Open Thread and Link Farm: Divine Knew Edition

  1. Graysexuality | Thing of Things
    “Graysexuality is fascinating because we get to watch the process of a new orientation being constructed in real time.”
  2. The Optimizer’s Curse & Wrong-Way Reductions | Confusopoly
    An interesting discussion of the limits of how Effective Altruists choose between charities. (Via.)
  3. Schools Are Full of Hungry Kids Who Aren’t Learning Anything. Why Don’t We Feed Them? | Center For Global Development
    Free lunches for schoolkids in the developing world could be an effective way of improving educational outcomes. (For one thing, feeding kids is an effective way of increasing school attendance.) (Via).
  4. On #MeToo’s Anniversary, ‘Mattress Girl’ Doesn’t Need You to Believe Her
    Emma Sulkowicz seems to have moved to a “restorative justice” position, although they don’t use that phrase in this article.
  5. This fifteen second video of someone drawing eleven lines (not counting some little hash marks) is extremely satisfying to watch.
    Also enjoyable, in a different way, are the many responses in which people posted their (usually) failed attempts at drawing the same eleven lines.
  6. When a Town Takes Uber Instead of Public Transit – CityLab
    An article about a Canadian town that found that adding a bus system would be too expensive, so they decided to subsidize Uber trips instead. But the program was so popular that they’re having to limit it to cut costs. (I think that, whether it’s Uber or traditional, most cities should be spending a lot more subsidizing public transit.)
  7. Kilogram, redefined: Why the world’s new definition of mass is such a big achievement – Vox
  8. No, I Will Not Debate You – Laurie Penny
    “To refuse to debate someone is an act of discourtesy. It is rude. It implies that you do not consider that person’s ideas or behavior worthy of basic respect.”
  9. julia serano – a transgender glossary of sorts
    The glossary is very useful (well, not for everyone, obviously). But I’m also linking it for the introduction, where Serano argues against word-elimination strategies: “This approach ignores the fact that most words are highly contextual, exhibiting multiple meanings or differing connotations depending upon the context. Many words and phrases can be used in both positive and negative ways, or in productive and disparaging ways. Yet, word elimination strategies insist that any negative usage (whether present or past, commonplace or occasional, real or perceived) automatically trumps all potentially neutral, positive, or productive uses of the term.”
  10. What It’s Like To Drive The Worst Car Ever Built
    Which is the 1951 Hoffman. “It’s not a piece of shit, build-quality-wise. It’s just that every possible design decision made on this car is somehow the absolute worst decision you could make.”
  11. Notre Dame fire: a historian on rebuilding the cathedral – Vox
    One interesting question (asked but not answered in this article): The spire that burned down was not the original spire. When they rebuild, do they rebuild the spire we’re used to, try and approximate what the original spire looked like, or create a new spire?
  12. The Centr of Controversy – Kivan Bay – Medium
    Kivan very much opposes the use of the fat suit in Endgame.
  13. Dain Yoon’s Twitter feed.
    Korean body paint artist Dain Yoon paints amazing and beautiful optical illusions on her face.
  14. No more ‘shortcuts’ in prescribing opioids for chronic pain – STAT
    The CDC is, depending on your view, either walking back or clarifying its previous instructions on prescribing opioids. They’re saying they’ve been misinterpreted and that they don’t want chronic pain patients to be involuntarily forced to cut down or cease opioid use.
  15. The problems with one-size-fits-all laws on opioid prescriptions – The Washington Post
    Presidential candidate Kristin Gillibrand has been forced to walk her position back after proposing a terrible opioid control bill.
  16. AMERICAN THEATRE | All Sizes Fit All: The Case for Normalizing Fatness Onstage
  17. A History Of Violence – Pop culture news, movie, TV, music and gaming reviews. | The A.V. Club
    If you’re a fan of action movies, Tom Breihan’s series of article, with his choice for the most important action films year by year, is very entertaining reading. (Or I found it so.) And will almost certainly add some new titles to your “I wanna watch this” list.
  18. Back in 1896 men didn’t call women sluts. They called them “bicycle face”.
    “Why? Because bicycles helped women make their own dating choices. IOW bikes were the first dating app. That scared men.” Interesting thread on Twitter.
  19. Licensing Reform Opponents Say Unlicensed Barbers Would Be as Dangerous as Unlicensed Chefs. Chefs Aren’t Licensed.
  20. (140) GOPRO Goes on Japanese Sushi Conveyor Belt (Beautiful Slice of Japanese Life) – YouTube
    Gets a lot less interesting after the plot twist at 3:40. I really enjoyed this on first viewiing – all those little slices of life contained in restaurant booths – but also had some doubts about the ethics of making such a film, especially after reading this article.
  21. “The Prostitution Problem”: Claims, Evidence, and Policy Outcomes” (pdf link)
    A readable journal paper, giving an overview of the debate and evidence about sex work.
  22. Velocity is strangling baseball — and its grip keeps tightening – The Washington Post
    More pitchers are throwing faster balls – and the result is a(n even) duller game.

This entry posted in Link farms. Bookmark the permalink. 

67 Responses to Open Thread and Link Farm: Divine Knew Edition

  1. 1
    Michael says:

    The study in #21 sounds interesting, Unfortunately, the link isn’t working.

  2. 2
    J. Squid says:

    A counter argument to #22. I find it very convincing.

  3. 3
    Ampersand says:

    The study in #21 sounds interesting, Unfortunately, the link isn’t working.

    Thanks for pointing that out. Link has been fixed! :-)

  4. 4
    Ampersand says:

    J Squid, thanks for that link – I thought the info about how pitchers are now able to train better to do sliders was especially interesting. It adds a new dimension to the other article – fastballs have been getting faster, but also curves and sliders are getting better. It seems likely that both are contributing to the increase in strike-outs.

  5. 5
    desipis says:

    In an example of the harm caused by the #metoo movement, actor Geoffrey Rush is awarded $2.9 million in damages for defamation.

  6. 6
    J. Squid says:

    The thing about faster fastballs is that there appears to be an upper limit at around 106 mph. But even 106 mph pitches get crushed now and again. Major League hitters have such good eyesight and such quick reflexes that, eventually, they get the timing down. The vastly increased break combined with tunneling is going to be a lot harder for them to identify & react to. In large part because the average fastball is so much faster than it used to be. So they kind of work together. But, holy crap, if you watch video of some of the breaks (and composite videos showing tunneling), how quickly and how far some of these pitches bend is incredible. It’s almost like whiffle ball.

  7. 7
    Ampersand says:

    Desipis:

    It’s not really a typical #metoo case, though, is it? For one thing, according to the judge, it came out before #metoo was known as #metoo. For another, it’s a case of a Murdoch newspaper chasing headlines against the (alleged) victim’s wishes. Which is certainly not how anyone involved in #Metoo thinks it should work.

    The articles, Wigney said, came “in the midst of the ‘Harvey Weinstein scandal’ and the worldwide explosion of the phenomenon which later became known as the #MeToo movement”.

    Typically a #MeToo story involves a person, most often a woman, relating an experience of sexual harassment or assault on their own terms. Not in this case. Rush’s accuser was revealed in court proceedings as 34-year-old actor Eryn Jean Norvill, who had made a private workplace complaint following the production.

    The Daily Telegraph became aware of the complaint and proceeded to air Norvill’s allegations, against her wishes, in the most dramatic fashion imaginable.

    There’s a lot of interesting stuff in that article.

  8. 8
    J. Squid says:

    What’s the movie analogy to #10? Something made with obvious professionalism and craftsmanship using the best cast and crew that made the wrong decision at every point? Two that spring immediately to mind for me are “The Golden Compass” and “Hunger Games.”

    Also, I love everything about the Hoffman. If I had the time and/or money I’d build one for myself and drive it around town.

  9. 9
    RonF says:

    Re: 22 – I was a kid when the mound was lowered. Why don’t they lower it again?

  10. 10
    RonF says:

    Speaking of examples of harm caused by the #MeToo movement, what do you think of the fact that Harvard removed the very first black person to be the faculty Dean of a residence hall from that position after 10 years of such service because a group of student claimed that his act of taking a position on Harvey Weinstein’s defense team was “trauma-inducing” and made them feel “unsafe”?

    It is often claimed on the left that the right despises academia because the right is anti-intellectual. I think that these days the right despises academia because academia is anti-intellectual. And anti-liberal, in what used to be the accepted use of the term. It’s worth clicking through to the Reason article that the above NYT article has a link for:

    Every person accused of a crime deserves competent legal representation—even Weinstein and Hernandez. It’s abundantly clear that Sullivan takes the principled liberal view that due process matters, and that the accused deserve fairness in the criminal justice system. His entire career is built on these ideas. Agreeing to represent an accused sexual abuser is not an endorsement of sexual abuse. It’s extremely disappointing to see the administration humor the students’ misguided notion that Sullivan’s choice of clients somehow makes Winthrop an unsafe place, but Khurana’s statements have given some credence to this view.

    Apparently Harvard now accepts the view that only certain kinds of defendants deserve competent representation – or that people associated with Harvard should only defend certain kinds of defendants. That may not be what their Law School is teaching (although that’s certainly possible), but it’s what Harvard’s administration is teaching.

  11. 11
    J. Squid says:

    Re: 22 – I was a kid when the mound was lowered. Why don’t they lower it again?

    They’re using the independent Atlantic League to test out moving the mound back 2 feet to 62′ 6″.

    Mostly I just wish they would go back to unjuiced baseballs. Home runs get boring when they happen all the time.

  12. 12
    nobody.really says:

    Anybody watch the Tonys?

    And in particular, anyone notice the complete omission of any mention of the impending Hereville Musical?

    I get it–afraid of the competition. But they could be at least a little sporting about it, doncha think?

  13. 13
    Ampersand says:

    I actually did watch the Tonys with Lizzie (composer, whose site you just linked) and Robby (lyricist). I hadn’t seen most of the nominated shows, but they were very pleased Hadestown did so well.

    I did ask Lizzie how long she thinks it’ll take for Hereville to actually get on stage IF everything goes well. Her answer? Four years.

  14. 14
    nobody.really says:

    FOUR YEARS?

    Ok, let’s hold off on casting the Mirka role for now….

  15. 15
    Michael says:

    Representative Norma Torres called Republican Congressmen who support restrictions on abortion “sex-starved” males:
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/democratic-rep-torres-im-tired-of-hearing-about-abortion-rights-from-sex-starved-males
    It’s one thing to argue that men don’t understand what it means to be pregnant. But “sex-starved males” is clearly shaming men for lack of sex. Let’s see if feminists condemn her the same way they would a Congressman who called Democratic Congresswomen sluts.

  16. 16
    Harlequin says:

    An interesting article on how good faith analysis choices can still lead researchers to different conclusions using the same data set to answer the same question: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2515245917747646

  17. 17
    hf says:

    @Michael: does it do that? Or did Rep. Torres mean that some of her male colleagues are harassing women who have limited legal recourse? (Admittedly, Congress has changed the rules somewhat as of a few months ago.)

    Are you saying you have a model of reality which predicts Rep. Torres would shame male colleagues simply for the amount of sex they have? If so, can you explain how this model works?

  18. 18
    Michael says:

    @hf- “@Michael: does it do that? Or did Rep. Torres mean that some of her male colleagues are harassing women who have limited legal recourse?”
    (a)nobody mentioned sexual harassment- this entire debate was about taxpayer funding for abortion and (b) not all sexual harassers are sex starved and not all sex starved men are sexual harassers.
    “Are you saying you have a model of reality which predicts Rep. Torres would shame male colleagues simply for the amount of sex they have? If so, can you explain how this model works?”
    I’m saying that men that don’t have a lot of sex are often shamed for it- that’s common knowledge. (Exhibit A- your own comment equating sex-starved men with harassers.)

  19. 19
    J. Squid says:

    I’m saying that men that don’t have a lot of sex are often shamed for it- that’s common knowledge.

    The idea that men who don’t have sex are often shamed for it is new to me.

  20. 20
    Ampersand says:

    J. Squid:

    The idea that men who don’t have sex are often shamed for it is new to me.

    It’s not new to me. In particular, beyond a certain age, being a virgin is considered shameful. (This is true for women as well, although I think some of the nuances are different). “He’s a loser because he can’t get a date” is definitely one of the nasty stereotypes I was arguing against in my Neckbeard cartoon.

    If that is what Torres meant, then that’s gross and objectionable. (Although it’s somewhat mitigated because she immediately withdrew it).

    But I think, Michael, that you’re reading a lot into an off-the-cuff comment that was withdrawn in under sixty seconds. “Sex-starved” can mean “can’t get laid,” but I think in this context it’s more likely to mean “someone who is unsatisfied no matter how much sex they have and is always seeking it” (for example, by hitting on interns and assistants). When this New Yorker article described Miley Cyrus as portraying a “sex starved” persona, she wasn’t implying that Cyrus was playing the character of someone who can’t get laid; she was implying that Cyrus was portraying the character of an insatiable vixen.

    Let’s see if feminists condemn her the same way they would a Congressman who called Democratic Congresswomen sluts.

    Even if what she said was as clear-cut as you claim, it would be odd to expect feminists to condemn her the same way.

    First of all, for many (not 100%) feminists, sexism against women is their main issue area. Is it necessarily hypocritical to have a main issue area that you pay more attention to? For example, a prisoner rights advocate may object voraciously to guards administering a beating on a prisoner, while not commenting at all on union-busters beating a union organizer. That doesn’t mean they favor beating union organizers.

    Second of all, we live in a two-party system, in which one party is incredibly bad for women (for instance, by trying to ban abortion). In such a context, I don’t think feminists should give everything democrats do a pass (and they don’t – see all the criticism Joe Biden is currently receiving for his sexist comment about a 13-year-old girl). But I do think it’s unfair, and unrealistic, to expect feminists to pretend to be apolitical saints with no pragmatic concern for politics at all.

  21. 21
    Ampersand says:

    Harlequin, that article is very interesting, thanks very much for posting it.

  22. 22
    nobody.really says:

    Reporters keep hassling Trump over his claim to have a secret plan with Mexico to fight immigration.

    It’s not as if this is the first White House to claim to have a secret plan.

  23. 23
    Ampersand says:

    I LOLed watching that clip, Nobody!

  24. 24
    J. Squid says:

    It’s not new to me. In particular, beyond a certain age, being a virgin is considered shameful. (This is true for women as well, although I think some of the nuances are different). “He’s a loser because he can’t get a date” is definitely one of the nasty stereotypes I was arguing against in my Neckbeard cartoon.

    I mean, sure, being a virgin was embarrassing in high school where virginity was laughed at. In the abstract. I never witnessed anybody being personally shamed about it by others. I was a virgin past 20 and was never shamed for it. Post high school, outside of TV & movies, I’ve never seen it happen. To the point that it seems much more like an audio visual trope than a thing that happens in real live. I’ve had friends who were virgins to older ages than that and, though they were ashamed, I never saw – and they never related – any personal shaming of their virginity.

    Sure, it’s possible I’ve lived the most sheltered of lives. But that doesn’t mean the concept isn’t new to me.

  25. 25
    Michael says:

    @Ampersand#20- OK, I found an interview where she clarifies:
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/6/13/1864494/-Democratic-congresswoman-calls-out-sex-starved-males-obsessed-with-abortion
    “In an interview, she later explained that “You have to be pretty sex-starved to keep thinking about sex every single minute of your day and keep bringing this issue up on everything, whether it’s foreign aid, whether it’s domestic aid, whether it’s health care—they bring it up.” ”
    That could go either way- either your interpretation or mine. At least some of the commenters seemed to think she meant “not having sex”, since they mentioned “boner pills”
    Hf, if you understood “sex-starved” the same way Barry did, my apologies.
    “Is it necessarily hypocritical to have a main issue area that you pay more attention to?”
    But the actual result, since feminists have more cultural power than sexually unsuccessful men, is that there’s going to be much more stigma against slut shaming than virgin shaming. So sexually unsuccessful men have to be careful not to say anything sexist but people can shame them without serious consequences. How are they not justified in resenting that?

  26. 26
    Kate says:

    But the actual result, since feminists have more cultural power than sexually unsuccessful men, is that there’s going to be much more stigma against slut shaming than virgin shaming. So sexually unsuccessful men have to be careful not to say anything sexist but people can shame them without serious consequences. How are they not justified in resenting that?

    Feminists have cultural power? Donald Trump is the president of the United States. Two men credibly accused of sexual harassment are on the Supreme Court. Hell, even the front runner for the Democratic nomination keeps saying sexist shit.
    The state of Alabama, after voting to outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest, just decided that terminating the parental rights of convicted rapists over the children who are the product of that rape was a bridge too far (except in cases in which a father rapes his daughter – uncle and brother rapists are still secure in their parental rights). This ties these victims into co-parenting relationships with their rapists for eighteen years. It also leaves them no recourse to protect their own daughters from these proven predators.
    That’s how much “cultural power” feminists have. But, someone made a snarky comment that hurt Michael’s feelings, so isn’t he right to resent the fact that women who are fighting for our basic bodily autonomy, don’t drop everything condemn the mean lady.

  27. 27
    desipis says:

    The New York Times has decided that it’s too hard to do political cartoons in a politically correct world:

    The New York Times announced on Monday that it would no longer publish daily political cartoons in its international edition and ended its relationship with two contract cartoonists.

  28. 28
    LimitsOfLanguage says:

    Kate,

    Donald Trump is the president of the United States.

    You seem to have pattern matched to your bugbear, rather than what Michael actually said. He didn’t talk about formal power; nor did he talk about feminism vs anti/non-feminism in general.

    That slut-shaming gets way more attention than virgin-shaming seems pretty obvious to me, if you read any newspaper. Also, Wikipedia has a pretty big page on slut-shaming, but nothing about virgin-shaming (despite 90% of Wikipedia contributors being men).

  29. 29
    Jeffrey Gandee says:

    I don’t think it’s feminists that hold a disproportionate amount of cultural power (as opposed to political power), so much as the left generally, and feminism is just along for the ride.

    I think a major reason for this is that leftists are all about the struggle to achieve progress, while the right is mostly about just being against the left. I’m not being flippant. As a pluralist, I think “being against the left” is of vital importance, just as struggle and progress are. I just think that the type of person who want to influence and shape culture to make the world a better place is likely to feel at home on the left, as the right doesn’t really have the tools to do this. The right is the home for the sort of person who looks over a set of blueprints or a business plan and spots failure modes. It’s home to those who are skeptical about the people’s ability to solve problems without making things worse. It’s hard to tell an inspirational story about this sort of person. To be a revolutionary on the right is to be a reactionary, but to be a revolutionary on the left is to be a liberator… well at least in theory. That many supposed liberators end up harming those they wish to liberate is why the world needs boring conservatives to help moderate the excesses of the left.

  30. 30
    Michael says:

    @Kate#26- I meant, for example, that TV shows, movies, etc. over the past few years are FAR more likely to condemn slut shaming than virgin shaming.
    And yes, people do have the right to be offended by what politicians say in discussions of bills, no matter how important those bills are. If a politician is pushing the fairest criminal justice bill ever and talks about “black thugs”, then black people have the right to be offended. If you can’t handle that, don’t go into politics.

  31. 31
    Kate says:

    The consequences of being slut-shamed are that your body is considered to be public property and you can be sexually assaulted with impunity. Virgin shaming (which can also happen to women and feminists), as bad as it is, does not have parallel consequences for the victim of that shaming.

    And, sure, you can be offended by what individual politicians say and do. That doesn’t mean that you throw out the valid points of a whole movement because that movement includes a few assholes. Every large group of people includes some assholes.

  32. 32
    LimitsOfLanguage says:

    Kate,

    The consequences of being slut-shamed are that your body is considered to be public property and you can be sexually assaulted with impunity.

    No, the consequence of slut-shaming (which can also happen to men) is that people consider a person to act or be immoral. In some (sub)cultures, people who are immoral are considered legitimate targets for sexual assault, but that is hardly synonymous with slut-shaming.

  33. 33
    Mandolin says:

    Kate — thanks for your comment. The idea that just because things can be seen to have some parallels, they are therefore equivalent in all ways — nah. That’s a simplistic and incorrect way of interacting with the world that you’ve rebutted nicely.

  34. 34
    Kate says:

    No, the consequences of slut-shaming (which can also happen to men)

    Men, particularly marginalized men (eg. non-heterosexual men, men of color, poor men) are often shamed for being promiscuous (or perceived as such). But, the particular terminology “slut” tends to be so strongly gendered (although applied to feminine-presenting people of various gender identities) that it usually is specifically qualified as “male-slut” when applied to men.

    …is that people consider a person to be or act immoral.

    …or just look immoral, often based on nothing more than the fact that their breasts developed more quickly than the other girls in class.
    …or are perceived as immoral because they were born into a family with a bad reputation.

    In some (sub)cultures…

    Conservative Christianity is not a “subculture” in the U.S.. It is one of the dominant cultures.

    …people who are considered immoral are legitimate targets for sexual assault, but that is hardly synonymous with slut-shaming.

    That is a distinction without a difference to victims of slut-shaming in those cultures.

  35. Slut-shaming and (heterosexual male) virgin-shaming (because I assume we here are not talking about gay men who have not yet had gay sex) are each rooted in heteronormative values that are used—in very different ways, to very different degrees, and with very different consequences (almost all of them gendered)—to police gender and sexuality. Each is worthy of its own critique, but there are significant differences between them, and we do, I believe, a real disservice to men, and to heterosexual men in particular, when we elide those differences in the interests of creating the kind of false equivalence that I think was at least implied in Michael’s original comment.

    LOL gestures in the direction of this difference in his disagreement with Kate when he says that “the consequence of slut-shaming (which can also happen to men) is that people consider a person to act or be immoral,” neatly eliding any discussion of the internal logic and gendered structure of that morality—which is what Kate’s comments on this subject have all been directed at. Leaving aside, though, the question of whether slut-shaming directed at men, on the rare occasions that it occurs, is in fact identical to slut-shaming when it is directed at women—I don’t think it is—LOL is not wrong that slut-shaming is, fundamentally, an accusation of immorality.

    Virgin-shaming is not. Rather, it is an accusation of inadequacy, and a potentially very powerful one at that. More to the point, its material consequences to heterosexual men, and how their lives might be shaped or how they might shape their lives in response to those consequences, would, I think, were we to examine them on their own terms, reveal themselves as very different from the consequences to women of slut-shaming. (I make no claim about the degree of hurt that individual men and women might experience as a result of these kinds of shaming.)

    I wrote very inadequately about my own experience with a kind of virgin-shaming here. (I want to stress the word inadequately; I am not interested in revisiting that piece of writing in and of itself, but only insofar as Jennifer’s statement that “You’re no different from any other guy. You wanted to do that. You’re just not man enough to admit it!” is relevant to this discussion.) Since I need to get back to grading papers and I don’t have time to say more, however, I’ll pose this as a question: What do you think is at stake in virgin-shaming? What do you think the material consequences are to men who are so shamed? I’ll be interested to see if we can have this conversation without someone returning to the comparison to slut-shaming.

  36. 36
    Michael says:

    @Richard Newman#35- yes, virgin shaming as it’s been done the past few years is an accusation of immorality. There’s definitely a tendency within feminism and the larger society to turn every male virgin into Eliot Rodger. After Charlottesville, for example, Michael Rapaport posted a video to white supremacists saying “try to get to second base you losers”. Articles like this promote the stereotype that alt-right=virgin:
    https://babe.net/2017/08/13/were-not-going-to-fuck-you-you-nazi-losers-10463
    And Jordan Peterson is just as bad, suggesting that sexually frustrated men need to have wives because they’re violent. But the larger point is after an incel shooting, male virgins feel like Muslims after a terrorist attack. And feminists don’t stick up for them like they stick up for Muslims, because the incels are right-wing, while Muslims are the victims of the right-wing. (Yes, some feminists criticize but not the same way they criticize Islamophobia.)
    As for the harm done by virgin shaming- virgins are silenced. There are places in meatspace where people can talk about being gay, being trans, etc. There are no similar places where people can talk about a virgin late in life. Their pain is erased.

  37. 37
    Michael says:

    As for Kate’s and Mandolin’s claims that slut-shaming is worse than virgin shaming because it leads to rape, I don’t think that you really believe it completely. Look at the Central Park Jogger case. Trisha Meilli was shamed by the defendants’ lawyers and supporters the way that few women are in their lives. Her name was printed in the Amsterdam News. The victims’ lawyers slut shamed her in court, and outside of the court, their supporters chanted that she was a prostitute, talked about how man men she dated, accused her of covering for her boyfriend. And yet everyone considers the defendants innocent of rape. Nobody says that what was done to her by their lawyers and supporters was almost as bad as if they had raped her. (Personally, I think it’s ridiculous to claim that the defendants weren’t trying to bully her into changing their testimony. We can debate the ethics of lawyers slut shaming in court to acquit an innocent defendant but what was done OUTSIDE court was basically trying to intimidate her. Everyone agrees that it’s wrong for an innocent man to threaten a witness who just can’t remember- I don’t see how this was different.)

  38. 38
    Mandolin says:

    Women who are still virgins are called things like bitter old maids… Women are heavily shamed for not being in relationships at various points in their lives. It’s a slightly different framework — we’re not inadequate men if it happens to us, but it is an accusation of inadequacy. Sometimes also immorality. The implication being if one were more adequate, or more moral (by wearing different things, by sleeping around less or more, drinking less or loosening up, being prettier or “I don’t understand; you’re so pretty. Why are you mean?” Or whatever.) then one would be able to find a partner.

    There’s a huge amount of it framed around women nagging men to commmitttttttt and get maaaaaaaaaaried and have kiiiiiiiiiiiiiiids. The old ball and chain wants to weigh the man down! This implies that relationships are a favor men do for women — but that you’re inadequate if you don’t find someone to do you that favor. In real life, some people of both genders like pair bonding!

    The amount of this framed around attractiveness is not to be underestimated. In our discourse, we talk about how a female body is read as belonging in a binary to either virgin or whore–but movement between statuses is inflected by how pretty you are. You whore; you’re too pretty. You virgin; you aren’t pretty enough. Or pretty in the wrong way.

    If you are a female virgin, the fault will generally be read as lying with you, whether it’s something wrong with your personality (too shrill! too shy!) or with your appearance (you look like a slut! you look like a school marm! you’re so fat — how could anyone love you? Wear makeup. Don’t wear makeup! You’re being distracting with those clothes. Well, what kind of woman goes to that kind of party? Well, you’ll never find a husband if you go drinking. You’ll never find a husband if you never let loose and go drinking. Well, what do you expect–you went drinking!).

    These things are happening to both men and women, though socially it looks different, and the consequences are different. But I always find it a little weird when something that has been the subject of a lot of feminist analysis is presented as something that never happens to women, such as being shamed for not being successful at monogamous relationships. Or the idea that feminists haven’t been talking about toxic femininity since the dawn of feminism; we’re only now reconciling ourselves to the possibilities of maintaining a non-toxic femininity. For a long time–and a bit still–the solutions were all about “stop doing those feminine things, thats gross,” and not “knitting seems generally harmless–but you might want to think about why you apologize anytime someone looks at you.”

    In general, our culture has a tendency to conflate “can get a partner” and “is adequate.”

    I’m sorry to everyone that hurts.

  39. 39
    Ampersand says:

    Trisha Meilli was shamed by the defendants’ lawyers and supporters the way that few women are in their lives. Her name was printed in the Amsterdam News. The victims’ lawyers slut shamed her in court, and outside of the court, their supporters chanted that she was a prostitute, talked about how man men she dated, accused her of covering for her boyfriend.

    Citation, please?

    ETA: To clarify, I’m not doubting that this happened whatsoever. I’m wondering about your attribution of this to “the defendants’ lawyers and supporters” in general, as if this were a common consensus among the defendants’ lawyers and supporters.

  40. Forgive me, Michael, but I find this comment very hard to follow:

    There’s definitely a tendency within feminism and the larger society to turn every male virgin into Eliot Rodger.

    Link(s) please.

    After Charlottesville, for example, Michael Rapaport posted a video to white supremacists saying “try to get to second base you losers”.

    I don’t see how this is an example of a tendency within feminism to do what you claim in the previous sentence.

    Articles like this promote the stereotype that alt-right=virgin

    This seems to me an almost willful misreading of the article, but I could be wrong, so could you explain how you see it that way?

    And Jordan Peterson is just as bad, suggesting that sexually frustrated men need to have wives because they’re violent.

    Peterson, of course, is not the first person to say this. Robert Bly said it in his way when the mythopoetic men’s movement was all the rage; David Blankenhorn wrote a book about this called Fatherless America, and while I disagree with it profounfly, it seems to me far more intelligent than anything I’ve heard Peterson say. None of these, however, are targeting male virginity per se. Rather, they are talking about the ostensibly necessary socializing influence (that men are in need of) not of sex in and of itself, but of marriage and family and the obligations they impose on men. In other words, I think this is an example of something different from (though perhaps not entirely unrelated to) virgin shaming. Again, I’d be curious to hear you make your argument.

    But the larger point is after an incel shooting, male virgins feel like Muslims after a terrorist attack.

    This seems to me like out and out hyperbole, so I’d be interested in reading something that makes this argument in a substantive way. Any links?

    As for the harm done by virgin shaming- virgins are silenced. There are places in meatspace where people can talk about being gay, being trans, etc. There are no similar places where people can talk about a virgin late in life. Their pain is erased.

    This seems to me to be onto something, though I wonder what “their pain” is and how they would characterize it. I’m not implying that it doesn’t exist. I am wondering about the difference between the pain of not being able to find a heterosexual partner—casual or otherwise—and pain that is, for example, connected to the cultural and social meaning of heterosexual male virginity.

    ETA: Of course those two pains are related, but, intuitively at least, they seem to me also distinct from each other. Figuring this out is part of why I’d be interested to read a substantive take on it.

  41. 41
    Michael says:

    Sorry, I should have been more clear- by lawyers I mostly meant Moore:
    From a interview of Meili by Oprah:
    http://www.oprah.com/omagazine/Oprah-Interviews-the-Central-Park-Jogger
    “I’ll tell you what—I didn’t feel wonderful about the boys’ defense attorneys, especially the one who cross-examined me. He was right in front of my face and, in essence, calling me a slut by asking questions like ‘When’s the last time you had sex with your boyfriend?'”
    This article describes Moore’s cross-examination:
    https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19901103&id=oVNWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=kusDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6767,463485
    Moore asked her if she had sex with a friend, suggested a man she knew might have attacked her and accused her of mentioning the name of someone she knew while intubated- an amazing feat of ventriloquism.
    On pages 183-184 of Meili’s book I am the Central Park Jogger, she cites an article describing the abuse she faced:
    “Why don’t they find her drug dealer that she went into the park to meet?”
    “Lynch all her boyfriends! She had many of them!”
    Also, Sarah Burns’s book the Central Park Five:
    On page 150, she describes how the defendants supporters called her “whore” and “prostitute”. To be fair they also called three of her lawyers “Sellouts” when they refused to cross-examine her.
    On page 81, she notes that Moore was the Amsterdam News’s source.
    It was Moore that was playing to the supporters. The other lawyers were mostly respectful.

  42. 42
    Kate says:

    As for Kate’s and Mandolin’s claims that slut-shaming is worse than virgin shaming because it leads to rape, I don’t think that you really believe it completely. Look at the Central Park Jogger case. Trisha Meilli was shamed by the defendants’ lawyers and supporters the way that few women are in their lives. Her name was printed in the Amsterdam News. The victims’ lawyers slut shamed her in court, and outside of the court, their supporters chanted that she was a prostitute, talked about how man men she dated, accused her of covering for her boyfriend. And yet everyone considers the defendants innocent of rape. Nobody says that what was done to her by their lawyers and supporters was almost as bad as if they had raped her.

    The Central Part Five did not commit that rape. What’s more, they were CHILDREN, with no legal training. Their lawyer was responsible for the abuse of Trisha Meilli. Not them. I lived in New York City at the time. Feminists most certainly DID defend the then anonymous victim from victim blaming, although all I remember is the then general judgement that she was asking for it by going jogging alone in Central Park. Moreover, to our shame, many, perhaps most, white feminists did not defend the children who were framed for the crime. White feminism still has a racism problem, but it was even worse then.

  43. 43
    Michael says:

    #83- One correction- in High Profile Crimes by Lynn Chancer, page 145, another lawyer, Robert Burns, implied that the jogger hadn’t really been raped because only her boyfriend’s semen was found on her.

  44. 44
    Charles S says:

    Michael:

    As for Kate’s and Mandolin’s claims that slut-shaming is worse than virgin shaming because it leads to rape, I don’t think that you really believe it completely. Look at the Central Park Jogger case.

    I’d like to point out that this is a bizarre non-sequitor. That rape victims are slut-shamed is not a contradiction of the idea that women who are slut-shamed are being threatened with being made targets for rape, it is actually part of how slut-shaming women is an implicit threat of rape. Furthermore, the claim that Mandolin and Kate don’t really believe that slut-shaming leads to rape because the defense attorneys in the Central Park Jogger 30 years ago engaged in slut-shaming is just stunningly incoherent nonsense. No matter what happened to her, it has no bearing on what Kate or Mandolin actually believe, nor does it actually provide any argument that slut-shaming is not an implicit threat of rape.

  45. 45
    LimitsOfLanguage says:

    Traditional gender perceptions are that it’s relatively much easier for women to find sex partners, while for men it’s the opposite. If this is true and if we look at it like a market, then this means that sex with a woman is worth much more than sex with a man. You can observe the validity of this in prostitution, where male prostitutes that cater to women are nearly non-existent, while the opposite is not true, suggesting that sex with men is low in value. Experiments where quite attractive men approach random women for sex and vice versa, with extremely lopsided results, also suggest a strong disparity in value.

    So then in a transactional sense, a woman and man who have sex are exchanging gifts of unequal value.

    This model might help explain very many things:
    – Why women who have a lot of sex are seen as ‘cheap’ or as prostitutes (depending on whether the perception is that they exchange sex for money/goods or not), but why men who have a lot of sex are often seen as high-value (but not if this involves prostitutes)
    – Why so much language around sex suggests that women give something valuable (or even their entire being) to men when they have sex, but not vice versa
    – Why women tend to expect men to pay for dates
    – Why women tend to expect men to woo women
    – Why men can have an expectation of sex when women accept their gifts (under the assumption that she accepted an implied payment to balance the sex scales)
    – Why even in the absence of children, men tend to accept a wealth transfer to their female partner
    – Why older men divorcing and going after a younger partner happens/happened much more than vice versa

    Men who fail to entice women then are pretty much automatically considered losers who don’t provide an attractive package that extends (far) beyond sex. Shaming for women is a bit different and tends to be based on the idea that there is a significant repulsive trait, especially poor looks. So women are shamed for not being able to get a (high-value) man to commit to long term relationship (where it is/was assumed that the man provides for her), while men are much more shamed for not having sex with pretty women.

  46. 46
    Mandolin says:

    Virgins also get threatened with rape? “She just hasn’t had a cock in her” “She’ll turn for me” “She needs some dick” etc etc. So-called collective rape, rape as used as a tool of war or otherwise to inflict pain on the men who love the women being raped… Lots of “She’d want it if she knew what it was like” or “she’s just being inhibited by social pressures and lying about what she really wants.”

    We have at least two men on this board whose virginity was used as an excuse to rape them. If you think I’m not mad as hell about that…

    Look, they’re just different things with different operational parameters. I didn’t actually say which one is worse, because I think that’s a stupid question. (If I did, and I am not seeing it, then I was either wrong or more probably using poor phrasing.) There are similarities between the two that can be discussed and analyzed and which may be close enough to be addressed the same ways sometimes. But I think it’s stupid to say that slut-shaming of women and virgin-shaming of men are so identical they must be reacted to with the same strategies and intensity all the time. You’re not “catching anyone out” by noting that people react to them differently.

    We do use the word “virgin” to shame men, and imply that men would not be violent if given access to women, a proposition which domestic violence clearly undermines. There is a point to be made about men who feel entitled to sex using that entitlement to justify violence (or to pointing out that “nice guys” who can’t get dates are sometimes misdiagnosing both themselves and the problem), but shaming virgins isn’t an appropriate strategy for that criticism. I have done it, and I’m trying to learn not to. There are many people who want partners and can’t find them, and many of those people are good and kind, and it’s a truth that really, really sucks.

  47. 47
    joe says:

    Harvard is free to do whatever they want. But screwing up the life of a 18 year old over something stupid they wrote 2 years ago online is a crappy thing to do.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/us/harvard-parkland-student-kashuv-trnd/index.html

    Not trying to derail the conversation, but it seems related to the comic.

    [I didn’t agree it was related to the comic – at least, not related enough – so I moved this to an open thread. –Amp]

  48. 48
    Ampersand says:

    I wrote about the Harvard case (Harvard dis-accepted an 18 year old, Kyle Kashuv, because of racist comments Kyle wrote when he was 16) in a Twitter thread.

  49. 49
    Kate says:

    Harvard is free to do whatever they want. But screwing up the life of a 18 year old over something stupid they wrote 2 years ago online is a crappy thing to do.

    Cut the melodrama, please. Not getting to go to Harvard isn’t “screwing up” anyone’s life. Kyle will be fine.
    Most people apply to get into college at the age of 17. If you can’t judge them based on what they said and did at 16, what exactly, would you judge them on?

  50. 50
    LimitsOfLanguage says:

    This is part of a pattern. If you speak out for things that progressives dislike, your history will be examined for any missteps and you face repercussions. On the other hand, extremist progressives typically get excused (see the anti-white racist tweets by Sarah Jeong that didn’t stop her from being hired).

    I believe it’s called structural oppression.

  51. 51
    Ampersand says:

    LOL, wasn’t the campaign against Kyle Kashov led by the far right?

  52. 52
    RonF says:

    The OCR is bringing Title IX cases against major universities for offering female-only scholarships and programs.

    The following is especially interesting to me. Note that I added the paragraph break for clarity. While this applies to a specific case of a “women in communications” program, it’s worth considering that women outnumber men in colleges overall and thus this logic could be extended either generally or for current female-dominated fields such as Education, Nursing, Obstetrics and whatever they call Human Resources these days in universities:

    Importantly, the chart above shows that women have earned a majority share of bachelors’ degrees in the field of Communications in every year since 1980. And in the most recent year (2017) the female share of Communications degrees was 64.1%, which means that women earned 178 bachelor’s degrees in Communications in that year for every 100 men. Therefore, if “gender parity” is one goal or expected outcome of Title IX, then there should be no justification for URI providing single-gender, female-only scholarship funding for students at URI’s Harrington School of Communication and Media, since women are already significantly over-represented nationally in Communications compared to men.

    In contrast, a much stronger case could be made that under-represented men, not over-represented women, at the University of Rhode Island in Communications (assuming its female dominance in Communications degrees reflects the national gender imbalance in favor of women) deserve funding, scholarships, gender preferences, and affirmative action to address and correct the current over-representation of females in Communication.

    As most of you may remember, I’m in I.T. and am a Scout leader and have been for quite some time. In my industry, at my company and even in Scouts there are constantly new programs, funding and other kinds of support to get more women in educational and industry programs for STEM. We are told that this is necessary because diversity makes for better products and services. It seems to me that this logic should apply to female-dominated fields as much as male-dominated ones.

  53. 53
    nobody.really says:

    Russ Douthat has a thought-provoking essay inviting us to understand the perspectives of religious social conservatives and their increasingly apocalyptic mood:

    [T]he idea that the religious-conservative coalition just represents the former big winners of American history, resentful of their lost privilege and yet even now so secure within it that they can’t imagine being on the receiving end of state oppression, is … not really an accurate description.

    In fact, the religious right consists of an alliance of several groups that, without experiencing anything like the oppression visited on black Americans, have consistently occupied lower rungs in the American social hierarchy. Today’s evangelicalism is a complicated mix, but it is heavily descended from Bible Belt, prairie and Sun Belt folkways that were often poor and marginalized and rarely close to the corridors of power. Its allies in pro-life, pro-family politics include Orthodox Jews, whose history is not exactly one of power; Mormons, who were harried westward by a brutal persecution and then forced to rewrite their doctrines by state power; and conservative Roman Catholics…. And all of these groups are embedded in global religious communities in which persecution is as common as privilege — which if anything probably leads them to worry too much about what a hostile government might do to them, not to fail to imagine such oppression.

    All of these groups have their own sins to answer for….

    But while that secular liberalism, in its meritocratic-elite form, may present itself as a vehicle for long-suffering minorities to finally grasp power, in many ways it is also a peculiar post-Protestant extension of the old WASP ascendancy — shorn of that ascendancy’s piety and sense of duty, but still at war with fundamentalists on one flank and Catholics on the other, still determined (to borrow an image from National Review’s Michael Brendan Dougherty) to impose the current doctrines of Episcopalians on the Baptists and the Papists.

  54. 54
    LimitsOfLanguage says:

    Ampersand,

    According to Kashuv (with an u), people from both sides contacted Harvard. If you read your Daily Beast article closely, they say “led a campaign” rather than ‘led the campaign.’ So I suspect that this is one of these ‘technically not lying’ articles where they deceive people by omission and insinuation.

    It’s all rather irrelevant though, because my objection is first and foremost to the people in power who bow to these kind of demands. You will always have people who will attempt a heckler’s veto and the more so when they get their way.

  55. 55
    joe says:

    Cut the melodrama, please. Not getting to go to Harvard isn’t “screwing up” anyone’s life. Kyle will be fine.
    Most people apply to get into college at the age of 17. If you can’t judge them based on what they said and did at 16, what exactly, would you judge them on?

    I think withdrawing admission after he’s declined scholarships to go to other schools is a real harm.

    I’m happy to use another phrase than screwing up. How about negatively impacting in a real and financial way?

    Kate, do you think an revoking admission based on an isolated incident of being a racist asshole for shock value is a fair and appropriate response?

    Do you think the fact that he admitted it was wrong, and apologized, at all mitigates it?

    Do you think other colleges should let him in? Or do you think what he did makes him unworthy of higher education?

    Final question, he’s 18, this was 2 years and a personal tragedy ago. How far back do you think an isolated incident has to be before it’s ok to say it’s not really relevant?

  56. 56
    Ampersand says:

    an isolated incident of being a racist asshole for shock value

    Two occasions (that we know of). And the text message doesn’t look like he’s just going for shock value; it looks like he’s casually using the N word in a conversation where he’s complaining that an attractive girl likes a Black student.

    I do think he should go to college. And I’m 100% sure he’ll be able to. But losing the chance to attend an incredibly exclusive college because he got caught saying this shit (and he only apologized because he got caught) seems like a proportional consequence for his actions.

    Is it your view that he should face no consequences at all, ever, other than having to issue a public apology? If not, what do you think a proportional consequence would be?

    (As I said in my twitter thread about this, I don’t think this should follow him around forever, and think it’s wrong that it probably will.)

  57. 57
    desipis says:

    Is it your view that he should face no consequences at all, ever, other than having to issue a public apology?

    As I understand it, they were private comments intended for a very small audience. I don’t think it’s fair to judge these comments from the outside anymore than it’s fair to judge how someone looks or poses in a nude photograph that’s been hacked or shared by a vengeful ex.

  58. 58
    Ampersand says:

    As I understand it, they were private comments intended for a very small audience. I don’t think it’s fair to judge these comments from the outside anymore than it’s fair to judge how someone looks or poses in a nude photograph that’s been hacked or shared by a vengeful ex.

    Holding someone’s nude photos against them is wrong, regardless of if they posted them in public or in private. “Said racist things” and “took a nude picture” are therefore not parallel in an important way.

    I agree with you to some degree, and disagree to some degree. Certainly it is mitigating that they were intended to be private, in that saying those things publicly would be even worse behavior. But I don’t think it’s 100% mitigating.

    You didn’t exactly answer, but your answer certainly implies that you’re in the “he should face no consequences at all” camp. Is that correct?

  59. 59
    Ampersand says:

    I think that “he was a teenager” is a much more mitigating circumstance than “he thought only some people would see his comments.” I also think “there is more to everyone than their worst moments” is an important thing to remember. For these reasons, I don’t make global judgments about his character based on these comments, and I don’t think they should follow him around forever.

    However, I do think it’s fair for colleges to make admissions decisions about incoming students based on the things they said and did at ages 15-17. That’s how college admissions work.

  60. 60
    Kate says:

    Kate, do you think an revoking admission based on an isolated incident of being a racist asshole for shock value is a fair and appropriate response?

    Yes, especially an institution that gives its graduates the immense social power that Harvard does. But also, we have no reason to believe that these incidents were isolated. I also don’t think that saying something for “shock value” is a mitigating factor.

    Do you think the fact that he admitted it was wrong, and apologized, at all mitigates it?

    Not at all. He only admitted he was wrong and apologized when he was caught. Moreover, this:

    “Harvard deciding that someone can’t grow, especially after a life-altering event like the shooting, is deeply concerning. If any institution should understand growth, it’s Harvard, which is looked to as the pinnacle of higher education despite its checkered past,” Kashuv said on Twitter.

    does not sound like a contrite young man who has learned his lesson to me. He sounds like he is still the type of arrogant douchebag who would think being “a racist asshole for shock value” was a hoot, and if he stays in the public eye, I fully expect he will show his ass again.

    Do you think other colleges should let him in? Or do you think what he did makes him unworthy of higher education?

    I don’t think this would even be an issue if he hadn’t publicized the incident to raise his public profile. But, different schools can, should and do have different standards. As I said, I am sure he will be fine.

    Final question, he’s 18, this was 2 years and a personal tragedy ago. How far back do you think an isolated incident has to be before it’s ok to say it’s not really relevant?

    It is customary for colleges to weigh the junior year most heavily, with less weight placed on the sophmore and freshman years. Certainly no further back than that.

  61. 61
    desipis says:

    Ampersand,

    You didn’t exactly answer, but your answer certainly implies that you’re in the “he should face no consequences at all” camp. Is that correct?

    Given he didn’t cause anyone harm, I don’t see there any need for any punitive or formal consequences.

    If individuals in his life want to make their own judgements, and make negative comments or decide not to socialise or whatever in their individual capacity, then that’s fine. As long as these things don’t reach the level of being bullying or harassment.

  62. 62
    LimitsOfLanguage says:

    Ampersand,

    However, I do think it’s fair for colleges to make admissions decisions about incoming students based on the things they said and did at ages 15-17. That’s how college admissions work.

    This decision consisted of banning a person who made certain political statements, which are IMO noxious, but the noxiousness is subjective. We’ve seen many examples where mere support for Trump and/or his policies, who got support from nearly half the American voters, is considered noxious enough to try to get rid of this person from the university. See this example.

    Furthermore, there are many examples of progressives going after people for what they did decades ago, when much younger and with an unclear context, where many people assume the worst. See various yearbook scandals, for example.

    With the far greater lenience to progressive transgressions by the progressives who dominate most colleges, the potential exists for a gradually increasing ‘cleansing’ of universities of non-progressive staff and students, while radical leftists are tolerated.

    The logical consequence is then that colleges become fully partisan institutions, insofar that this isn’t the case already. This is going to result in a backlash, part of which we are already seeing.

    But losing the chance to attend an incredibly exclusive college because he got caught saying this shit (and he only apologized because he got caught) seems like a proportional consequence for his actions.

    Either you defend the right to an education or you don’t. Without a Schelling point, you cannot defend this right. If Harvard gets to do this, how can you deny it to any other college?

  63. 63
    Chris says:

    desipis:

    Given he didn’t cause anyone harm…

    A groundless assumption, and not quite likely if you actually know or care about the effect this word has on black people.

    LoL:

    Calling black classmates “niggerjocks” and expressing incredulity over white classmates dating them is a “certain political statement?” Do you really think that’s how Kashuv intended his remarks?

    Either you defend the right to an education or you don’t. Without a Schelling point, you cannot defend this right. If Harvard gets to do this, how can you deny it to any other college?

    For better or worse, there is no “right” to a college education in this country. And Harvard “gets to” do a lot of things in screening individuals that other colleges don’t do. It’s literally the most prestigious and selective school in the world. The idea that we are debating whether it can keep a kid out for any reason, let alone racist comments, is absurd to me.

  64. I’d like to point out that Kashuv could go to an open admissions college, even (the horror!) a community college, like the one where I teach, get good grades and then transfer pretty much anywhere he wanted/could get into pretty much without having to make any reference to his high school record/behavior (beyond the fact of his diploma). Indeed, taking this route and doing well might even be a way of demonstrating to Harvard that he was a changed person (assuming that he really did change). Not a few of the students I’ve taught over the years have taken this route in circumstances not entirely unlike Kashuv’s.

  65. 65
    Ampersand says:

    LoL: There are also many examples of conservatives going after people for things they said on social media, and getting them removed from their campus positions. More professors have been fired (or let go) due to right-wing activism than due to left-wing activism, for example, although it’s certainly happened from both sides.

    If you actually care about this issue, then a discussion of the general problem should acknowledge that it’s a both-sides problem. Casting it as a problem of left-wingers harming free speech on campus, or as right-wingers harming free speech on campus, without acknowledging the larger reality, changes this from something that free speech fans regardless of views can agree on, to a partisan football. For that reason, I think it’s better for discourse if we avoid doing that.

    I think that “someone who said an offensive thing as a kid can’t go to college at all, when otherwise they’d be able to” would be a reasonable threshold at which I’d say things have gone too far. I might think that if we were even approaching that threshold. But we’re a million miles from that point.

  66. 66
    joe says:

    Is it your view that he should face no consequences at all, ever, other than having to issue a public apology? If not, what do you think a proportional consequence would be?

    I think the public apology and shame is a consequence.

    I think having to understand why this is wrong and learn how it caused harm would also be appropriate.

    I think revoking admission this late in the process is too far.

  67. 67
    joe says:

    But also, we have no reason to believe that these incidents were isolated. I also don’t think that saying something for “shock value” is a mitigating factor.

    That’s asking to prove a negative. We know these statement exist. We have no evidence there were other statements. We have no evidence this is part of a pattern.

    Regarding ‘shock value’ I guess we just disagree. Some that said racist a-hole things to be shocking is different to me than someone that said racist a-hole tings to fit in with friends from storm front and is different from someone that said them because they believe explicitly that white people are superior.

    This guy < Milo < David Duke

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *