Jump to content

Aziz Ansari: Is This Character Assassination?


stevenkesslar
 Share

This topic is 1369 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Is this character assassination?

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/01/the-humiliation-of-aziz-ansari/550541/

 

The Humiliation of Aziz Ansari

 

https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2018/0115/933338-aziz-ansari-responds-to-sexual-assault-allegation/

 

'Grace' supplied the website with the texts she sent to Ansari the day after their date. She told him: "Last night might've been fun for you, but it wasn't for me. You ignored clear non-verbal cues; you kept going with advances.

 

"You had to have noticed I was uncomfortable … nothing [changed] even after I expressed that I'd like to slow it down."

 

To answer my own question, yes. This is character assassination. We've now reached the point where we can begin to talk about whether this has gone too far - and more importantly, why.

 

The main reason I think this is character assassination is that nobody not named "Grace" should be able to attack a real celebrity using a fake name. It is the opposite of the courage demonstrated by Ashley Judd, Leeann Tweeden, and every other woman that has stepped forward and named their predator.

 

I think Babedotnet set a horrible standard. This feels as much like anonymous trolling as it does like journalism.

 

The people that accused Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Roy Moore, and Al Franken had to step forward and expose themselves to public scrutiny. That is a fair thing to expect, I think, if what's at stake is destroying someone's reputation.

 

I feel that way even if it is a homophobe like Roy Moore, who in my view is pretty much a complete moral scumbag. He is still innocent until proven guilty, both in a court of law and in the court of public opinion. People in Alabama had the right to evaluate the claims made against Moore based on their view of the actual people who made those claims. And that is exactly what they did.

 

Beyond that, it gets more shades of grey. But I hope this story takes up a huge amount of space on social media, because it sets a perfect example of what the standard should not be.

 

The easy way to summarize what was right about what Leeann Tweeden and many others did is this:

 

No means no. Period.

 

The easy way to summarize what's wrong about this anonymous attack is this:

 

Most people can't read minds.

 

The alleged victim is arguing that while she was engaging in oral sex she provided "clear non-verbal cues" that she was "uncomfortable." She lost me at oral sex. That's usually a clear non-verbal cue that you are comfortable. You don't have to be a Kurtis Wolfe to communicate clearly, verbally or even non-verbally, that "no means no" and you better get your hands or tongue or penis away from me.

 

 

Reading the actual text exchange makes it even more clear that this is anything but clear.

 

You have to really be a major asshole predator to initiate contact by text with your victim the next day by saying what you did was "fun." Ansari does not appear to view himself as a predator. As soon as he gets a clue that he was perceived as an asshole, he says he is "truly sorry" for having "misread" the situation. Nothing he texts suggests he had a clue the night before that what was happening was not consensual.

 

In her own words, the anonymous accuser then basically admits that Ansari himself expressed a clear verbal belief that what was happening was consensual: "You may have said, "it's okay, only fun if we're both enjoying it...." Clearly, he seemed to feel like she was enjoying it, or at least he was putting out his own verbal feelers to test whether she was enjoying it as much as he was.

 

The alleged victim feels that Ansari "had to have noticed I was uncomfortable." Really? How would he know that? She doesn't actually say, other than creating the expectation that he should have been able to read her mind.

 

And while "no means no," it's not my impression that her saying "slow it down" means no. It actually sounds more like, "yes, but go slower" to me. If she at any point actually told him to stop, neither she nor Azari were aware of that - at the time, or the next day.

 

I actually feel this is a shameful attack that will do more harm than good, both to Ansari and to the millions of women who were harassed or assaulted against their clear will. It is too late to take it back, but I hope it leads to a lot of debate about what "no means no" and "clear" means.

 

There is no question that men need training on how not to be predators. But what this story suggests is that women (and men) who feel they are the victims of predators need training on how to make it clear that "no means no." The word "NO" actually is understood by anybody who speaks just about any language in the world, is my guess.

 

I also hope the people behind this end up feeling that when you simply throw shit at somebody from a dark corner, you are going to get shit on you as well. It is offensive.

Edited by stevenkesslar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Who the fuck cares anymore. ? It's to the point of RIDICULOUSNESS.... Does everyone just need to be Celibate to avoid this from happening ?

 

16188432.gif

 

That's a good response. It's not your actual words, but I could live with, "Honey. Whoever you are. Nobody really gives a shit."

 

I'm not saying that her feelings are wrong. She was correct to express them to him, the way she did. But it should have remained a private matter for him to learn from, if he chose to.

 

And she hopefully learned to communicate more clearly - in the moment, not the next day. There is zero percent of this that feels like it is the ballpark of rape or sexual assault.

Edited by stevenkesslar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that way even if it is a homophobe like Roy Moore, who in my view is pretty much a complete moral scumbag. He is still innocent until proven guilty, both in a court of law and in the court of public opinion.

That's incorrect. Roy Moore is innocent in a court of law, and guilty in the court of public opinion. That's the way it works, thank god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this character assassination?

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/01/the-humiliation-of-aziz-ansari/550541/

 

The Humiliation of Aziz Ansari

 

https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2018/0115/933338-aziz-ansari-responds-to-sexual-assault-allegation/

 

'Grace' supplied the website with the texts she sent to Ansari the day after their date. She told him: "Last night might've been fun for you, but it wasn't for me. You ignored clear non-verbal cues; you kept going with advances.

 

"You had to have noticed I was uncomfortable … nothing [changed] even after I expressed that I'd like to slow it down."

 

To answer my own question, yes. This is character assassination. We've now reached the point where we can begin to talk about whether this has gone too far - and more importantly, why.

 

The main reason I think this is character assassination is that nobody not named "Grace" should be able to attack a real celebrity using a fake name. It is the opposite of the courage demonstrated by Ashley Judd, Leeann Tweeden, and every other woman that has stepped forward and named their predator.

 

I think Babedotnet set a horrible standard. This feels as much like anonymous trolling as it does like journalism.

 

The people that accused Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Roy Moore, and Al Franken had to step forward and expose themselves to public scrutiny. That is a fair thing to expect, I think, if what's at stake is destroying someone's reputation.

 

I feel that way even if it is a homophobe like Roy Moore, who in my view is pretty much a complete moral scumbag. He is still innocent until proven guilty, both in a court of law and in the court of public opinion. People in Alabama had the right to evaluate the claims made against Moore based on their view of the actual people who made those claims. And that is exactly what they did.

 

Beyond that, it gets more shades of grey. But I hope this story takes up a huge amount of space on social media, because it sets a perfect example of what the standard should not be.

 

The easy way to summarize what was right about what Leeann Tweeden and many others did is this:

 

No means no. Period.

 

The easy way to summarize what's wrong about this anonymous attack is this:

 

Most people can't read minds.

 

The alleged victim is arguing that while she was engaging in oral sex she provided "clear non-verbal cues" that she was "uncomfortable." She lost me at oral sex. That's usually a clear non-verbal cue that you are comfortable. You don't have to be a Kurtis Wolfe to communicate clearly, verbally or even non-verbally, that "no means no" and you better get your hands or tongue or penis away from me.

 

 

Reading the actual text exchange makes it even more clear that this is anything but clear.

 

You have to really be a major asshole predator to initiate contact by text with your victim the next day by saying what you did was "fun." Ansari does not appear to view himself as a predator. As soon as he gets a clue that he was perceived as an asshole, he says he is "truly sorry" for having "misread" the situation. Nothing he texts suggests he had a clue the night before that what was happening was not consensual.

 

In her own words, the anonymous accuser then basically admits that Ansari himself expressed a clear verbal belief that what was happening was consensual: "You may have said, "it's okay, only fun if we're both enjoying it...." Clearly, he seemed to feel like she was enjoying it, or at least he was putting out his own verbal feelers to test whether she was enjoying it as much as he was.

 

The alleged victim feels that Ansari "had to have noticed I was uncomfortable." Really? How would he know that? She doesn't actually say, other than creating the expectation that he should have been able to read her mind.

 

And while "no means no," it's not my impression that her saying "slow it down" means no. It actually sounds more like, "yes, but go slower" to me. If she at any point actually told him to stop, neither she nor Azari were aware of that - at the time, or the next day.

 

I actually feel this is a shameful attack that will do more harm than good, both to Ansari and to the millions of women who were harassed or assaulted against their clear will. It is too late to take it back, but I hope it leads to a lot of debate about what "no means no" and "clear" means.

 

There is no question that men need training on how not to be predators. But what this story suggests is that women (and men) who feel they are the victims of predators need training on how to make it clear that "no means no." The word "NO" actually is understood by anybody who speaks just about any language in the world, is my guess.

 

I also hope the people behind this end up feeling that when you simply throw shit at somebody from a dark corner, you are going to get shit on you as well. It is offensive.

 

I've read about this story too, so far she hasn't mention alcohol as the reason why she went to bed with him and regretted it the next morning.

 

Let's see if someone else comes up with a similar or more brutal story: rape, casting couch, etc.

Liberal, born and raised in Maryland, proud member of pink pistols!

Ignore list: WilliamM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People in Alabama had the right to evaluate the claims made against Moore based on their view of the actual people who made those claims. And that is exactly what they did.

 

Please note that the claims against Moore were not necessarily decisive in the outcome of that election. The claims definitely gave Shelby and a few other Republican bigwigs cover to encourage write in votes or even endorse Jones. As far as Alabama voters, he was never going to get much more than his base (admittedly, a considerable base). Many GOP voters in Alabama had problems with Moore well before this election. Turnout was ultimately key.

“Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”

 

-The Marx Brothers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read about this story too, so far she hasn't mention alcohol as the reason why she went to bed with him and regretted it the next morning.

 

Let's see if someone else comes up with a similar or more brutal story: rape, casting couch, etc.

 

 

She's sour grapes after a 1 night stand that didnt Benefit her ! Not sure what she thought she would get out of sleeping with him ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20171125_WOC925_0.png

 

It wouldn't be a Kesslar post if there wasn't a chart or graph.

 

I took this to be a hopeful sign. Among US Millennials, there is very little difference between what men and women perceive to be sexual harassment. And younger Americans - male or female - are more likely than older ones (especially older men) to view something as harassment, especially when it comes to more nuanced areas like commenting on a person's attractiveness, or asking them to go out for a drink.

 

What is interesting is that in supposedly uber-liberal Sweden, there appears to be a much bigger divergence between the views of men and women - especially among Millennials. Although everybody in Sweden seems to agree that asking someone to go for a drink is not sexual harassment.

 

At least we know that Swedes like their alcohol.

Edited by stevenkesslar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's incorrect. Roy Moore is innocent in a court of law, and guilty in the court of public opinion. That's the way it works, thank god.

 

Fair enough.

 

But since the post is actually about being incredibly clear in communication, what I actually said is that Moore was innocent until proven guilty in the courts of law and public opinion.

 

He was proven guilty in the court of public opinion. As you said, thank god.

 

The exit polls showed overwhelmingly that those who voted for Moore believed him, and those who voted for Jones believed the women who accused Moore of assault.

Edited by stevenkesslar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's sour grapes after a 1 night stand that didnt Benefit her ! Not sure what she thought she would get out of sleeping with him ?

 

I wouldn't engage in slut-shaming, we don't know her real intentions or if others come out against him with similar stories.

Liberal, born and raised in Maryland, proud member of pink pistols!

Ignore list: WilliamM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't engage in slut-shaming, we don't know her real intentions or if others come out against him with similar stories.

 

I never called her a slut, so please dont assign your label to it. But I would call her an opportunist who "probably" thought that sleeping with a celebrity would benefit her in some way. My understanding is that she slept with him on a first date. For me, that's moving a bit fast.... Call it what you want. And whether more people come forward or not, my opinion is the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never called her a slut, so please dont assign your label to it. But I would call her an opportunist who "probably" thought that sleeping with a celebrity would benefit her in some way. My understanding is that she slept with him on a first date. For me, that's moving a bit fast.... Call it what you want. And whether more people come forward or not, my opinion is the same.

 

What makes you think she went to bed with him to benefit her career?

 

Sleeping on the first date is very common now a days, specially in a big city with so many men out of the straight market because they're gay.

 

I'm going to quote @bigjoey let's wait for all the facts to be available and specially if others come up against him.

Liberal, born and raised in Maryland, proud member of pink pistols!

Ignore list: WilliamM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you think she went to bed with him to benefit her career?

 

Sleeping on the first date is very common now a days, specially in a big city with so many men out of the straight market because they're gay.

 

I'm going to quote @bigjoey let's wait for all the facts to be available and specially if others come up against him.

 

Which is exactly the problem with these kind of accusations.

 

Even with people with rock solid (if legally unproven) reputations as serial predators - like Trump and Clinton and Moore - it always comes down to who made the accusations, and what is their agenda? Which is why it matters that we know who actually made the accusations. It is certainly fair that some assume that the women who pick on Trump and Moore are losers and lying Democrats, and that some assume that the women who pick on Clinton and Franken are losers and lying Republicans. And even if it's not fair, it doesn't matter. People are going to infer and assign motivations.

 

If I had to make an inference, probably the fairest thing to infer is that she was turned on by the idea of going out on a date with a celebrity, the initial sexual overtures felt good, she'd had something to drink, and then she gradually became unsure if sex is what she wanted. I'm sure she felt like she was making that clear to him. But there is no evidence in anything she actually says, even now, that she actually did make that clear to him. Then as it sank in, she started to convince herself that, really, this was his fault. If she thought it was her fault that she drank too much or was less than clear, we wouldn't know about any of this.

 

This was bound to happen eventually. While it is bad news for Ansari, it is good news in the sense that it provides a good example or where and why to draw the line. If you are in a position where you are a victim and lots of people are questioning your motives, that's usually not a good place to be. At least in the current environment, very few people are questioning the motives of the scores of women who went after Weinstein. The picture they created was very clear: he's a predator, and they were completely innocent victims.

Edited by stevenkesslar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why on God’s green earth did this end up in the public sphere?

 

“Non-verbal clues”.....bitch, please!

 

Repeat after me.....”I’m not comfortable with what’s happening....please stop”

 

He keeps going?....you forcably (if you have to) remove yourself from the situation and go home.

 

It’s that simple. Anything else and your expecting him to be a mind reader.....and/or you're playing games.

 

Even then, it’s not a conversation that needs to be held in public.

 

Poor stupid dude. He just picked the wrong crazy whore....we’ve all done it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why on God’s green earth did this end up in the public sphere?

 

“Non-verbal clues”.....bitch, please!

 

Repeat after me.....”I’m not comfortable with what’s happening....please stop”

 

He keeps going?....you forcably (if you have to) remove yourself from the situation and go home.

 

It’s that simple. Anything else and your expecting him to be a mind reader.....and/or you're playing games.

 

Even then, it’s not a conversation that needs to be held in public.

 

Poor stupid dude. He just picked the wrong crazy whore....we’ve all done it.

 

 

Maybe it was "last call" at the local pickup bar ? :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it was "last call" at the local pickup bar ? :cool:

 

Oh my God. I have done that, and it did not end well. Total drunk. Hot guy, but I couldn't handle his inability to even grope me correctly without slurring his words, calling me by the wrong name ("John"), and being more aggressive than sexy.

 

At least I did know how to say, "Sorry, but I'm not into this. Have a good night."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my God. I have done that, and it did not end well. Total drunk. Hot guy, but I couldn't handle his inability to even grope me correctly without slurring his words, calling me by the wrong name ("John"), and being more aggressive than sexy.

 

At least I did know how to say, "Sorry, but I'm not into this. Have a good night."

Just because I grabbed your tiny (or huge...I can’t really remember) cock

in a bar one night after a few drinks....and may (or may not) have tried to

stick my tongue down your throat.....and called you “John” (instead of

your “given” name....which is Lady Ms. Prissy Pants)....

 

I don’t see why would had to come on here and tell all our “friends”

(and “enemies”) about it.

 

And for the record...he never said “no”....even as I ravaged his ass with my tongue....

Unless “fuck me harder Daddy” is the way kids today say “I’m not into this”.

 

Grin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because I grabbed your tiny (or huge...I can’t really remember) cock

in a bar one night after a few drinks....and may (or may not) have tried to

stick my tongue down your throat.....and called you “John” (instead of

your “given” name....which is Lady Ms. Prissy Pants)....

 

I don’t see why would had to come on here and tell all our “friends”

(and “enemies”) about it.

 

And for the record...he never said “no”....even as I ravaged his ass with my tongue....

Unless “fuck me harder Daddy” is the way kids today say “I’m not into this”.

 

Grin

 

 

http://assets.rebelcircus.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/tumblr_llmj0covAe1qbyfbso1_500.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because I grabbed your tiny (or huge...I can’t really remember) cock

in a bar one night after a few drinks...

 

Of course you can't remember. You were a drunk whore.

 

And for the record...he never said “no”....even as I ravaged his ass with my tongue....

Unless “fuck me harder Daddy” is the way kids today say “I’m not into this”.

 

Of course I can't remember. I was a drunk whore. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thank-you for posting this. I was about to post something with the same sentiments, but Ashleigh Banfield said it much more forcefully and eloquently. NPR just had a segment on this as well. On the NPR segment, one woman's position was that it's useful that the accuser went public about her date with Aziz Ansari; the incident is an opportunity to have a public discussion about how women need to better stand up for themselves and for men to better understand verbal and non-verbal clues from women. In my opinion, having the discussion is a good thing, but not at the expense damaging Ansari's reputation and career when the worst he did was being insensitive and an overly horny cad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually feel this is a shameful attack that will do more harm than good, both to Ansari and to the millions of women who were harassed or assaulted against their clear will. It is too late to take it back, but I hope it leads to a lot of debate about what "no means no" and "clear" means.

 

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...