on...
|
United States41958 Posts
My interpretation is 2) He's joking about how she dresses but that he doesn't realise that there is a difference between stating that he is attracted to her and claiming that how she dresses removes any accountability for any sexual response by him towards her because he is ruled by instinct. Rather than joke about getting a boner or whatever he says her clothing is making him not responsible for his actions because he's only human which is a very, very near cousin to full on rape apologism. You can joke about that stuff but the joke Brand was making was "look at me, look how forward I'm being about wanting to fuck everything" and not "people genuinely believe clothing can be used to excuse the responsibility of rapists, what fucktards". What he said was creepy and it was not deliberately so as part of the joke, my take on it is that Brand just didn't recognise that there was a difference.
|
On June 19 2013 02:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 02:22 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2013 02:20 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2013 02:16 KwarK wrote:
Joking about how her low cut dress will render him unable to control his instincts and he'll be unable to help himself. Good joke. He's really, really fucking creepy all the time. Bah, you can't look at his individual jokes in isolation. What he did on that set was masterful. Totally took it over by putting the hosts on their back feet. Very good performance that few can actually pull off. I'm sure he's good at his job. I didn't accuse him of actually raping anyone, he just constantly puts me on edge with the ringing of sexual predator alarm bells. If one morning there was a news story in the papers that he was behind a string of rapes I'd actually be less surprised than the default level of surprise I wake up with. Last I checked, properly functioning dudes tend to be like predators when looking to get laid. I understand that it's no longer PC for men to act like men, but I think that your criticism is taking it a little far.
Can I have your name and photo, so that all the people in my life can know to avoid you, you sound like a potential rapist.
Men view potential partners as a predator? JESUS.
I am a functioning male, I have never needed to act like that in order to get laid.
|
Fair enough  I really don't like the joke, I'm just engaging in a discussion.
|
WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Tuesday make their most concerted effort of the year to change federal abortion law with legislation that would ban almost all abortions after a fetus reaches the age of 20 weeks.
The "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," expected to pass by a comfortable margin late Tuesday, would be a direct challenge to the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortions up to the time a fetus becomes viable. Fetal viability is generally considered to be at least 24 weeks into the pregnancy.
The measure will be ignored by the Democratic-led Senate and the White House, saying the bill is "an assault on a woman's right to choose," has issued a veto threat.
Even if the policy were to become law, it would almost certainly face a legal challenge. That's a prospect supporters hope for as part of the ultimate goal of overturning Roe v. Wade.
The two sides in the abortion debate agreed at least on the importance of the measure.
National Right to Life Committee legislative director Douglas Johnson said it was the "most significant piece of pro-life legislation to come before the House since the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act" that was enacted in 2003. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the bill "clearly is an attack on women's constitutional right to choose and is one of the most far-reaching bans on abortion this committee has ever considered."
Source
|
On June 19 2013 04:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Tuesday make their most concerted effort of the year to change federal abortion law with legislation that would ban almost all abortions after a fetus reaches the age of 20 weeks.
The "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," expected to pass by a comfortable margin late Tuesday, would be a direct challenge to the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortions up to the time a fetus becomes viable. Fetal viability is generally considered to be at least 24 weeks into the pregnancy.
The measure will be ignored by the Democratic-led Senate and the White House, saying the bill is "an assault on a woman's right to choose," has issued a veto threat.
Even if the policy were to become law, it would almost certainly face a legal challenge. That's a prospect supporters hope for as part of the ultimate goal of overturning Roe v. Wade.
The two sides in the abortion debate agreed at least on the importance of the measure.
National Right to Life Committee legislative director Douglas Johnson said it was the "most significant piece of pro-life legislation to come before the House since the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act" that was enacted in 2003. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the bill "clearly is an attack on women's constitutional right to choose and is one of the most far-reaching bans on abortion this committee has ever considered." Source
20 weeks is 5 months right? Isn't that pretty far along in the pregnancy? I'm absolutely pro-choice but isn't that timeframe not entirely unreasonable for people who don't want to kill babies that could live outside the womb?
|
20 weeks is generally considered halfway. Baby is normally 10 inches from head to toe and weighs around 10 ounces. I've been getting the updates, my wife is at 28
|
As someone who generally opposes abortion, I've always felt that 20 weeks is a good common ground for pro-choice/pro-life advocates. Why? Because after 20 weeks, the conditions of both viability and cognitive ability are essentially satisfied. I can sort of understand why someone would believe that early stage embryos/zygotes/fetuses are not persons, but I have a hard time believing that a baby after ~20 weeks isn't a person.
Of course, there's the argument from bodily autonomy, but I've always thought that one kinda misses the point.
|
Roe v Wade set the current limit at 24 weeks as the age of viability iirc (correct me if i'm wrong).
As someone who is supportive of abortion rights, I could support some cutoff time around 16-20 weeks (on par with most European countries) on the condition that (through a constitutional amendment or something) there was some finality brought to the abortion issue. This would mean banning states from adding restrictions to abortions that are before the cutoff time inducing anything to go after clinics (ie, zoning laws) to stop them form opening, things to pressure the mother (ultrasounds, ect) or anything else. I don't see something like this ever passing since both sides would rather fight it out, but I would really like it if I didn't have to hear about these fights in 30 years.
|
WASHINGTON -- In a rebuke to House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) has released the full transcript of a key interview with an IRS employee at the heart of the agency's scandal.
The 200-page transcript sheds additional light on the decision by the IRS to screen out tea party groups applying for tax-exempt status during the months and years leading up to the 2012 elections.
Republican and Democratic committee staffers interviewed IRS official John Shafer on June 6 about the agency's decision to scrutinize a tea party group's application for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status. Shafer, who identified himself as "a conservative Republican" and said he'd worked for the IRS since 1992, said that he and a fellow screener initially flagged a tea party group and continued to do so with subsequent applications in order to maintain consistency in the process.
Throughout much of the interview, Shafer describes the mundane bureaucratic challenges of dealing with incoming applications for nonprofit status. He said his team flagged the first tea party application because it appeared to be a high-profile case, and he wanted to make sure all high-profile cases received similar attention.
"What I'm talking here is that if we end up with four applications coming into the group that are pretty similar, and we assign them to four different agents, we don't want four different determinations," he said. "It's just not good business. It's not good customer service."
Asked plainly, "do you have any reason to believe that anyone in the White House was involved in the decision to screen Tea Party cases?" Shafer replied, "I have no reason to believe that."
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
