US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9289

On November 22 2017 02:55 Jockmcplop wrote:


No, but people are saying that we should believe women because of the nature of sexual assault; because of wider issues about gender inequality and the prevalence of sexual harassment in our society (points not without their merits), therefore it is important and relevant to point out that this shouldn't equate to an assumption of guilt in the 'court of public opinion'.

Why do I think people are saying this (when no-one is explicitly saying it)? Mostly because of how this stuff generally plays out in the media and on social media.



I know how it is given, I'm just concerned by the ability of people to retroactively change their mind

On November 22 2017 03:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


What's wrong with that poster's message? I mean, if the intention is to point out that "she" implies that men can't be raped, sure that's wrong. Also, if both parties are drunk then I don't think that counts as rape either. But if a sober person has sex with a drunk person, it's rape. Drunk people can't consent.

On November 22 2017 03:19 Gorsameth wrote:

Here is a good life tip. If your going to have sex with someone you fear might 'retroactively change their mind' then don't have sex.
Its really easy.

Sure you might miss a lay here and there and a few women will wake up hungover with a different 'mistake' next to them in bed but you will live your life happily and free of concern.

On November 22 2017 03:19 Sadist wrote:


So if a sober person has sex with their drunk spouse its rape? Couples are constantly in a state of rape if thats the definition.

To be clear we arent talking blackout level here right?

On November 22 2017 03:19 Sadist wrote:


So if a sober person has sex with their drunk spouse its rape? Couples are constantly in a state of rape if thats the definition.

To be clear we arent talking blackout level here right?

On November 22 2017 03:19 Sadist wrote:


So if a sober person has sex with their drunk spouse its rape? Couples are constantly in a state of rape if thats the definition.

To be clear we arent talking blackout level here right?

On November 22 2017 03:17 Sadist wrote:
The reason i bring this up is the leeann tweeden al franken story.

She consented to a kiss after his badgering. Was he wrong to badger her? Probably. Should they have communicated tongue or no tongue ahead of time? Absolutely (or Franken should have been normal and assumed no tongue).


I would assume this stuff happens all the time and is relatively innocent compared to more egregious accusations. We should do better and try to get it out of society but we need to diffentiate what this is compared to other assault cases. For me, its hard to even classify this as assault. If you do, its gotta be low on the severity list.

On November 22 2017 03:19 Sadist wrote:


So if a sober person has sex with their drunk spouse its rape? Couples are constantly in a state of rape if thats the definition.

To be clear we arent talking blackout level here right?

On November 22 2017 03:19 Sadist wrote:


So if a sober person has sex with their drunk spouse its rape? Couples are constantly in a state of rape if thats the definition.

To be clear we arent talking blackout level here right?

On November 22 2017 03:22 Gorsameth wrote:

Technically yes it would be.
Fortunately your spouse is unlike to mind, let alone report you to the police.

Lots of things are technically not allowed/legal but are friends/spouses/ect we don't mind them.

On November 22 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:

Straight up, I would be in some deep shit if I had sex with my wife if she came home super drunk and was trying to go to bed. I dont' understand why anyone would think that was ok.

On November 22 2017 03:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


I don't know what level of drunkenness we're talking about (we can assume non-blackout, sure), but of course it's possible for a man to rape his spouse! Marriage doesn't mean "You can have sex with me even if I don't consent".

On November 22 2017 03:22 Jockmcplop wrote:


To me, that's as much of a problem as saying 'if you're scared about intergalactic travel then don't get on the Enterprise'. Its not going to happen either way haha.


I'm concerned about the perception I get from social media about some people's attitudes to public cases more than anything.

Federal regulators unveiled a plan Tuesday that would give Internet providers broad powers to determine what websites and online services their customers can see and use, and at what cost.

The move sets the stage for a crucial vote next month at the Federal Communications Commission that could reshape the entire digital ecosystem. The FCC’s Republican chairman, Ajit Pai, has made undoing the government's net neutrality rules one of his top priorities, and Tuesday's move hands a win to broadband companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.

Pai is taking aim at regulations that were approved two years ago under a Democratic presidency and that sought to make sure all Internet content, whether from big or small companies, would be treated equally by Internet providers.

In a news release, Pai said his proposal would prevent the government from "micromanaging the Internet." Under the new rules, he said, the FCC would "simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices."

The proposal would also shift some enforcement responsibility to the Federal Trade Commission, which can sue companies for violating the commitments or statements they have made to the public.

Relying more heavily on Internet providers' own promises on net neutrality is a departure from the current rules, which lay out clear, federal bans against selectively blocking or slowing websites, as well as speeding up websites that agree to pay the providers a fee.

Lifting the rules will allow Internet providers to experiment with new ways of making money. In recent years, some broadband companies such as AT&T have tried offering discounts on Internet service to Americans so long as they agree to let the company monitor their Web browsing history, for example. Other companies such Verizon have exempted their own proprietary apps from mobile data caps, in a bid to drive user engagement. The practice, known as zero-rating, was criticized by the prior FCC as a potential violation of net neutrality principles, but Pai rescinded his predecessor's findings upon taking office.

Internet providers welcomed Tuesday's FCC announcement. "We’re very encouraged by Chairman Pai’s announcement today that the FCC will move forward next month to restore the successful light-touch regulatory framework for Internet services," Verizon said in a statement.

Some analysts said that the FCC proposal was appropriate and that there is no economic evidence for regulatory intervention.

"In the absence of a market failure, the constitution doesn’t permit the FCC to treat the information superhighway … like a public utility," said Fred Campbell, director of the think tank Tech Knowledge.

The FCC's proposal is largely opposed by Internet companies such as Google, which said Tuesday that the net neutrality rules help protect an open Internet.

"The FCC’s net neutrality rules are working well for consumers, and we’re disappointed in the proposal released today," Google said in a statement.

Former Democratic FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, who drafted the 2015 net neutrality rules and rammed them through despite Republican opposition, called Tuesday's move "tragic."

"The job of the FCC is to represent the consumer," he said in an interview. "Tragically, this decision is only for the benefit of the largely monopoly services that deliver the Internet to the consumer."

Allowing the FTC to police broadband providers’ own promises is tantamount to providing “toothless protections,” according to consumer advocates.

Matt Wood, policy director for the advocacy group Free Press, likened the proposed system to the way that many companies design their privacy policies.

“You need only look to how privacy policies from websites allow essentially any and all bad behavior,” Wood said, “so long as it is disclosed to users.”

Maureen Ohlhausen, the acting chairman of the FTC, has said that the agency's expertise in data security and privacy issues will make it a powerful defender of U.S. consumers.

"The FTC stands ready to protect broadband subscribers from anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive acts and practices just as we protect consumers in the rest of the Internet ecosystem,” Ohlhausen said in a statement Tuesday.

The FCC's proposal brings additional pressure on Capitol Hill, where some lawmakers have called for federal legislation that would supersede any FCC rules. On Tuesday, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) praised Pai's effort but renewed his call for a bipartisan compromise on net neutrality, saying it was the only way to "create long-term certainty for the Internet ecosystem."

Congressional Democrats have resisted working with Republicans on a net neutrality bill, believing that Pai's proposal is unlikely to survive an expected court challenge from supporters of the 2015 rules. A Democratic aide said Tuesday that "there might be room for [a] conversation" if Republicans were willing to enshrine the current rules into legislation, but that position is likely to be a nonstarter for GOP critics, who argued that the rules imposed unreasonable costs on businesses.

On November 22 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:

Don't fuck people you don't think are honest. Also don't loan money to people who are known for not repaying debts.

On November 22 2017 03:25 Artisreal wrote:

because people imagine very different circumstances.

On November 22 2017 03:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


What's wrong with that poster's message? I mean, if the intention is to point out that "she" implies that men can't be raped, sure that's wrong. Also, if both parties are drunk then I don't think that counts as rape either. But if a sober person has sex with a drunk person, it's rape. Drunk people can't consent.

On November 22 2017 03:25 Sadist wrote:



See this is a bad mindset and what gets us into problems. I think this is why theres confusion, especially over alcohol and sex. If the conclusion is couples are regularly raping each other it muddys the whole argument.


We need to do better.

On November 22 2017 03:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


I don't know what level of drunkenness we're talking about (we can assume non-blackout, sure), but of course it's possible for a man to rape his spouse! Marriage doesn't mean "You can have sex with me even if I don't consent".