@TimStone wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut

who likes coriolanus?

it is one of shakespeare's worst

You may have noticed that Bannon likes things that are not good

fair

huh. that's neat

looks at calendar

Oh yeah, we have four days until the shutdown, again

(Right, today is Monday >_>)

love to shutdown the govt when the same party controls all 3 branches

Let's not forget this is basically what they were working on when Trump decided to open his mouth

@GodEmperorDune I mean but also hopefully the Senate actually holds the line this time instead of just allowing 14 day CRs to pass every 2 weeks

It does sound like there is a 6 year chip deal in the works which is good

That one should be a no brainier, clean dream is stickier

And I blame Steven Miller for that

It's already real dirty from what I know, reducing legal immigration by 50% already, but I believe wall funding was still in question

@Unionhawk i read somewhere that CHIP and DACA as leverage might've been kushner's idea

We really should just send him to jail already

something something about keeping families apart

hey this would be cool

@GodEmperorDune I mean for inviting Cotton and Badcoffee to that one meeting

Refusing to fund a government that allows 9m children to lose health insurance and 800,000 people to lose protected immigration status should ideally be like, a left position but since everything has to be a stupid deal since like forever not just president deals it has to be dumber than that because you know we also apparently have to limit legal immigration in order to make those things happen

Which isn't, like, the absolute worst concession to make I guess but

i was listening to an interview with a foreign policy guy talking about how us-pakistan relations could totally be transactional and deal based, but the trump admin is too inept to recognize and capitalize on that, they'd rather strut around talking crap instead of actually working out the deals

Hashtag president deals

@GodEmperorDune that sounds about right for everything

so i guess condoms are too expensive in the US that it's just cheaper to breed like rabbits and then treat children like trash

Apparently, some people say the USA should bomb Kim Jong Un's port-a-potty on the Sunan airport...

@Nzall Some people are probably also saying to bomb everything that is not America. Including political opponents of their prefered government, since those are not real Americans.

@Nzall we bombed a ton of leaders we didn't like before they got nukes (including hussein and gaddafi). now the rest of them will never give up their nukes as it is literally their only insurance policy against assassination or invasion

@Nzall well, could be worse

@TimStone I mean, they do that all the time

Those crazy Russians

Day two

Ok fuck this. There's a popular initiative about removing Media taxes (? Idk if that's the correct english term) in my country. Basically removing neutrality in TV and radio.

Yeah, I believe Fairness Doctrine is close to what you're looking for

We used to have that

Now we don't

It's fun

@Unionhawk Yeah I don't want a left vs right tv shitshow tbh

That's the one thing i like about our programme. It's extremely neutral compared to other countries.

And It's actually coming from a party I usually support but fuck them for that move.

Fairness Doctrine went away in 87

Classic 80s

@MadScientist 10/10 UX, would fuck up again

The UI is even worse than I expected

Honestly that UI is pretty exactly what I expected

At least it's not worse

Oh great... the vote is during my military repetition course...

Now this is a reasonable UI

"international terrorism", "foreign-born" 🤔

Also, you know, the all-caps propaganda, but

Does that mean a full quarter of international terrorism events were caused by Americans?

@TimStone So 1 in 4 international terrorist was an American? Sounds like we need to ban Americans from going anywhere, keeping 25% of terrorists out by simply blocking one country is a good deal, right?

I mean how many people were convicted of international terrorism or terrorism related offenses

Is the number 4?

@Ronan Assuming it means convicted in the US but who knows

This report was required by the Travel Ban EO so you can expect what conclusions it comes to

@fredley that would only be if the entire population were convicted wouldn't it

@cazc_941 It's a dumb tweet about another dumb tweet. Perhaps it's being deliberately dumb?

haha just making sure

TIL English.SE has a trumpism tag

english.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/trumpism

BoJack is the only Stable Genius I need in my life

@Yuuki and @Unionhawk, thanks for your contributions to the H&M and speeding camera discussions.

@fredley International terrorism, like all other industries, is sending jobs off-shore.

Trump will bring back those jobs. MAFA (Make America Fearful Again)!

One of these times I'm actually deitalicizing you in bridge

text-style: normal

Holy shit congressional review on Net Neutrality is at 50 in the senate?

Let's go?

Susan Collins welcome to the resistance

Yeah though if the fact that it's been reported screws it up I'mma be pissed

(not that this is any different than literally anything else being reported)

@Unionhawk She keeps coming and going.

I was doing the thing where I welcome random people to the resistance for doing one vaguely out of character thing

@GodEmperorDune That's something he should ask on Arqade.

We know plenty about changing succession.

Yep, we even got that horse to be pope

Bannon Is Subpoenaed in Mueller’s Russia Investigation

@MadScientist I'm more excited about post-Trump, post-Breitbart Bannon's testimony than I would have been about November Bannon's testimony. Hopefully he's feeling vengeful now.

And kept the receipts.

@puzzlepiece87 Eh, Bannon would've turned on Trump even before he left the White House. Bannon's goals lie beyond keeping Trump in power.

His goal of making people think he's a genius has worked though

@Yuuki I don't know if I'd draw the same conclusion as your first sentence, though I agree with your second. I think Bannon sees Trump as a useful tool - you usually don't trash useful tools without a good reason.

:/

Sad, but inevitable

I know several people (including me) from this room have feeds steeped in backlash, but have any of you seen backlash to Caitlin Flanagan's article in the Atlantic saying that Aziz Ansari was smeared improperly?

@Ash Makes sense, thanks for sharing, and the "Not yet" part of the answer is exactly what I was looking for, thank you.

I'm sure we could all find backlash if we wanted to dig, I was just wondering if I was crazy for reading that article and thinking that Flanagan ultimately concluded it wasn't sexual assault because Grace didn't fight back enough.

If that was her conclusion, then I was expecting there to be more backlash than I saw in my normal, not-specifically-seeking-rage reading.

I think a lot of people are just wholly uninterested in Aziz hot takes

Like yeah that's a bad take but like

Right

Makes sense, thanks. Obviously I am not surprised by bad takes on the Internet or the Post or Times opeds, but I love The Atlantic so seeing a bad sexual assault take there threw my eyebrow up a little bit.

Thanks for your feedback, and I love how you phrased that @Ash, I'm definitely going to use that in future discussions.

Can I reply to that without pinging you?

It hasn't even made it through the initial court what

You don't take a TRO to the supreme court

WE'LL DO IT LIVE

Chris Christie,,, welcome

Chris Christie,,,,,,, thank you for your service

wait, a ban on "a ban on bump stocks" or just "a ban on bump stocks"?

lol, I didn't even notice that

A ban on bump stocks, though

can you see the the mistake in this sentence?

:P

nothing but respect for MY former governor of New Jersey who absolutely embarassed himself for this administration and got nothing out of it

Okay, so the idea that "she brought this on herself" is definitely reprehensible and who the f--k thought that? But the notion of unequal standards of consent is troubling to me for a reason that I can't seem to articulate. Although now that I think about it, it might be because of gender stereotypes where a male is always considered the aggressor in such a case.

I'm rambling but this whole thing seems like a giant mess and people are way too busy making hot takes.

Aziz Ansari's case is far more murky and ambiguous than someone like Harvey Weinstein and James Franco.

> (listening to lawyers talk about J20) I think one of the funny things about the jury verdict is the jury verdict saved the prosecution from getting really humiliated on appeal for some really grotesque arguments

lol

Nobody gives a shit about Steve Bannon anymore guys

I mean you're right in the same sense that also none of this russia stuff matters, yeah

But him needing to testify is still really funny to imagine

@Ash this is a horrible story but it's also making dudes sound a lot smarter and more devious than I think most of us are

Self burn

@Unionhawk what's he testifying about

I dunno

Russia Stuff(tm) I guess

Whatever Mueller brought him in for

Do people still think that is a thing

Yes, both in the sense that there is still a special prosecutor and in the sense that some people outside of government think it's going to somehow end up with a new special election or some nonsense like that

Like there is still somehow a still-not-fired special prosecutor on the thing, but aside from a couple of lower level officials getting slammed for lying to the FBI or something (people have already been charged with this thing) I don't think anything is really going to happen

And even if things do happen it's not going to magically make things good except when considering values of "bad" that only mean "Donald Trump is president"

@Unionhawk Nah, we have to hold out hope that Kushner will definitely go to jail, possibly for something not even directly related!

Yeah, I mean, that's best case scenario really

Jared and Jr. go to jail and the president only pardons Jr. or something

@cazc_941 He makes some points I agree with (which is to say he states some facts which I believe to be true), but they in no way support his thesis. He doesn't realize that 1) Trump has no real control over Congress, they will do as they see fit, and so 2) Representatives and Senators don't need to align with Trump in order to keep their jobs, but 3) aligning with Trump may actually cost them their jobs, because true Trump supporters make up maybe a third of the electorate writ large.

Not because that'd be truly "good" but more in that it'd be "really funny"

Someone should probably check Stephen Miller's closet for skeletons too

Like, literally

@TimStone not surprised, the sheriffs dept has been a mess for a very long time

Without Kushner or Miller there's a non-zero chance that Trump would just shrug and play golf every day instead of every third day

(I buy the muscle memory explanation but it's still funny)

@puzzlepiece87 I have lots of backlash in my tl on this

@TimStone yep I have done this too

A good calm thread about this was already posted in here, but thinkpiecebot has a more visceral one

cw, lots of profanity

Here’s a family friendly post in the middle

@Yuuki I'm on team affirmative consent but I know a lot of people aren't.

The one question I have about affirmative consent is whether consent can be withdrawn retroactively.

If so, my paranoia levels just skyrocketed and my twitch reaction is to never have sex ever.

@MBraedley #2 is not really true - witness Bob Corker for just the latest example.

@GodEmperorDune Yeah, seems like it's gaining a little bit more traction.

@puzzlepiece87 Well, the point is that Trump can't really fire them.

@MBraedley Got it, I understand better now.

@Yuuki Consent can be withdrawn, but that can't invalidate the consent prior to the withdrawal.

@Yuuki I approve of proactive thinking, but like the theoretical case for voter ID, I'll worry about that city of Atlantis when it actually appears. Not saying it's never happened, but it would be quite atypical in 2018 for the potential he said/she said of a sex crime to be "Potential victim: I never gave consent; Potential aggressor: Actually I asked a few times during the course of the activity and Potential Victim always said Yes I want this"

I'd prefer not to let (potential) perfect be the enemy of the good here.

@Ash Oh, then I definitely trust your experience here then - my impression of the cases I've read is definitely more where Potential Aggressor just says "it was consensual" without ever explicitly telling a lie that they explicitly asked for consent verbally and then Potential Victim explicitly replied Yes

Matt Bevin retire tbh

@Ash Just to make sure I'm 100% on the same page as you, are we talking he said/she said to the tune of "They wanted it"/"No I didn't" or to the tune of "I asked and they said yes"/"They never asked and or I never said yes and or I said no"

Just want to put it out there that I agree that we have a problem with understanding consent in this country/culture/etc.

@Ash I believe and support what you're saying, I'm just fully understanding it.

@Yuuki It's been evolving really fast, hasn't it. It's been something that needs effort to keep up with.

@Yuuki (on top of engrained forces that don't favor the kind of consent that could lead to more culpability for aggressors)

@Ash Got it. Thanks for sharing and for helping me to understand.

Absolutely!

Sorry you got pinged after you asked not to be.

Okay cool :)

Revising my conclusion in light of the new evidence a bit, I'd say that Yuuki might still be taking it a bit too far, with this dimension in mind: if you ask for affirmative consent, then at least the other person has to be lying if try to retroactively withdraw consent, rather than there being much of any possibility for an honest mistake.

I mean, I realize it's a little paranoid to be concerned about retroactive consent, but as a person whose biggest run-in with the law has been being caught in an illegal speed trap, I'm unreasonably concerned about a lot of things that could result in serious prison time and punitive action through a possible honest mistake.

Or misunderstanding.

And I'm not telling anyone how to have sex, I'm just saying that (even absent sexual assault) having sex with someone you don't trust is an inherently dangerous thing in general.

Like, I don't travel with more than $20 in my wallet because of civil forfeiture.

This is fair and likely smart

It's like when there's a new computer vulnerability that allows someone to pwn you if they have physical access to the keys - sure, it's bad that vulnerability exists, but if a bad actor has physical access it's pretty much game over anyway.

@puzzlepiece87 As has been mentioned before, that's still not a comforting thought.

Similarly, if you have sex with someone you don't trust, you're exposing yourself to HIV and other things that could potentially be even worse than retroactive consent withdrawal.

affirmative consent doesn't affect the burden of proof. It's not really likely to put innocent people into jail

@Yuuki True, but hopefully it helps shift the thought window to a place where the risks feel manageable/controllable rather than the opposite.

If I'm thinking about "How can I stop someone from retroactively withdrawing consent?", I feel helpless. If I'm thinking about "How can I have sex only with people I trust?", I feel much more empowered.

@Unionhawk Agreed, that's a benefit of going cash light I hadn't considered, nice @Yuuki.

The difference between affirmative consent and enthusiastic consent seems to have been glossed over

It's less "how do I stop someone" and more "what if, what if, what if, oh god i'm going to die in federal prison".

Affirmative consent is making sure the other person says “yes”

@Yuuki That's the kind of issue where the specifics are irrelevant ;) A baser fear or one linked to some unresolved past issue.

@GodEmperorDune Sorry, I didn't know we were talking about enthusiastic consent, I apologize for glossing over the differences. Thanks for bringing enthusiastic consent back up again.

Enthusiastic consent is a repeated “hell yes”

@GodEmperorDune Good to know, though now I'm confused about what relevant differences were glossed over.

@GodEmperorDune It seems to me all of the same discussed concerns could apply.

The repetition and the scale are the difference

A whimpered “sure” could count for affirmative consent but that is not good enough for enthusiastic consent

Sure, but I think the concern that started this conversation could be equally matched to enthusiastic consent in this way: "Potential Aggressor: 'I repeatedly asked for consent and Potential Victim repeatedly affirmed enthusiastically'; Potential Victim: 'No you didn't'"

The quicker feedback loop of the enthusiasm limits the damage being done since the last consent

That said, I was Team Enthusiastic Consent without realizing it, repetition was already part of my consent definition. Thanks for informing me.

If the use case is malicious rapist ignoring the lack of consent, then the kind of consent isn’t really going to matter

@GodEmperorDune The use case was "I'm worried someone will try to retroactively withdraw consent and I will end up in federal prison"

@puzzlepiece87 I would argue that the goal of enthusiastic consent is to limit the time and damage of when things get awkward for one party without the other realizing it

Less damage = less likely to need remediation from the legal system

The helpful side effect of enthusiastic success is that sex is phenomenally better when both parties are enjoying it

So if one side is not enjoying it, you can adjust to where both sides are enjoying it again

Or just stop when it is a bit awkward but doesn’t progress to awful

No one is suggesting “sign a waiver of liability every time you change positions”, it’s more of a “would you like me to do this? Is this good? Would you like something else” and listening to the responses

Yup, I'm on board with all of that.

@Yuuki does that make sense with your concerns?

And all of that makes sense though probably isn't helpful with @Yuuki 's paranoia lol.

By @Yuuki 's own description, I think their concerns are more of the unassuageable variety

Yeah, I kinda realize that.

i mean this wasn't like invented recently, but the term "enthusiastic consent" was raised to cover it

Also just to keep you company in the boat, @Yuuki, I'll sometimes push the lock button on my car remote over impossible distances just because it will make me feel better.

i've read similar versions of this in books aimed at rekindling the spark in marriages, believe it or not (my wife specialized in family and couples for her psych degree)

And on the less humorous front, my grandmother used to worry constantly about people coming into her house/apartment and moving stuff around.

(First it was periodically changing the locks, then it was security camera, then it was "people are messing with the security video")

(a.k.a. unresolvable)

as technology changes though, a lot of stuff that used to seem super paranoid is obvious now

in the 1950s, if you were worried that a shadowy organization was watching everything you did, clearly something was wrong with you. if you worry about that in 2018, it's because it's true. your ISP has every web page you visit, there are cameras everywhere with govt or police doing facial recognition, your phone is connecting to cell towers leaving a map of where you went...

"celebrities are talking directly to me" yep just look at twitter, insta, or the new social media i am not hip enough to know about

"people are walking down the street talking to people that aren't there" yep, bluetooth calls

It's fun living in the future

I am grateful almost every single day for Google Maps.

V. yes.

I guess this qualifies as news

Damn

apparently someone "mad online" at the last jedi has made a cut that eliminates everything they were uncomfortable with, resulting in a 46 minute movie with almost no women in it

anyway the best part is the cast response

Wow

The events were pretty severe but I would have expected them to duck responsibility anyway, surprised to see that happen

@TimStone is this a normal course of action for incidents like this?

i mean ultimately the responsibility is the commanding officer so i guess it works

@GodEmperorDune AFAIK you usually see just disciplinary measures, not actual charges like this, but I'm no expert