NationStates

Senkaku wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:
"Not every guy who makes a woman feel uncomfortable did it because he's an asshole." (1min in)

"This is what women want; but only from the men they want it from. Problem is, we don't know which one we are." (2min in)[/i]

These are both really good points, and I agree on your uncomfortableness regarding his criticism of the "ask them out once" rule- but I just don't think society, as polarized as it is, is really ready to try and find a nuanced middle ground here (or anywhere) right now. The battle lines have been drawn up on each side, and trying to examine the actual complexities of the subject is going to become even harder. We're just not equipped to have that kind of conversation.

So just let people be needlessly demonized while we wait?

And what precisely would we be waiting for?

I am sooooooo over Bill Maher's hot takes on stuff. The man is the pinacle of liberal elitism, and his shtick was already getting stale before he had that one brainfart in which he declared Milo Yiannopoulos to be the new Christopher Hitchens.

Pope Joan wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:
But that is what subordinates are for.
My proof.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-6QnKuJs5o

I am so glad I have subordinates to make take that sexual harassment training.

Liriena wrote:I am sooooooo over Bill Maher's hot takes on stuff. The man is the pinacle of liberal elitism, and his shtick was already getting stale before he had that one brainfart in which he declared Milo Yiannopoulos to be the new Christopher Hitchens.

This germ theory denialist is right every once in a while though a good example was his explanation of why Hillary lost to Trump. That election was honestly a wild ride full of glorious meltdowns of all the wrong people (at least that is what the establishment thought). It was like Karl Rove's meltdown on Fox after Mitt Romney lost except that energy leaked to the public.

When I think "people who's opinion on sexual harassment I find deeply important and thought provoking", I think "Bill Maher".

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:But as for workplace dating itself, more generally, I can see the appeal of that.

I wonder if Silicon Valley companies will start playing with encouraging workplace dating in an attempt to recruit new talent and motivate their workforce.

"Come work for our company, we guarantee great sex!"

Liriena wrote:I am sooooooo over Bill Maher's hot takes on stuff. The man is the pinacle of liberal elitism, and his shtick was already getting stale before he had that one brainfart in which he declared Milo Yiannopoulos to be the new Christopher Hitchens.

Is he wrong? Sometimes it takes someone crazy as Milo or Chris to have nothing left to lose by expressing unconventional political opinions.

Vespertania wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:But as for workplace dating itself, more generally, I can see the appeal of that.

I wonder if Silicon Valley companies will start playing with encouraging workplace dating in an attempt to recruit new talent and motivate their workforce.

"Come work for our company, we guarantee great sex!"

Afterwords they will encourage starvation fad diets, quack meds, and "raw" water amongst the new couples.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Liriena wrote:I am sooooooo over Bill Maher's hot takes on stuff. The man is the pinacle of liberal elitism, and his shtick was already getting stale before he had that one brainfart in which he declared Milo Yiannopoulos to be the new Christopher Hitchens.

Is he wrong? Sometimes it takes someone crazy as Milo or Chris to have nothing left to lose by expressing unconventional political opinions.

To do what? To what end?

Also, Hitchens was flawed, but hardly "crazy".

And Yiannopoulos is not "crazy" either. He's just a professional troll and attention whore (with all due respect to whores). He's never added anything of value to political discourse beyond pretending to be Shapiro and Crowder's token sassy gay friend, and making a big show about how "dangerous" and "controversial" he is.

So... yeah. Maher's wrong.

Liriena wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Is he wrong? Sometimes it takes someone crazy as Milo or Chris to have nothing left to lose by expressing unconventional political opinions.

To do what? To what end?

Also, Hitchens was flawed, but hardly "crazy".

And Yiannopoulos is not "crazy" either. He's just a professional troll and attention whore (with all due respect to whores). He's never added anything of value to political discourse beyond pretending to be Shapiro and Crowder's token sassy gay friend, and making a big show about how "dangerous" and "controversial" he is.

So... yeah. Maher's wrong.

I have to disagree on the part concerning Milo. If your mere presence on a university can cause a riot then clearly you are of some value. Not even Bush could get that kind of reception in the early years after his presidency.

Liriena wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Is he wrong? Sometimes it takes someone crazy as Milo or Chris to have nothing left to lose by expressing unconventional political opinions.

To do what? To what end?

Also, Hitchens was flawed, but hardly "crazy".

And Yiannopoulos is not "crazy" either. He's just a professional troll and attention whore (with all due respect to whores). He's never added anything of value to political discourse beyond pretending to be Shapiro and Crowder's token sassy gay friend, and making a big show about how "dangerous" and "controversial" he is.

So... yeah. Maher's wrong.

This reeks of identity politics at the expense of reason itself. Especially in light of the mentions of Shapiro and Crowder.

The reality is, Bill's an outspoken leftist who often challenges both sides of the political spectrum on its blind spots, and has noticed that, for whatever motive they may have, Chris and Milo have done similarly for the other side of the spectrum.

Focus on whether someone's wrong or right, not whether they are left or right.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Liriena wrote:To do what? To what end?

Also, Hitchens was flawed, but hardly "crazy".

And Yiannopoulos is not "crazy" either. He's just a professional troll and attention whore (with all due respect to whores). He's never added anything of value to political discourse beyond pretending to be Shapiro and Crowder's token sassy gay friend, and making a big show about how "dangerous" and "controversial" he is.

So... yeah. Maher's wrong.

This reeks of identity politics at the expense of reason itself.

Define "identity politics" in your own words.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Focus on whether someone's wrong or right, not whether they are left or right.

Which is exactly what I did.

Benuty wrote:

Liriena wrote:To do what? To what end?

Also, Hitchens was flawed, but hardly "crazy".

And Yiannopoulos is not "crazy" either. He's just a professional troll and attention whore (with all due respect to whores). He's never added anything of value to political discourse beyond pretending to be Shapiro and Crowder's token sassy gay friend, and making a big show about how "dangerous" and "controversial" he is.

So... yeah. Maher's wrong.

I have to disagree on the part concerning Milo. If your mere presence on a university can cause a riot then clearly you are of some value. Not even Bush could get that kind of reception in the early years after his presidency.

That might have something to do with the fact that Bush, as far as I know, doesn't go to universities with the express purpose of doxxing students and trying to "trigger feminists". When your sole reason to live is being gleefully malicious, damn right you're going to stir up trouble by your mere presence.

Now, let's address the "choice quotes" in the OP.

"Men made most of these movies, but women bought most of the tickets." (25sec in)

And he's trying to imply that...?

"Not every guy who makes a woman feel uncomfortable did it because he's an asshole." (1min in)

Indeed. Which is why, from what I can tell, we've largely been more forgiving of Louis C.K. than we've been of Bill Cosby.

"This is what women want; but only from the men they want it from. Problem is, we don't know which one we are." (2min in)

Why doesn't he and men like him know which one they are? Because he can't bring himself to, you know, ask?

The first especially stands out to me... by what standard does one blame Hollywood, when they're only catering to consumer demand?

This is an awfully simplistic understanding of the relationship between mass media and its audience. It's not as simple as "audience independently and spontaneously wants something and mass media gives it to them".

Liriena wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:This reeks of identity politics at the expense of reason itself.

Define "identity politics" in your own words.

Where your sense of identity; in this case, ideological identity as a liberal; guides the political opinions you form, instead of forming political opinions based on what makes sense and adjusting your identity accordingly.

Liriena wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Focus on whether someone's wrong or right, not whether they are left or right.

Which is exactly what I did.

For what it's worth, that's not quite how it came across to me.

Also, the video already starts on the dumbest note possible.

The Fifty Shades trilogy is problematic as hell, but its sins are more along the lines of bad BDSM etiquette than of the stuff Harvey Weinstein did, for instance. And it's quite the sign of how shallow Maher is that he just namedrops the "three romantic comedy plots" and presumes that it simply means women inherently want to be harrassed and it's some sort of essential thing. There is no genuine historical or cultural analysis here.

This is just a "hot take" from a guy who hasn't dedicated a single day of study to the issue of media portrayals of romance and how we consume them.

Also... gawd, he's gotten unfunny this past year.

Liriena wrote:Now, let's address the "choice quotes" in the OP.

"Men made most of these movies, but women bought most of the tickets." (25sec in)

And he's trying to imply that...?

"Not every guy who makes a woman feel uncomfortable did it because he's an asshole." (1min in)

Indeed. Which is why, from what I can tell, we've largely been more forgiving of Louis C.K. than we've been of Bill Cosby.

"This is what women want; but only from the men they want it from. Problem is, we don't know which one we are." (2min in)

Why doesn't he and men like him know which one they are? Because he can't bring himself to, you know, ask?

The first especially stands out to me... by what standard does one blame Hollywood, when they're only catering to consumer demand?

This is an awfully simplistic understanding of the relationship between mass media and its audience. It's not as simple as "audience independently and spontaneously wants something and mass media gives it to them".

The last paragraph relates to the first choice quote, so to address it all... why would something competing to sell customers what they want bother risking their own profitability to tell them what they want?

Right now, we're in a damned if you do, damned if you don't for body language. Men are expected to read it, even though it differs from individual to individual and is open to interpretation. So suppose he did ask whether or not she wanted to have sex, and this tarnished in her eyes his supposed self-confidence enough to end their wonderful night then and there. You know what? I would be okay with that, because I don't consider it worth risking being a rapist. Then again, I don't consider it worth risking being stuck in a dead-end job to pay child support either, yet evidently I don't speak for most males on this one.

Liriena wrote:Also, the video already starts on the dumbest note possible.

The Fifty Shades trilogy is problematic as hell, but its sins are more along the lines of bad BDSM etiquette than of the stuff Harvey Weinstein did, for instance. And it's quite the sign of how shallow Maher is that he just namedrops the "three romantic comedy plots" and presumes that it simply means women inherently want to be harrassed and it's some sort of essential thing. There is no genuine historical or cultural analysis here.

This is just a "hot take" from a guy who hasn't dedicated a single day of study to the issue of media portrayals of romance and how we consume them.

Also... gawd, he's gotten unfunny this past year.

How about the entire bodice ripper genre being produced for and consumed by women?

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Liriena wrote:Define "identity politics" in your own words.

Where your sense of identity; in this case, ideological identity as a liberal; guides the political opinions you form, instead of forming political opinions based on what makes sense and adjusting your identity accordingly.

I'm not a liberal, though. And I don't think you know what identity politics are or, really, how my politics work.

So... swing and miss.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Liriena wrote:Which is exactly what I did.

For what it's worth, that's not quite how it came across to me.

I couldn't care less if Maher, Yiannopoulos or Shapiro are "left" or "right". They are all twats in their own right with stupid opinions and awful behavior. They could be members of the Democratic Socialists of America and I'd still think they're garbage.

Liriena wrote:I'm not a liberal, though. And I don't think you know what identity politics are or, really, how my politics work.

It was a perfectly reasonable assumption, though, since divergence from tradition is part of the very definition of the word liberal.

Liriena wrote:This is just a "hot take" from a guy who hasn't dedicated a single day of study to the issue of media portrayals of romance and how we consume them.

And what walk of life studies these? Psychology, with its "surveys" anyone can lie to? Sociology, which gave us the "superpredators" scare? The humanities, which aren't even scientific at all?

Des-Bal wrote:

Liriena wrote:Also, the video already starts on the dumbest note possible.

The Fifty Shades trilogy is problematic as hell, but its sins are more along the lines of bad BDSM etiquette than of the stuff Harvey Weinstein did, for instance. And it's quite the sign of how shallow Maher is that he just namedrops the "three romantic comedy plots" and presumes that it simply means women inherently want to be harrassed and it's some sort of essential thing. There is no genuine historical or cultural analysis here.

This is just a "hot take" from a guy who hasn't dedicated a single day of study to the issue of media portrayals of romance and how we consume them.

Also... gawd, he's gotten unfunny this past year.

How about the entire bodice ripper genre being produced for and consumed by women?

Widespread violent sexual fantasies =/= widespread inherent desire to be sexually harassed

Speaking as a fellow dude, I think a lot of straight dudes seem to forget that the men in such fiction are generally not blank slates or conceived as representations of all men, or the "average" man. Meaning that just because so many women fantasize about being violently taken by a certain kind of man doesn't mean they have any interest in being sexually harassed by totally random dudes.

Women's sexual fantasies are not an invitation for random men to go around "recreating" them without said women agreeing to it beforehand.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Liriena wrote:I'm not a liberal, though. And I don't think you know what identity politics are or, really, how my politics work.

It was a perfectly reasonable assumption, though, since divergence from tradition is part of the very definition of the word liberal.

You're going to have to explain yourself better, because you're not making much sense to me... and you still haven't shown a very good understanding of what "identity politics" means.

Also, how do you square your understanding of what "liberal" means with the fact that we Westerners are now living in societies in which liberalism is the ruling political tradition?

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Liriena wrote:This is just a "hot take" from a guy who hasn't dedicated a single day of study to the issue of media portrayals of romance and how we consume them.

And what walk of life studies these? Psychology, with its "surveys" anyone can lie to? Sociology, which gave us the "superpredators" scare? The humanities, which aren't even scientific at all?

I love how you've poisoned the well against any sort of scientific evidence that could put your worldview to question. You'd make a fine young Earth creationist with that lazy anti-intellectualism.

Friendly reminder that psychology is a legitimate field of study, sociology is not delegitimized in its entirety because of just one individual problem, and the humanities are pretty darn scientific if you actually bother to study them.

Signed,

A communication sciences student who is a bit tired of lazy anti-intellectualism and would appreciate it if people could at least pretend to understand semiotics and media studies before farting out shallow hot takes on mass media

Liriena wrote:Widespread violent sexual fantasies =/= widespread inherent desire to be sexually harassed

Speaking as a fellow dude, I think a lot of straight dudes seem to forget that the men in such fiction are generally not blank slates or conceived as representations of all men, or the "average" man. Meaning that just because so many women fantasize about being violently taken by a certain kind of man doesn't mean they have any interest in being sexually harassed by totally random dudes.

Women's sexual fantasies are not an invitation for random men to go around "recreating" them without said women agreeing to it beforehand.

Absolutely true. I think a proper cultural analysis suggests that fantasies about rough treatment but attempting to fulfill a fantasy you assume someone has is basically the behavior of a lunatic.

Des-Bal wrote:

Liriena wrote:Widespread violent sexual fantasies =/= widespread inherent desire to be sexually harassed

Speaking as a fellow dude, I think a lot of straight dudes seem to forget that the men in such fiction are generally not blank slates or conceived as representations of all men, or the "average" man. Meaning that just because so many women fantasize about being violently taken by a certain kind of man doesn't mean they have any interest in being sexually harassed by totally random dudes.

Women's sexual fantasies are not an invitation for random men to go around "recreating" them without said women agreeing to it beforehand.

Absolutely true. I think a proper cultural analysis suggests that fantasies about rough treatment but attempting to fulfill a fantasy you assume someone has is basically the behavior of a lunatic.

Which is why I'm quite bothered when some people raise the existence of Fifty Shades and the like as some sort of argument against women's denouncement of unwanted sexual advances. That line of thought carries some pretty awful underlying notions (that women are dishonest about their rejection of sexual advances and the harm caused to them by sexual harrassment; that the alleged lack of clarity on which men can or can't approach a given woman in a sexual manner somehow entitles men to just go ahead with their sexual approach without fear of consequences...).

Do people really still take Bill Maher seriously, because I don't same goes to others like Colbert, Noah, and others.