|
I just love that she read that poo poo on the air
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 05:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 04:58 |
|
|
Seriously. People are going to take the writer of the article acting like this as further evidence against Grace herself. Did she think the CNN anchor was just going to keep her nasty email to herself?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 05:25
|
|
|
esperterra posted:Such a bad move. It damages the credibility of a story that I think should be getting discussed, whether that's as part of the #MeToo movement or of a broader conversation people need to be having about sex. Sent a PM your way as discussed, just in case you don't get email notifications.  But yeah that's... Eeesh. And I don't at all mind saying that I find other articles like those cringe-worthy as gently caress and while it doesn't eliminate the value of Grace's story, it's still gross.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 06:37
|
|
|
Here's the writer's full response.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 06:45
|
|
|
Dr. S.O. Feelgood posted:Here's the writer's full response. The full statement makes it a lot more understandable with regards to where the cattiness originates but that is still atrocious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 06:48
|
|
|
Yeah you really shouldn't let a 22 year old blogger break your story. But it seems like no one else wanted to touch it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 06:52
|
|
|
You shouldn't let a 22 year old blogger do anything, really.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 06:59
|
|
|
"noone under 45 has heard of you" says writer for website noone has ever heard of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 07:11
|
|
|
Dr. S.O. Feelgood posted:Here's the writer's full response. Yeah, just as I figured, she was being entirely reasonable and just not tiptoeing around the issue. Shame on all the people who came in this thread and said poo poo like "ACK SHE DISCREDITED HERSELF AND THE STORY BY USING THESE HORRIBLE VULGAR INSULTS".
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 07:15
|
|
|
Dr. S.O. Feelgood posted:Here's the writer's full response. Lmao what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 07:56
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:Yeah, just as I figured, she was being entirely reasonable and just not tiptoeing around the issue. Shame on all the people who came in this thread and said poo poo like "ACK SHE DISCREDITED HERSELF AND THE STORY BY USING THESE HORRIBLE VULGAR INSULTS". Considering the incredibly condescending tone of the original open letter by Banfield I almost feel it's a tempered response. It really cannot be understated how disgusting it is that 50-year old women in a position of power in media is using that power to bad-mouth and gaslight someone she knows barely anything about on national television. All the while telling her to toughen up because 'oh shucks we went through this in our days too' which somehow makes it ok apparently. Banfield is the exact loving example of why 'Grace' and anyone in her situation might hesitate at making public accusations at men. The US is incredibly behind to this day on its views on sexual assault and while men are a key problem in this women like Banfield sure as hell aren't making things better. None of you would have ever accepted Banfields statement if it came from a man (which it for reference already has, her argument is almost word-for.word the same as MRA-shithead Ben Shapiro's take for fucks sake) but because it came from a women you suddenly feel comfortable agreeing with it. I'll leave the original Banfield statement here for everyone who doesn't remember it for the unprofessional talking head hot-takes bullshit it is. Please remember while re-watching it that Aziz has as of yet suffered no real consequences of any kind beyond being outed for acting like a creep which he has not contested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4bAULTwAJU EDIT: Especially read the comments, please enjoy in all its glory what sentiment Banfield is feeding. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Jan 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 08:14
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:Yeah, just as I figured, she was being entirely reasonable and just not tiptoeing around the issue. Shame on all the people who came in this thread and said poo poo like "ACK SHE DISCREDITED HERSELF AND THE STORY BY USING THESE HORRIBLE VULGAR INSULTS". You're why the words "righteous" and "self-righteous" aren't synonymous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 09:16
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I'll leave the original Banfield statement here for everyone who doesn't remember it for the unprofessional talking head hot-takes bullshit it is. Please remember while re-watching it that Aziz has as of yet suffered no real consequences of any kind beyond being outed for acting like a creep which he has not contested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4bAULTwAJU Both she and the writer of the Babe article seem pretty awful. I feel bad for 'Grace' being caught up in such bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 09:31
|
|
|
Remulak posted:What the hell is G? It's a date rape drug so that's a pretty weird thing to try and smear the woman in question with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 10:07
|
|
|
Even without taking any of the creepy stuff into account, a thirty-five year old guy taking a twenty-three year old out already seems like a bit of a power imbalance. Twelve years is a hell of an age difference when you're in your early twenties.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 10:21
|
|
|
Patrovsky posted:Even without taking any of the creepy stuff into account, a thirty-five year old guy taking a twenty-three year old out already seems like a bit of a power imbalance. Twelve years is a hell of an age difference when you're in your early twenties. Cool so is this part of the movement now too?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 11:14
|
|
|
I liked this piece in the New York Times by Lindy West: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/opinion/aziz-ansari-metoo-sex.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 11:16
|
|
|
Catfishenfuego posted:It's a date rape drug so that's a pretty weird thing to try and smear the woman in question with. Its frequently used between consenting couples for chemsex. Can be used as a date rape drug, particularly if mixed with alcohol. No one is smearing anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 14:41
|
|
|
Patrovsky posted:Even without taking any of the creepy stuff into account, a thirty-five year old guy taking a twenty-three year old out already seems like a bit of a power imbalance. Twelve years is a hell of an age difference when you're in your early twenties. If both parties are adults who gives a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
I’ll have you know that 25 years old is still technically a child
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
banned from Starbucks posted:If both parties are adults who gives a poo poo. I have to agree, this recent trend of infantilizing adults and insinuating they can't make their own decisions for whatever reason (be it gender, whatever) is actually pretty regressive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
One thing that always comes back to me is Loveline, and Drew telling girls in that 15-21 age that they're going to look back on the kind of guy in his late 20's or early 30's that would date someone that young and be creeped out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
CNN article that goes more into Babe itself. It’s only been around for two years, is based in Brooklyn, and it was the magazine who tracked down “Grace,” not the other way around. I believe Grace (in that an encounter happened that made her feel uncomfortable and perhaps violated), but between the previous low profile of the site, and the lovely email detailed above, it’s feeling more and more like the vector in which her story was spread has some questionable integrity, and perhaps did a disservice to legitimizing her pain to the public at large. http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/15/media/aziz-ansari-babe-editor-interview/index.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
Well, to double back on that, I really don't buy that CNN all of a sudden is interested in investigative journalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
As far as I can tell Ansari didn't really dispute much of "Grace's" story so I don't see any real reason to doubt her. But yeah, the writer and the blog seem like another matter entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:As far as I can tell Ansari didn't really dispute much of "Grace's" story so I don't see any real reason to doubt her. He didn't dispute any of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
Babe is Janine from Ghostbusters hitting the alarm shouting "We got one" after finally finding someone, anyone to do their own metoo story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
Fart City posted:CNN article that goes more into Babe itself. It’s only been around for two years, is based in Brooklyn, and it was the magazine who tracked down “Grace,” not the other way around. I believe Grace (in that an encounter happened that made her feel uncomfortable and perhaps violated), but between the previous low profile of the site, and the lovely email detailed above, it’s feeling more and more like the vector in which her story was spread has some questionable integrity, and perhaps did a disservice to legitimizing her pain to the public at large. That is really loving shady.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
Thing is, if he'd denied it ever happened, and then this stuff came out about Babe and Way, I think a lot of people would be justified in dismissing the whole story as false. Unless 'Grace' unmasked herself. This is deplorably, dangerously, unprofessional behaviour on Babe's part. They are harming the credibility of the story they convinced someone to tell them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
This seems pretty irresponsible: https://twitter.com/itsamandaross/status/952609177402335233 Less than 6 hours to respond?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 16:59
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Less than 6 hours to respond? It's been ... Jesus, 12 years since I graduated from J-school but without digging out my ethics textbooks I seem to recall that the standard for a story like this, to give the other party an opportunity for comment, is at least twelve hours. The exception is breaking hard news, and even then you give a few hours and include a "so and so did not respond to requests for comment as of press time." I mean, Eater New York, which is just an online food-trade website, gave Mario Batali 24 hours notice about the story regarding him being a sex monster, so he could tell family and friends (I remember Bourdain tweeting "no, it's true, tomorrow is going to suck" in response to the rumor of a prominent chef being taken down) instead of them reading about it on Twitter or whatever. Timby fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Jan 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
Timby posted:It's been ... Jesus, 12 years since I graduated from J-school but without digging out my ethics textbooks I seem to recall that the standard for a story like this, to give the other party an opportunity for comment, is at least twelve hours. The exception is breaking hard news, and even then you give a few hours and include a "so and so did not respond to requests for comment as of press time." Kinda makes sense now that i think about it. Aziz just won a golden globe so they wanted to get that story out asap and generate a ton of clicks, which they successfully did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
If I were trying to make sure that a rapist never got a chance to hurt someone again, I probably wouldn't be too keen on letting them comment on it either, and I'd want to maximize the number of people who click on it so it doesn't get swept under the rug. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
The biggest hurdle you’re going to face when making any accusation is the matter of public belief. That’s why you have to do the due diligence to prove the legitimacy of your claim. Getting the accused on record with a response is a way of doing that. If you take that chance away, your reporting becomes a “hit piece” to many people, and the claims lose credibility. Babe’s first and only responsibility in this article was to accurately and cleanly report Grace’s story. They failed to do that effectively in favor of gaining quick visibility. By proxy, Grace’s account is more vulnerable to being picked apart or disbelieved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
SamuraiFoochs posted:That is really loving shady. It also removes any "blame" from the accuser for looking for fame/putting the story out and undermining #metoo when the blog site tracked her down and rushed out the story for clicks. Since that's the extreme end that I've been seeing online against that statement, those people can be shut down or at least redirected to ranting about the site, which I don't mind at all. Darko fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Jan 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Fart City posted:The biggest hurdle you’re going to face when making any accusation is the matter of public belief. That’s why you have to do the due diligence to prove the legitimacy of your claim. Getting the accused on record with a response is a way of doing that. If you take that chance away, your reporting becomes a “hit piece” to many people, and the claims lose credibility. Babe’s first and only responsibility in this article was to accurately and cleanly report Grace’s story. They failed to do that effectively in favor of gaining quick visibility. By proxy, Grace’s account is more vulnerable to being picked apart or disbelieved. Yeah I mean obviously it was a much bigger story, but Ronan Farrow had been working on his Weinstein piece for around a year. The Babe piece really feels like they found the girl, got her to tell her story to them, edited it into something coherent before attaching some screenshots and then posting. Contacting Ansari's people might as well have been an afterthought. There's a great difference between blogging and journalism and I can see why places like CNN or whoever investigated them seeing as one of the most common questions I heard people say, even on this thread, was 'Who are Babe.net?' The rest of their output just reads like a low-rent Cosmo and it sounds like they got track of a story to generate some clicks. I think there's plenty written about how sloppy the story was but reading it again, there's a huge level of infantilization on Grace's part because she seems to ignore every non-verbal cue that Ansari gives throughout the night. Now, Ansari should feel gross about his actions and should think about what he's done but I think it's fair to accept that Grace either didn't see or outright ignored the myriad of ways that Ansari made his feelings clear. Even in their initial meeting, it sounds like he's not into it until she persists a little. It's clear from everything he does afterwards that he's thought Grace was going to be an easy gently caress. Above all, what really is newsworthy about the story? She tells him how he made her feel and he apologises (Though I don't think he really gets it). Does she still try and talk to him after that? Who knows. I'm not saying this is how Grace feels, but there's a luridness to the account by Babe.net that I think exposes their intentions. DrVenkman fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Jan 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
Welp, seems like Ansari is vindicated. How much this will derail Metoo will remain to be seen but I shudder to think about what the movement's detractors will do with Grace and her story. lol at five and a half hours to respond? C'mon. jet sanchEz fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jan 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
Again, its pretty clear Grace's story is true and Ansari effectively confirmed all of it with his account. Anyone who seeks to dismiss her story because of Babe.net's clear flaws is a piece of poo poo. But Babe.net seems to have done and continue to do a bad job and its just kind of lucky that Ansari didn't deny it and make the entire story suspect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
jet sanchEz posted:Welp, seems like Ansari is vindicated. Absolutely not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 04:58 |
|
|
No, of course he is a creep but anyone can now say that the story is the problem, not Ansari. Game over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 18:29
|
|