It sounds like she just had buyer's remorse though, and you really can't defame someone like that. Now, personally, I think Ansari is annoying POS. Straight up, I'd love to bag on the guy, but she basically is saying after the fact she never really wanted to do it but did it and is blaming Ansari. Ansari didn't force her. She just wasn't strong enough on her own until after the fact. These are the type of people that deserve no time of the day, if you could go back in time imagine how many college girls would say that about flings. They'd be like ah ****, I slept with him? let me see if i can get out of this...now add the fact that he's rich, a celebrity, and powerful. Now, I can get something out of it. She took a date with him, cause he was a celebrity. That's the only reason, she leveraged him. He had sex with her, nothing forcible, nothing rapey, this was clean. She just felt ashamed AFTER. She needs to be made an example of, and have her name out everywher as a celebrity leech. Nothing more, nothing less. She's scum. SIL
What??? You need to be a legal expert to know what is or isn't sexual assault????? You're nuts. If that's the case how are men supposed to know what the line is? Sexual assault is pretty clear and if you don't know what it is and what is or not acceptable under the law you got problems. And as a minority, I do think my opinion matters. Not sure why you are trying to marginalize me! He didn't do anything wrong here. He did not sexaully assault her. He did not harass her. When she said she didn't feel comfortable, he got her an uber home. You may not like his aggressiveness or persistence, but he did not break any law and he should not be punished because he wasn't interested in dating her and for his desire to hook up with her.
It's all about where the line is right? Is it ok for a boss to ask an employee to be his sugar baby? I think it's unethical to ask that of a subordinate.
Everything you are saying may very well be true. If he really feels that she defamed him, then he can sue her or he can publicly address her allegations. Yes, public opinion will decide whether or not Ansari will face any career consequences. He can decide to release her name, as he clearly knows who she is. Although I doubt he does so. Usually the name of an accuser remains silent so as to encourage other victims to come forward. Why are you marginalizing the opinion of a member of a repressed group? You haven't been in her position, so your opinion is ill informed and not of value. At least that has been the mantra used by some when addressing the complaints/concerns of other oppressed groups. As a male, you are not a member of the oppressed group at issue, and as such you cannot fully understand the situation. Personally I don't know if he did or didn't act inappropriately, I wasn't there. However I won't be so quick to dismiss her position, just like I will not dismiss the positions held by other historically oppressed groups.
Let me stop you right here. Even if what she said is 100% true, which is very believable and fair. This shouldn't ruin his career, do you get that? She had buyer's remorse after having sex with a celebrity, that's it. Because of this "movement", he may lose his career over something that happens every friday, saturday night, and by no means and in any shape or form is wrong/illegal/abusive. Aziz did nothing wrong here. He just hooked up with the wrong girl, a girl's that's leveraging this metoo movement and power trip to kill his career. If he loses his career, cause some girl felt guilty sleeping with him then ****. **** this society. SIL
The real reason? The extreme feminists who are the problem are supremacists. In the eyes of those types Ansari wouldn't have the same rights as his accuser because he's a man and all men are oppressors. To people like that, women have more rights than men because they are inherently oppressed and "oppressed people" have more rights than an "oppressor". You really could make a similar statement about any SJW group, you'd just have to change around which group was claiming to be oppressed and which group was the oppressor. For example, if the accuser ends up being a white woman, to some SJW type groups Ansari would be the oppressed and the white woman would be the oppressor and to them they'd be outraged that an oppressor was targeting a member of what they would deem an oppressed group. Now, if the accuser ends up being a gay trans black immigrant woman, Ansari would be screwed when it comes to SJW groups, they'd pretty much all be after him. That's really my problem with those kinds of groups, the facts when it comes to what actually happened never seem to matter, the only facts they are interested in are what identity groups those involved are part of. It's pretty disgusting really.
Your opinion is that he did nothing wrong, that may or may not be the opinion held by others. If enough other people feel he was wrong, then his career is likely hurt. If most people believe that he did nothing wrong, then his career will be fine. Times are changing, and there doesn't seem to be a firmly established social ruling on whether someone has done something wrong and at what point (if at all) are they forgiven. It is a slippery slope that has been tread on for a number of issues and similar concerns to the ones articulated in this thread where raised on other issues, but this one hits close to home so now it is somehow a concern. This is nothing new.
We don't agree on much, but you at least understand the issue. This isn't something "new".... I am sure you and I have different solutions but we at least both understand that this " logic framework" is nothing new. It only becomes an issue or concern when it is a topic or issue that hits close to home.
It's not really an opinion though, according to the events as described by the accuser, Ansari did nothing wrong. Perhaps he'll come out with his own version of events in which he'll contradict her and suggest that he did do something wrong, but unless that happens, there's really nothing to support an argument that he did anything wrong.
That is your opinion. You are not a member of the oppressed group, you do not understand or have the perspective held by those in the oppressed group. Accordingly your opinion isn't really valid to the discussion. The last thing a member of the oppressed group needs is victim shaming or someone without a proper perspective offering an opinion. Honestly, you should just listen and not being part of the problem.
I am older than these people and have a question. Is sticking your fingers in her mouth a thing now? Mrs B-Bob would definitely give me a WTF-r-u-doing look if I tried that. I mean, my old timer take is that if you need her spit, or even much of your own, you are doing something wrong.
The difference here is that you think that membership in certain groups enhances or diminishes an opinion or viewpoint. I reject that. You have no idea about what I might understand or what perspective I might have based solely on what groups you might think I am a part of. The cultural Marxist BS that views everyone as oppressor and oppressed based on identity groups is inherently bigoted (which is why I despise identitarian politics), I hope one day you'll come to understand that and reject it as I do. We don't have to agree about anything else politically, but I'd hope that we'd eventually agree on that point.
I think we already agree...... although I do not see it as absolute as you do. I do think there is some truth to the perspective of a persecuted group being different or some degree of deference given to it. I do not agree the absolute that has become the norm with the ideology that is currently associated with "SJW". When people are part of the oppressed group or it does not directly involve them, it is easy to righteous and see no issues. As soon as someone is a perspective target (male in this case) all of a sudden many of the same people that support that train of thought on other issues are suddenly claiming it isn't fair.
To some extent I can see that, but I reject the notion that someone has an inherently more valid or less valid opinion based on what identity groups they are a part of. If you ground your opinion in things like logic and facts, you are likely to have a valid opinion. Where things go off the rails is when people are basing their opinion in things like emotion. That's not to say that people can't still manage to come up with an invalid opinion despite trying to anchor their opinion with fact and logic, it's just less likely to be invalid based on the bias of their associations than an argument based on emotion or experience....and that goes for anyone. A woman who has been raped who bases her opinion of the Ansari situation on her experience and the emotions related to that experience is MUCH more likely to have an invalid opinion on the matter than someone who bases their opinion of the situation on the facts as we know them and grounds it with logic no matter what groups they are a part of or what their experiences are. Experience based biases cut both ways.
I am not marginalizing her. She gave her account and in that account he did nothing wrong. Just because he's a jerk or a pig doesn't make him a criminal or even a sexist. What is her accusation actually? What did she accuse him other than being like every other guy she dated? You also reduce this to a male vs. female issue, but there is also a white versus brown thing going on here. And a lot of minority men feel that they are judged differently than white men when it comes to issues around sex. Even in this thread you have posters calling him a "cuck" - a common term that people throw at Asian men to emasculate them. I am not dismissing her position, I am questioning why she felt the need to publically attack him when she is not even accusing him of any crime. And I say this with absolutely honesty and no mal intent, but I don't think you understand either sexism or racism very well at all and you're coming across as a SJW right now.
The issue of what is appropriate behavior between a man and a woman, and when is a women right to publicize details of a man’s sex life, is something that affects men and women. Your position that men’s opinions don’t matter here is ludicrous on its face. Women have rightly said that the #MeToo movement requires involvement from both women and men. You can’t have that and then also shutdown views you don’t like from men, just because they are men. You have to shutdown views you don’t like using actual arguments.
