|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 19 2018 10:00 LuckyFool wrote:
Fords refusal to come testify under oath until the FBI looks into it more does not look good. This sort of case isn’t even something the FBI would investigate normally right? And havent they already basically said there’s nothing for them to investigate?
My money is back on Thursday’s vote proceeding as scheduled unless something major changes tomorrow.
I've avoided saying more until we know more, but yes, if this holds, I expect he will go right on through. her lawyers also claim she'd have to sit at the same table as Kavanaugh, something Senate staff deny. Prob playing word games around "at the same table." Their reference to the FBI makes me think more and this is not just a sad situation, but a farce. She must talk, or he will be confirmed.
Edit: to be clear, the FBI has already said this isn't their wheelhouse. Any Senator or lawyer still peddling this line is being dishonest.
|
I'm really curious to see how Grassley takes his. Ford has said she wont testify before an FBI investigation, which would take time. The Republicans dont feel they have time. It's actually an interesting position she has put them in since her request isn't unreasonable and if they say no then they look like they are afraid of what the FBI would find. This got a lot more interesting.
Still, I think Grrasley just says fuck it and votes after Kavanaugh denies everything next Monday.
|
Not sure why her not wanting to testify is so alarming considering she didn't even want it to be public knowledge in the first place.
|
On September 19 2018 10:00 LuckyFool wrote:
Fords refusal to come testify under oath until the FBI looks into it more does not look good. This sort of case isn’t even something the FBI would investigate normally right? And havent they already basically said there’s nothing for them to investigate?
My money is back on Thursday’s vote proceeding as scheduled unless something major changes tomorrow.
The Thursday vote has already been canceled and a hearing is scheduled for next Monday. No way they vote until after his denial hearing.
|
On September 19 2018 10:04 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 10:00 LuckyFool wrote:
Fords refusal to come testify under oath until the FBI looks into it more does not look good. This sort of case isn’t even something the FBI would investigate normally right? And havent they already basically said there’s nothing for them to investigate?
My money is back on Thursday’s vote proceeding as scheduled unless something major changes tomorrow. I've avoided saying more until we know more, but yes, if this holds, I expect he will go right on through. her lawyers also claim she'd have to sit at the same table as Kavanaugh, something Senate staff deny. Prob playing word games around "at the same table." Their reference to the FBI makes me think more and this is not just a sad situation, but a farce. She must talk, or he will be confirmed. Edit: to be clear, the FBI has already said this isn't their wheelhouse. Any Senator or lawyer still peddling this line is being dishonest.
Except vetting judges is their wheelhouse regardless of whether what they look into while doing that would normally fall to them. If requested they should look into it.
|
On September 19 2018 10:04 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 10:00 LuckyFool wrote:
Fords refusal to come testify under oath until the FBI looks into it more does not look good. This sort of case isn’t even something the FBI would investigate normally right? And havent they already basically said there’s nothing for them to investigate?
My money is back on Thursday’s vote proceeding as scheduled unless something major changes tomorrow. I've avoided saying more until we know more, but yes, if this holds, I expect he will go right on through. her lawyers also claim she'd have to sit at the same table as Kavanaugh, something Senate staff deny. Prob playing word games around "at the same table." Their reference to the FBI makes me think more and this is not just a sad situation, but a farce. She must talk, or he will be confirmed. Edit: to be clear, the FBI has already said this isn't their wheelhouse. Any Senator or lawyer still peddling this line is being dishonest.
I mean it's literally their job to do background checks, but okay, fine. Whose job do you think it is to investigate these claims? Or are we actually going with "woops, couldn't figure out whose job it is to investigate so we're just gonna have to confirm him without looking into it any more"?
|
On September 19 2018 09:48 Womwomwom wrote:
I don’t think it’s misleading at all. The history of “What happens on tour, stays on tour” is absolutely tied with groups of men being garbage people and it isn’t even isolated to US culture. It has long been tied to sports players partaking in drug binges and sexual debauchery like running trains on women.
The difference is that people in 2018 aren’t seeing movies in the vein of The Hangover, Entourage, Sex and the City and Rough Night in a positive light anymore. No, these people are actually garbage.
It can absolutely be used in the context you have outlined, and it can also be used in far more innocuous situations. Nerdy kids who get drunk and act like idiots (even if there were never girls around) could use the phrase about the basement they hung out in. You are trying to sensationalize the phrase to always mean something extreme. That is misleading.
Also, in case you didn't notice, there was not a rape or sexual assault in the situation you described. Since when do liberals have a problem with drugs/alcohol or promiscuous sex, anyway?
I also have a difficult time understanding this lunacy of saying that American values have drastically transformed over the last 5 years since the most recent "Hangover" movie. What did you find entertaining a few years ago that would now make you sick to your stomach? Did you not have good values 5 years ago, but now you've seen the light because the democrats have given you an updated view of morality? Can you expand upon your claim that entertainment such as "The Hangover" and "Entourage" would no longer be acceptable to American audiences?
On September 19 2018 09:55 NewSunshine wrote:
It's like the classic "boys will be boys". It abdicates responsibility and enables shitty behavior.
That can be true. It can also be the case that some misbehavior is not rape, and the degree of certain misbehavior is so benign that it is not worth intervening or punishing.
What's your point?
|
5930 Posts
On September 19 2018 10:31 PeTraSoHot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 09:48 Womwomwom wrote:
I don’t think it’s misleading at all. The history of “What happens on tour, stays on tour” is absolutely tied with groups of men being garbage people and it isn’t even isolated to US culture. It has long been tied to sports players partaking in drug binges and sexual debauchery like running trains on women.
The difference is that people in 2018 aren’t seeing movies in the vein of The Hangover, Entourage, Sex and the City and Rough Night in a positive light anymore. No, these people are actually garbage. It can absolutely be used in the context you have outlined, and it can also be used in far more innocuous situations. Nerdy kids who get drunk and act like idiots (even if there were never girls around) could use the phrase about the basement they hung out in. You are trying to sensationalize the phrase to always mean something extreme. That is misleading. Also, in case you didn't notice, there was not a rape or sexual assault in the situation you described. Since when do liberals have a problem with drugs/alcohol or promiscuous sex, anyway?
Actually, running trains is often sexual assault for multiple reasons. Something rugby players are accused of but often dismissed in the same way domestic abusers in the NFL get a slap on the wrist for.
In most cases, the women are heavily inebriated or drugged and are in no position to really concent to anything. With the pressure of being in the same room as multiple men, the question of concent can get extremely questionable.
That’s not the same as casual sexual relations obviously.
I also have a difficult time understanding this lunacy of saying that American values have drastically transformed over the last 5 years since the most recent "Hangover" movie. What did you find entertaining a few years ago that would now make you sick to your stomach? Did you not have good values 5 years ago, but now you've seen the light because the democrats have given you an updated view of morality? Can you expand upon your claim that entertainment such as "The Hangover" and "Entourage" would no longer be acceptable to American audiences?
People always had problems with The Hangover and Entourage series. The main criticism of Entourage had long been that the boys are garbage people who always have their garbage situations reset for inexplicable reasons. Pretty sure the reception towards Hangover 2 & 3 were significantly worse than Hangover 1 due to the nature of the content.
Our cultural values have changed significantly in these few years if you haven’t noticed. We’ve had the the exposure of systemic sexual harassment in the entertainment industry and how a lot of those values might be reflected in our media (rape culture, toxic masculinity, etc). People aren’t watching films like Porkys and Revenge of the Nerds or re-examining the lyrics of old rap classics in 2018 for no reason, what we consume reflects who we are and Revenge of the Nerds had a literal rape scene played as a heroic moment for the protagonists.
It isn’t just bromance films getting slammed, it’s also vapid chick flicks in the vein of the Sex and the City movies and Rough Night. The biggest change is that more people are obviously more concerned about the values being presented in their media.
|
On September 19 2018 10:21 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 10:04 Introvert wrote:On September 19 2018 10:00 LuckyFool wrote:
Fords refusal to come testify under oath until the FBI looks into it more does not look good. This sort of case isn’t even something the FBI would investigate normally right? And havent they already basically said there’s nothing for them to investigate?
My money is back on Thursday’s vote proceeding as scheduled unless something major changes tomorrow. I've avoided saying more until we know more, but yes, if this holds, I expect he will go right on through. her lawyers also claim she'd have to sit at the same table as Kavanaugh, something Senate staff deny. Prob playing word games around "at the same table." Their reference to the FBI makes me think more and this is not just a sad situation, but a farce. She must talk, or he will be confirmed. Edit: to be clear, the FBI has already said this isn't their wheelhouse. Any Senator or lawyer still peddling this line is being dishonest. Except vetting judges is their wheelhouse regardless of whether what they look into while doing that would normally fall to them. If requested they should look into it.
They have vetted him, 6 times. He has no criminal record (that we know of). They've done all the family calls, workplace visits, etc. What they haven't done, and don't do, is investigate crimes that aren't within their power to go after based on vague charges. They did what they do with these things, they put it in his file for the Senate. But fine, they can say they don't do this, but apparently everyone else knows they should. The FBI isn't going to get into the middle of this crapshow when it's not their job.
Now the question is, why someone who has had this story for months, felt confident enough to bring it to lawmakers, sent her lawyer out on TV saying she would go, would now back off and say they need an investigation. Why does she need one to tell her story?
If she doesn't appear, then they should proceed as planned and vote.
|
On September 19 2018 11:22 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 10:31 PeTraSoHot wrote:On September 19 2018 09:48 Womwomwom wrote:
I don’t think it’s misleading at all. The history of “What happens on tour, stays on tour” is absolutely tied with groups of men being garbage people and it isn’t even isolated to US culture. It has long been tied to sports players partaking in drug binges and sexual debauchery like running trains on women.
The difference is that people in 2018 aren’t seeing movies in the vein of The Hangover, Entourage, Sex and the City and Rough Night in a positive light anymore. No, these people are actually garbage. It can absolutely be used in the context you have outlined, and it can also be used in far more innocuous situations. Nerdy kids who get drunk and act like idiots (even if there were never girls around) could use the phrase about the basement they hung out in. You are trying to sensationalize the phrase to always mean something extreme. That is misleading. Also, in case you didn't notice, there was not a rape or sexual assault in the situation you described. Since when do liberals have a problem with drugs/alcohol or promiscuous sex, anyway? Actually, running trains is often sexual assault for multiple reasons. Something rugby players are accused of but often dismissed in the same way domestic abusers in the NFL get a slap on the wrist for. In most cases, the women are heavily inebriated or drugged and are in no position to really concent to anything. With the pressure of being in the same room as multiple men, the question of concent can get extremely questionable. That’s not the same as casual sexual relations obviously. Show nested quote +I also have a difficult time understanding this lunacy of saying that American values have drastically transformed over the last 5 years since the most recent "Hangover" movie. What did you find entertaining a few years ago that would now make you sick to your stomach? Did you not have good values 5 years ago, but now you've seen the light because the democrats have given you an updated view of morality? Can you expand upon your claim that entertainment such as "The Hangover" and "Entourage" would no longer be acceptable to American audiences? People always had problems with The Hangover and Entourage series. The main criticism of Entourage had long been that the boys are garbage people who always have their garbage situations reset for inexplicable reasons. Pretty sure the reception towards Hangover 2 & 3 were significantly worse than Hangover 1 due to the nature of the content. Our cultural values have changed significantly in these few years if you haven’t noticed. We’ve had the the exposure of systemic sexual harassment in the entertainment industry and how a lot of those values might be reflected in our media (rape culture, toxic masculinity, etc). People aren’t watching films like Porkys and Revenge of the Nerds or re-examining the lyrics of old rap classics in 2018 for no reason, what we consume reflects who we are and Revenge of the Nerds had a literal rape scene played as a heroic moment for the protagonists. It isn’t just bromance films getting slammed, it’s also vapid chick flicks in the vein of the Sex and the City movies and Rough Night. The biggest change is that more people are obviously more concerned about the values being presented in their media.
My impression was that Hangover 1 was pretty well received, but Hangovers 2 and 3 were poorly received because it was just the same shit they did in the first movie. Anything new they did was too absurd and broke viewers' suspension of disbelief. The most common thing I heard about Hangover 2 was "It was just the same as the first one."
That said, everything else you said, I agree with. People's opinions toward any type of dishonorable behavior has changed considerably, with recent events causing people to give their own actions (past and present) much more scrutiny, and make a more firm decision on what they think is right and/or acceptable behavior.
|
FBI vetting didn’t turn of a active domestic abuse case with a White House staffer, so let’s not pretend it is flawless. They can miss things.
And I’m mixed on Ford not testifying Monday, but I think she should do it on her terms or not at all. The senate is not a fact finding body, so it’s going to be a bunch of Republican Senators being different flavors of asshole and asking all sorts of questions. So if it’s going to be a circus, at least get some assurances of the tone the Republicans are going to take.
Also the story has a second man in the room. We know his name. Where is he in all this? Witnesses under oath normally end these he said she said marches one way or the other.
Edit: folks, the FBI can’t start an investigation into a state crime. Now, if the local police opened up an investigation and asked for the FBI help, that could happen. And judiciary committee has enough pull to make it happen, so any claims the FBI can’t are a bit disengenous.justice department specifically said they can’t start an investigation)
|
United States43219 Posts
On September 19 2018 10:06 Gahlo wrote:
Not sure why her not wanting to testify is so alarming considering she didn't even want it to be public knowledge in the first place.
Women are historically treated extremely poorly in these contexts too. She's going to be made to retell every part of her teenage sexual history and be shamed for it. It's not unreasonable for her to have the stance of "this happened" and "I don't want to dragged through the mud over it".
|
On September 19 2018 12:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 10:06 Gahlo wrote:
Not sure why her not wanting to testify is so alarming considering she didn't even want it to be public knowledge in the first place. Women are historically treated extremely poorly in these contexts too. She's going to be made to retell every part of her teenage sexual history and be shamed for it. It's not unreasonable for her to have the stance of "this happened" and "I don't want to dragged through the mud over it".
To be clear, I have nowhere implied that she should be forced to do anything, but if this is to impact Kavanaugh confirmation, then she must talk. She doesn't have to, but she isn't going to get to stop the process, in that case.
Meanwhile the GOP offered her a closed door session (most of the grandstanding would be from the Democrats anyways, the Republican senators would be scared to death of seeming like they were being unfair or making her cry. Actually on that note, I read that the Republicans were debating having a professional be the one to question her, and/or when having her talk to staff they said they would only use female staffers. I haven't verified that last one, but there it is).
She can tell her story, and with many favorable terms. But she doesn't get to dictate that this takes forever. That ship has sailed.
edit: here's a source for that last one:
HuffPo
|
So apparently part of the problem is people have been spamming her address and phone number on twitter, and she has had to go into hiding. She's been receiving death threats and has two teenage daughters to take into consideration. I can see why she hesitated with this a few months ago, and it is a pretty sad truth about situations such as these.
|
On September 19 2018 11:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 10:21 On_Slaught wrote:On September 19 2018 10:04 Introvert wrote:On September 19 2018 10:00 LuckyFool wrote:
Fords refusal to come testify under oath until the FBI looks into it more does not look good. This sort of case isn’t even something the FBI would investigate normally right? And havent they already basically said there’s nothing for them to investigate?
My money is back on Thursday’s vote proceeding as scheduled unless something major changes tomorrow. I've avoided saying more until we know more, but yes, if this holds, I expect he will go right on through. her lawyers also claim she'd have to sit at the same table as Kavanaugh, something Senate staff deny. Prob playing word games around "at the same table." Their reference to the FBI makes me think more and this is not just a sad situation, but a farce. She must talk, or he will be confirmed. Edit: to be clear, the FBI has already said this isn't their wheelhouse. Any Senator or lawyer still peddling this line is being dishonest. Except vetting judges is their wheelhouse regardless of whether what they look into while doing that would normally fall to them. If requested they should look into it. They have vetted him, 6 times. He has no criminal record (that we know of). They've done all the family calls, workplace visits, etc. What they haven't done, and don't do, is investigate crimes that aren't within their power to go after based on vague charges. They did what they do with these things, they put it in his file for the Senate. But fine, they can say they don't do this, but apparently everyone else knows they should. The FBI isn't going to get into the middle of this crapshow when it's not their job. Now the question is, why someone who has had this story for months, felt confident enough to bring it to lawmakers, sent her lawyer out on TV saying she would go, would now back off and say they need an investigation. Why does she need one to tell her story? If she doesn't appear, then they should proceed as planned and vote.
The problem with what you're saying here is that the FBI compiles files on the nominees, and the FBI investigated Anita Hill's allegation as part of the background file, even though it seemingly didnt involve any federal crime.
This is the best source I could find (right side of the page)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41625356?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
|
On September 19 2018 14:41 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 11:45 Introvert wrote:On September 19 2018 10:21 On_Slaught wrote:On September 19 2018 10:04 Introvert wrote:On September 19 2018 10:00 LuckyFool wrote:
Fords refusal to come testify under oath until the FBI looks into it more does not look good. This sort of case isn’t even something the FBI would investigate normally right? And havent they already basically said there’s nothing for them to investigate?
My money is back on Thursday’s vote proceeding as scheduled unless something major changes tomorrow. I've avoided saying more until we know more, but yes, if this holds, I expect he will go right on through. her lawyers also claim she'd have to sit at the same table as Kavanaugh, something Senate staff deny. Prob playing word games around "at the same table." Their reference to the FBI makes me think more and this is not just a sad situation, but a farce. She must talk, or he will be confirmed. Edit: to be clear, the FBI has already said this isn't their wheelhouse. Any Senator or lawyer still peddling this line is being dishonest. Except vetting judges is their wheelhouse regardless of whether what they look into while doing that would normally fall to them. If requested they should look into it. They have vetted him, 6 times. He has no criminal record (that we know of). They've done all the family calls, workplace visits, etc. What they haven't done, and don't do, is investigate crimes that aren't within their power to go after based on vague charges. They did what they do with these things, they put it in his file for the Senate. But fine, they can say they don't do this, but apparently everyone else knows they should. The FBI isn't going to get into the middle of this crapshow when it's not their job. Now the question is, why someone who has had this story for months, felt confident enough to bring it to lawmakers, sent her lawyer out on TV saying she would go, would now back off and say they need an investigation. Why does she need one to tell her story? If she doesn't appear, then they should proceed as planned and vote. The problem with what you're saying here is that the FBI compiles files on the nominees, and the FBI investigated Anita Hill's allegation as part of the background file, even though it seemingly didnt involve any federal crime. This is the best source I could find (right side of the page) https://www.jstor.org/stable/41625356?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
I've seen this passed around.
First, some have speculated that since they were federal employees on federal grounds in the workplace that the FBI had a place there. I don't know if that's how it works. Also, they literally questioned, questioned him, and attached it to his file. That's not an "investigation" in the sense we mean, certainly not in the sense the Democrats mean.
I will leave you here with what the DOJ put out. Maddeningly, I can't find a link to the actual statements, so I assume this is all or most of it?
"The FBI does not make any judgment about the credibility or significance of any allegation," the statement reads. "The purpose of a background investigation is to determine whether the nominee could pose a risk to the national security of the United States. The allegation does not involve any potential federal crime. The FBI's role in such matters is to provide information for the use of the decision makers."
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/18/649085712/democrats-want-fbi-to-investigate-kavanaugh-allegations-it-likely-wont
Just from a few hours ago:
Democrats have been calling on the FBI to investigate a woman’s claim that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were both in high school. What they’re asking for, though, isn’t a criminal investigation that could lead to charges.
Instead, they want the FBI to examine Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations, which Kavanaugh denies, to determine whether they are credible enough to cast doubt on Kavanaugh’s fitness for office.
Whatever the FBI does, the prospect of criminal charges being filed against Kavanaugh appear very unlikely, legal experts say. If a crime had taken place, it would almost certainly fall under local jurisdiction, not federal. That means it would fall under the laws of Montgomery County, Maryland, where the statute of limitations would seem to preclude charges.
WHAT IS THE FBI’S ROLE?
The FBI conducts background checks for federal nominees but the agency does not make judgments on the credibility or significance of allegations, according to a Justice Department statement Monday night. Instead, the department compiles information about the nominee’s past and provides its findings to the agency that requested the background check. In this case, that would be the White House.
There has been no suggestion that Kavanaugh may have committed a federal crime, so the FBI would not conduct a criminal investigation. But Senate Democrats are pushing for the FBI to reopen Kavanaugh’s background investigation.
“It has nothing to do with the statute of limitations,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said Tuesday. “The FBI can query witnesses involved.”
President Donald Trump pushed back on this later in the day.
“I don’t think FBI really should be involved because they don’t want to be involved. If they wanted to be, I would certainly do that,” the president said. “But as you know, they say this is not really their thing.”
Greg Rinckey, a lawyer specializing in employment law and the security clearance process, said FBI background checks aren’t meant to dig up decades-old claims that never resulted in a police report or criminal charges.
“That’s not really what the FBI is looking for,” Rinckey said. “The FBI is looking for any kind of current problem. What do I mean by current — 7 to 10 years.”
FBI background examinations received scrutiny when Rob Porter resigned as White House staff secretary in February after domestic violence allegations from two ex-wives became public.
FBI Director Chris Wray has said the bureau followed protocol when it twice provided the White House with information about Porter.
He told lawmakers that the FBI sent the White House its preliminary report in March 2017 and its completed investigation in late July and then, after receiving an additional request for a follow-up inquiry, provided more information last November. Wray said the FBI administratively closed its background file on Porter in January, weeks before the allegations were published.
As a bonus:
COULD KAVANAUGH FACE STATE CHARGES?
The allegations Ford detailed to The Washington Post appear to be misdemeanors that would be beyond the statute of limitations under Maryland law, said Randolph Rice, a Baltimore-based attorney who specializes in sex crimes.
The allegations could be interpreted as second-degree assault and a fourth-degree sex offense, Rice said. But both charges are misdemeanors and would be far beyond the statute of limitations, which is typically one or three years, depending on the offense.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/factors-dont-favor-criminal-charges-against-kavanaugh/2018/09/19/0356ba7c-bbc4-11e8-adb8-01125416c102_story.html?
So if all we want is for the FBI to sit down with these two, take their accounts, and then add it to the file... well ok. And her letter already is part of the file. That could be done between now and Monday, but obviously isn't what any Democrat wants.
And moreover, no one ever answered my question... with all this prep time, why does an investigation need to happen before they sit before the committee?
No, it's prob beyond the SoL for the state, and the FBI doesn't handle these matters. And there are no facts to follow, because we don't know exactly when or where this even happened, and now all but one other person who was supposedly there denies. The last person still hasn't said anything either way.
|
On September 19 2018 11:22 Womwomwom wrote:
Actually, running trains is often sexual assault for multiple reasons. Something rugby players are accused of but often dismissed in the same way domestic abusers in the NFL get a slap on the wrist for.
In most cases, the women are heavily inebriated or drugged and are in no position to really concent to anything. With the pressure of being in the same room as multiple men, the question of concent can get extremely questionable.
That’s not the same as casual sexual relations obviously.
What multiple reasons? It's consensual or it's not.
If it is, then I'm assuming you have no problem.
I think this is making my point about people trying to interpret "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" in an insanely extreme way, such as suggesting that it generally means "A bunch of dudes took turns banging some girl they kidnapped and drugged." This is ridiculous.
On September 19 2018 11:22 Womwomwom wrote:
People always had problems with The Hangover and Entourage series. The main criticism of Entourage had long been that the boys are garbage people who always have their garbage situations reset for inexplicable reasons. Pretty sure the reception towards Hangover 2 & 3 were significantly worse than Hangover 1 due to the nature of the content.
Our cultural values have changed significantly in these few years if you haven’t noticed. We’ve had the the exposure of systemic sexual harassment in the entertainment industry and how a lot of those values might be reflected in our media (rape culture, toxic masculinity, etc). People aren’t watching films like Porkys and Revenge of the Nerds or re-examining the lyrics of old rap classics in 2018 for no reason, what we consume reflects who we are and Revenge of the Nerds had a literal rape scene played as a heroic moment for the protagonists.
It isn’t just bromance films getting slammed, it’s also vapid chick flicks in the vein of the Sex and the City movies and Rough Night. The biggest change is that more people are obviously more concerned about the values being presented in their media.
"The Hangover" and "Entourage" were wildly successful. For a sequel and... threequel?... to not do as well is not surprising. I'm still waiting to hear what made you laugh at the time that you now think is gross about those movies. I've never seen Porky's or Revenge of the Nerds. Have you seen "Entourage" and "The Hangover"? What was good then that is bad now? Maybe some people have thought that rape was bad for a long time, and this is not some new 2018 revelation. I'm missing your point, I think.
People have long heard rumors about rampant sexual harassment in the entertainment industry. I'm surprised if that surprised you. Has your attitude on rape changed now that Hollywood has been exposed? What the heck was your attitude on rape before? Does it really take a news cycle for you to develop morality? Have you stopped going to the movies or watching Netflix as a boycott against the industry for abusing women? Again, I must be missing your point.
I've heard nothing about a reexamination of rap-lyrics; it's interesting to hear but I'm skeptical of the purpose. Even if I were in agreement about certain lyrics that should never have been put there in the first place, I'm assuming they'll be taking a "topple the statues" approach.. like digitally removing cigarettes and guns from old movies and replacing them all with walkie-talkies. I've definitely not heard any mainstream criticism of rappers telling **african-americans** to **have intercourse with multiple promiscuous women** or **acquire wealth immediately through illegitimate means**. Last I checked, people were mad at Kanye for saying that he supports Trump, but I haven't heard anybody telling him that he should be equally happy if his birthday present is a woman with a flat ass because women of all shapes are beautiful. I don't follow rap much, though.
|
On September 19 2018 12:19 Saryph wrote:So apparently part of the problem is people have been spamming her address and phone number on twitter, and she has had to go into hiding. She's been receiving death threats and has two teenage daughters to take into consideration. I can see why she hesitated with this a few months ago, and it is a pretty sad truth about situations such as these. https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1042185796596453377
Like clockwork. Question the dear leader, be ready to get beat up by the brownshirts. Say anything implying that women may possibly have a right to their own body, and watch the scum come out of the caves.
But please, make sure that all of this makes live a living hell for the women who dare to accuse powerful men of abuse. They might be making this up, just to have this incredibly fun experience and all the wonderful gains, like being threatened by mobs of fascists. Better make sure to protect those poor and helpless powerful men.
|
On September 19 2018 09:48 Womwomwom wrote:
I don’t think it’s misleading at all. The history of “What happens on tour, stays on tour” is absolutely tied with groups of men being garbage people and it isn’t even isolated to US culture. It has long been tied to sports players partaking in drug binges and sexual debauchery like running trains on women, something our rugby players seem to enjoy.
The difference is that people in 2018 aren’t seeing movies in the vein of The Hangover, Entourage, Sex and the City and Rough Night in a positive light anymore. No, people who make the “what happens, stays in” comment are actually garbage.
I don't understand this line of thought.
You can take a phrase and assign a continuum of behaviour that the phrase signifies, in this case going from one guy having casual sex with an ugly person and being embarrassed about it to multiple guys drugging and raping someone, and then you are assuming the worst possible usage of that phrase at all times.
I'll give you an example, we had a rule that what happened in Amsterdam stayed in Amsterdam when we went for a trip there, many groups of people do this, because it encourages group bonding as well as allowing you to do things that you would normally be less willing to do. Having sex with a prostitute, taking a bunch of drugs, whatever. Sometimes its ok to do that stuff and not want certain social circles of yours to find out about it.
Your ability to use one single phrase as proof that anyone who uses it is 'actually garbage' is saying much more about you than it is about anyone else.
On September 19 2018 09:55 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 09:48 Womwomwom wrote:
I don’t think it’s misleading at all. The history of “What happens on tour, stays on tour” is absolutely tied with groups of men being garbage people and it isn’t even isolated to US culture. It has long been tied to sports players partaking in drug binges and sexual debauchery like running trains on women, something our rugby players seem to enjoy.
The difference is that people in 2018 aren’t seeing movies in the vein of The Hangover, Entourage, Sex and the City and Rough Night in a positive light anymore. No, people who make the “what happens, stays in” comment are actually garbage. It's like the classic "boys will be boys". It abdicates responsibility and enables shitty behavior.
Sometimes shitty behaviour is ok.
|
It is indeed a pretty awfully culture in which death threats have become such a norm. It is symptomatic of what is in all likelihood the biggest current threat towards democracy - the fact that divergent opinions are no longer tolerated.
EDIT: The above was in the context of Simberto's post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
