[Non-political] News that makes you Laugh/Cry/Both...

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Mar 27, 2015 3:29 am

Well, we have learned two things from this:

1. Hyzmarca is a terrible person.

2. Clarkson should have just abused a child, then his pals would have covered the whole thing up!

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri Mar 27, 2015 4:31 am

hyzmarca wrote:New evidence suggests that mandatory arrest laws do more harm than good, especially among the poor and minorities. Apparently, witnessing one's partner being arrested greatly increases one's chances of dying from heart disease.

The study I assume you are referring was based on some 1980's law enforcement data and saw the early mortality count rise by 9% in white victims and 98% in African-American victims. The conclusion of that study is the completely obvious "victims of domestic abuse with access to little to no support infrastructure have trouble putting their lives back together, and minorities are less likely to have access to said infrastructure." Big fucking surprise.

I also want to point out that increased mortality among victims is not evidence that arrest does more harm than good. Because again, the purpose of criminal law is to be preventative. If arresting perpetrators of domestic abuse reduces the frequency of domestic abuse by a sufficient quantity, then that's a win even if 9% of victims go on to have long-lasting mental trauma because there are less victims. And yes, for a variety of reasons, there is a lot less domestic abuse now than there was in the 80's, or even early 90's.

So the solution is more support for victims of domestic abuse, particularly those in poor communities. What a shocker. I'm also openly dubious of the study's methodology, because I find it incredibly hard to believe that the underlying police enforcement on which it was based was at all as even-handed as you might assume. It's impossible to completely remove police discretion. You get a call from someone who heard raised voices from their neighbor's house. What do you have to see at the scene before you declare that the shouting in question was potential domestic abuse? Do you think the threshold would be the same for white people as it would be for black people? Of course fucking not, police were racist as fuck in the 1980's and they're racist as fuck now. Also, fun fact: with the shouting example, "neighbor hears raised voices" is itself a different threshold in white communities than black communities, via the likelihood of living in an apartment building (where your neighbors can always hear you) vs a single-home building (where you have to shout quite loudly before your neighbors can hear you). I guarantee that the severity of the cases put up for the "arrest or warn" lottery were not the same.

Hyzmarca wrote:This was two adult men, and the degree of injury does not rise to the level of injury does not rise to level of beating the shit out of. Rather, the injury is on the level of a minor scuffle.

Grab a pillow. Strike at it for thirty seconds in a relatively continuous fashion. Observe that the pillow, like Oisin Tymon, isn't fighting back (making both Tymon and the pillow better men than Jeremy Clarkson).

That is not a minor scuffle. If Oisin Tymon had swung back and that resulted in thirty seconds of fighting between the two until they were separated, you could call that a minor scuffle. It still would have been Jeremy Clarkson's fault for being an insane douche, but it would have explained why it lasted thirty seconds. But what actually happened is that Clarkson swung, and when Tymon did not swing back, Clarkson swung again. And again. And again. For thirty seconds, Tymon stood there and took punches. And you're shrugging that off as a minor scuffle because Jeremy Clarkson couldn't manage to cause serious lasting damage, which is as much luck as anything else. You don't actually have to be a big guy to break parts of people's faces. But also; "physical damage" is a shitty metric. We arrest people for the threat of force too, and threats cause exactly zero physical damage.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:30 am

There's various studies about how privilege doesn't work, not only do the people without privileges get hurt, but so do the people with privileges.

Because I'm thinking that if people had made Clarkson sit out a few shows, or a season, and pay a bunch of money to charity back in the day that he'd have figured that shit out a long time ago and we wouldn't be here. He probably worked out how incredibly ugly (and criminal) what he'd done was the moment someone actually interrupted (in Britain!), but then it's already too late.

@Hyzmarca: No. Bad. It is an incredibly serious thing that people not physically abuse their subordinates outside due process. They used to shoot officers in most armies for that, it was so bad for morale.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 12:51 pm

http://abcnews.go.com/US/baggage-handle ... d=30385071

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 2:18 pm

MADONNA MOLESTED DRAKE!!!

Except no, actually, she didn't. Last week facebook feminists, and presumably Tumblr feminists, circulated a still picture of drake looking uncomfortable with my neck bent out of shape while madonna gave him a kiss from behind, which, to be, did kind of resemble the dementor kiss of death. Sometimes they followed it with a still of his aggressively wiping his mouth. They quoted him saying "what the fuck just happened?" This all happened at a joint concert (a Drake concert actually, I think, where Madonna performed). People are seriously saying that Madonna may have assaulted him. Here's what actually happened

1. Drake is sitting on stage. Madonna comes in from an angle where I think he should be able to see her coming.
2. Madonna tips his head back with her hand.
3. She waits 2 full seconds, during which he makes no attempt to escape.
4. She bends down and starts kissing him.
5. During the kiss he reaches up for her with his arm. It's pretty clear he's not trying to push her away. It look like he's trying to either stroke her hair or pull her in closer to him. Conceivably, he could be making a very suave attempt to cut it short by holding her gently and then pulling her away (rather than pushing her away). We'll never know, because she deflects his hand.
6. He suddenly looks uncomfortable. I assumed it was because kissing someone vertically with your neck bent 90 degrees backward is a bad idea. He says it was the test of her lipstick.
7. She breaks the kiss and walks off stage. He immediately wipes his mouth. Some viewers attributed some emotional significance to this. I think it was just the practical fact that if you have your face pointing up with your mouth open, and someone puts their face on your face from directly above you, you will get spit all over you.
8. He says "oh shit, what the fuck just happened" in a pretty smug voice, then follows up with a satisfied chuckle.
9. He brags on Twitter about how awesome it was make out with Madonna.
10. Oh yeah, why was she even on stage? Because he either gave her a shout-out in a song or made a song about her depending on who you ask, then they flirted on Twitter for months (I think, maybe it was just weeks), and then he invites her to do a show with him.

Fucking hell.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:23 pm

I... Hm. I really don't want to have to give any fucks about Drake, Madonna, or whatever publicity stunt they cooked up. But if you stripped the context and flipped the genders, I think we could all agree that would be some degree of rapey. Yeah, yeah, life is complicated and spontaneity is sexy, but "we flirted on twitter a little" is not sufficient for first time make outs - those should really be kept to a "yes means yes" standard for consent. You can be spontaneous later.

Again, giving zero fucks about Drake or Madonna or their very much staged publicity stunt. I just want to point out that if you took the series of events you described and scrubbed away the context, that would be crossing the line. If you also flipped the genders, you wouldn't even have to think about it all that hard.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:05 pm

DSMatticus wrote:I... Hm. I really don't want to have to give any fucks about Drake, Madonna, or whatever publicity stunt they cooked up. But if you stripped the context and flipped the genders, I think we could all agree that would be some degree of rapey. Yeah, yeah, life is complicated and spontaneity is sexy, but "we flirted on twitter a little" is not sufficient for first time make outs - those should really be kept to a "yes means yes" standard for consent. You can be spontaneous later.

Again, giving zero fucks about Drake or Madonna or their very much staged publicity stunt. I just want to point out that if you took the series of events you described and scrubbed away the context, that would be crossing the line. If you also flipped the genders, you wouldn't even have to think about it all that hard.

Well since the context involves both the reason we think that Drake arranged this series of events ahead of time and both parties affirmatively consented somewhere off stage, and the part afterword where the hypothetical victim talks about how cool it was, the context is super important.

I mean, I think we can all agree that outside the context of affirmative consent for specifically those activities being given beforehand, people being tied up and gagged and then fucked is VERY RAPEY. But I think that we can all agree that whether it is rapey outside the context of consent is pretty fucking stupid.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:40 pm

Kaelik wrote:
DSMatticus wrote:I... Hm. I really don't want to have to give any fucks about Drake, Madonna, or whatever publicity stunt they cooked up. But if you stripped the context and flipped the genders, I think we could all agree that would be some degree of rapey. Yeah, yeah, life is complicated and spontaneity is sexy, but "we flirted on twitter a little" is not sufficient for first time make outs - those should really be kept to a "yes means yes" standard for consent. You can be spontaneous later.

Again, giving zero fucks about Drake or Madonna or their very much staged publicity stunt. I just want to point out that if you took the series of events you described and scrubbed away the context, that would be crossing the line. If you also flipped the genders, you wouldn't even have to think about it all that hard.
Well since the context involves both the reason we think that Drake arranged this series of events ahead of time and both parties affirmatively consented somewhere off stage, and the part afterword where the hypothetical victim talks about how cool it was, the context is super important.

I mean, I think we can all agree that outside the context of affirmative consent for specifically those activities being given beforehand, people being tied up and gagged and then fucked is VERY RAPEY. But I think that we can all agree that whether it is rapey outside the context of consent is pretty fucking stupid.

I suppose I could have been clearer here. I'm not responding to (or validating) the controversy surrounding this smooch. I'm responding to Orion's ten point description and saying "if I did not know that in this specific incident you were talking about a prearranged publicity stunt, that description would still seem a little rapey. Giving people two seconds to say no isn't getting affirmative consent."

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 2:58 am

Obviously, flirting with someone beforehand isn't itself consent; it also shouldn't be used as evidence suggesting consent in order to discredit the account of someone claiming to have been assaulted. Assaults happen all the time in the context of ongoing flirtations or relationships. However, if the purported victim is claiming not to have been assaulted, but rather to have engaged in consensual activity, then I think that prior romantic interactions should be seen as supporting evidence. I've never interacted with Madonna in any way. Suppose that Maddona walked up behind me, grabbed me, and kissed me. If I said that I consented, I would forgive you for doubting my story and at least wondering about the possibility of fear, shame, or coercion. I think their history makes Drake more believable than I would be. On the flip side -- I'm not certain this was a mutually pre-arranged stunt. Drake acts surprised in the moment and maintains to this day that he wasn't expecting it. Obviously the whole thing could be scripted; I'm sure he's a good enough actor to feign surprise. On the other hand, it's Madonna. Making calculated moves to shock people is her thing, and I'm not convinced she saves it just for audiences. While *she* obviously planned this out in advance, I find it completely believable that she might not have told Drake about it.

So let's assume that Drake had no idea what she was going to do. Does that make it "rapey?" I tend to think no. 2 seconds is actually quite a long time. If you're actually requiring someone to speak a verbal "no", that may not be long enough for some people to overcome surprise or panic, but expecting a verbal "no" is already unsafe. "2 seconds to say no" may not be good enough, but "2 seconds to display any kind of discomfort or reluctance" is. If he had flinched or tensed or grimaced during that time, I'd be taking a different position. The only complicating factor here is the staging. In private, I think 2 seconds is fine. I haven't timed how long it takes to lean in for a normal kiss, but I doubt it's much longer. The question here is whether his ability to dissent was impaired by his desire not to disrupt the show, and thus whether she was taking advantage of social pressure in the same gross way men who propose marriages in public do. In this case, I do think their history and her persona are relevant. A history of flirting isn't consent to be kissed, but it's consent to be approached. If a random on the street walks up to me and leans in for a kiss, that's weird and threatening. If someone I've dated leans in to kiss me, I don't have to accept the kiss, but I do have to accept that they had the right to try for it. Also, it's Madonna. As a performer, Madonna is known for unexpectedly doing weird sex at people. If I invited Madonna to do a show with me and I didn't want her to do sex on me, I would say so explicitly in advance. Being Madonna obviously doesn't mean she can kiss people who don't want to be kissed, but I think it does mean that during a performance she was invited to, she's within her rights to go for one and see if it's welcome.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:37 am

Let's ignore that it was just Drake or Madonna, and just talk about grabbing acquintances that maybe you've flirted with a bit, making prolonged eye contact for two seconds, and then kissing them. Is that okay?

Well, life is complicated and context matters, but generally speaking fuck no. The fact is there are a lot of guys who think "she didn't say no" means "she wanted it," and there are a lot of women who don't want it, but for whatever reason are either intentionally or accidentally pressured into shutting up and not saying the no that would officially make it rape. You can't "borrow" your neighbor's car just because you have the balls to stare them in the eyes while driving off with it, even if they are so bewildered and/or intimidated that they don't try to stop you. You actually live in a world where the burden for proving you had legitimate grounds to borrow a woman's car is higher than the burden for proving you had legitimate grounds to put your penis in her vagina. That's fucking crazy, and it's why affirmative consent standards (at least for people who don't already have an intimate relationship, where as already mentioned life is complicated) are a good thing. You should not wait two seconds for a no. You should wait for a yes*, period, the passage of time being wholly irrelevant. The "they didn't say no" defense really isn't.

*Yes, alternatives to a verbal yes, like unsolicited reciprocation, are wholly acceptable as far as I give a fuck. The point is that if you want to make out with someone you kind-of-sort-of know, it should very obviously be mutual before anyone's tongue is anyone else's mouth.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:37 am

That the alleged assaulter has a history of sexual assault/harassment is actually the opposite of evidence that this wasn't a sexual assault, and telling people that inviting someone with such a history to some kind of event is basically asking to be assaulted is some of the most straightforward victim-blaming I have ever heard. I don't have access to nearly enough information to know whether or not this was actually an assault, because we don't know whether or not it was a pre-arranged publicity stunt (we also can't know if it was a welcome surprise, but even if it was, the fact that Madonna got lucky this time doesn't mean we should give her a pass on forcing herself on people). But I do know that every time you try to defend Madonna, you say something horrible, and you might want to consider not doing that anymore.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:46 pm

http://www.messynessychic.com/2015/04/2 ... st-cities/

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:56 pm

You know what China needs, to keep the Mongol hordes out?

A big wall.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 11:03 pm

Koumei wrote:
A big wall.

That would be great.

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:08 pm

Leress wrote:
Koumei wrote:
A big wall.
That would be great.

"Nobody has the intention of building a wall."

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:56 pm

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/2 ... acebook_sf

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Sun Apr 26, 2015 1:45 pm

@MGuy, Isn't that just the world according to Fox News?

I saw an interesting chart one day that noted people who watch Fox News know less true facts about the world than people who have no source of news at all, and that ~80% of everything they believed about major events was clearly wrong, doing substantially worse on the multi-choice questions than random guesses (where people with no news did better, because some answers made no sense).

Plus, totally political. Facts about Obama will do that to you (thanks Obama).

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sun Apr 26, 2015 7:05 pm

I totally have this, and it's not three years old. http://youtu.be/HOrP7x_QlSc You can just smell the Fox conspiracies. And my, are they foul!

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sun Apr 26, 2015 7:08 pm

tussock wrote:@MGuy, Isn't that just the world according to Fox News?

I saw an interesting chart one day that noted people who watch Fox News know less true facts about the world than people who have no source of news at all, and that ~80% of everything they believed about major events was clearly wrong, doing substantially worse on the multi-choice questions than random guesses (where people with no news did better, because some answers made no sense).

Plus, totally political. Facts about Obama will do that to you (thanks Obama).

It's still funny.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:51 am

Rubella considered eradicated in the Americas

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:04 pm

name_here wrote:Rubella considered eradicated in the Americas

Yeah, but think on all the autism that caused.

TiaC · Post by **TiaC** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 7:11 pm

nockermensch wrote:
name_here wrote:Rubella considered eradicated in the Americas
Yeah, but think on all the autism that caused.

Yeah, rubella is one of the few things we know that actually causes rubella, just think if we could have eradicated it sooner.

Shrapnel · Post by **Shrapnel** » Fri May 01, 2015 1:37 am

Personally, I think that anyone who refuses to vaccinate their child really deserves whatever happens to them.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri May 01, 2015 2:26 am

Well, I'm not sure their children deserve to die/be permanently crippled just because their parents are fuckwits. Also, there is a minority of people who have allergic reactions and thus can't be vaccinated. They rely on the herd immunity of everyone else doing it, and they're at risk every time someone else decides to turn their child into a biological weapons factory.

My idea to charge such parents with terrorism hasn't been met with much support, sadly.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Fri May 01, 2015 6:44 am

Immune compromised people, along with kids too young for the complete vaccine set yet, are the biggest chunk of the herd you're going to fuck over with a round of measles. For things like rubella it can get to the foetus in pregnant women.

There's also always people where the vaccine didn't take, nothing's 100%, and again they're mostly going to be adults where stuff like mumps and measles will fuck you up more reliably.

Part of the problem is the vaccines are designed to have minimal side-effects by being as weak as possible to reach the necessary rate of function for herd immunity. If 10% of your population skips them, suddenly you drop from 85% where everyone's covered to 75% where a quarter of the population can get it, and it parks in the population again. They really only work at all because everyone who can get them does so.

But yes, at least it mostly hurts the people who aren't vaccinated. All thanks to one asshole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield