A series of wavy horizontal lines are shown. All of the lines have exactly the same shape – a sine curve. However, half of the lines appear to have a much more triangular, “zig-zag” shape, when they are superimposed on a grey background. This “zig-zag” appearance is an illusion. (I checked – it really is.)from Discover
Takahashi notes the unusual strength of this effect:As the effect magnitudes are quite strong, unless one carefully stares at the region that looks like a corner, it is hard to find that all lines are physically wavy. Despite the simplicity and effect magnitudes, to the best of our knowledge, no one has reported about this phenomenon.So what’s going on here? Takahashi proposes that the brain’s visual system may default to seeing corners when there ambiguity over whether a line is a smooth curve or not:
The underlying mechanisms for the gentle curve perception and those of obtuse corner perception are competing with each other in an imbalanced way and the percepts of corner might be dominant in the visual systemThe “zig-zag” lines in the illusion are the ones in which the color of the wavy line changes from dark grey to light grey at the ‘corners’ i.e. the peaks and troughs of the curve. It is only seen against a medium grey background however, suggesting that what matters is that the color of the wavy lines shifts from being lighter than the background, to being darker than it.
Takahashi notes that the illusion involves a sense of depth: the “zig-zag” lines look a bit like a surface, or wall, going into and out of the page, and the changing color of the wavy line suggests shadows. However, further experiments revealed that depth perception is not the driving force behind the effect.
99 comments:
"Things are seldom what they seem ...
~ Gilbert & Sullivan
Op Art such as that illustrated in the post above proves that conelusively, but the concept of optical illusion may well be as old as time.
You knew, of course,that none of the columns in the Parthenon are precisely the same size, didn't you?
The architecural genius who designed the structure knew that in order for the columns to APPEAR uniform, they would have be subtly made IRREGULAR to create the agreeable ILLUSION of uniformity!
The limits of human perception on the superficial level are so great that few-if-any-of-us should ever dare to say we know ANYTHING for certain.
"REALITY" may very well depend entirely on the point of view from which it is observed. The worm and the bird see the same thing, but it doesn't appear to BE the same thing when their respective views are compared.
I hope you realize too that obscene songs like The Girl from Ipanema feed and encourage the sexist, misogynistic, abusive, exploitative fantasies of traditional patriarchal male chauvinist pigs, and depraved predatory child abusers like "Judge": Roy Moore?
The days of Le droit du Seigneur are long past.
Instead of reviving the CHASTITY BELT, let us do what SHOULD have been done thusands of years ago, and ENCASE the MALE ORGANS of COPUALATION in a LOCKBOX, and put all males on a steady diet of SALTPETER from the inset of PUBERTY till they reach SENILITY.
Meanwhile, ALL nubile females should be required to cover their hair with a black HIJAB and wear DUN-COLORED GUNNY SACKS designed and issued by the Central Government.
ALL unsupervosed contact betweene males and females should be DISCOURAGED and PUNISHED SEVERELY if it should occur.
WELCOME to the GRAVE NEW WORLD of FEMINAZIISM!
Fear of "harassment" is the new liberal disorder. Offendophobia runs amock!
:)
In truth I LOVE the Girl from Ipanema. It was one of my specialties when I played piano in Cocktail Lounges and on the Borscht Belt back in my salad days. ;-)
I hope your readers realize I was just "satirizing" the attitudes of typical Feminazis with my condemnatory comments above?
If Leftists had nothing they could CLAIM "offended" them, Leftists would have no raison d'etre. Their whole lives appear totally consumed by nothing but perpetual AXE-GRINDING.
SEXUAL LHARASSMENT is one of these spurious hatchets –– a dangerous, incredibly stupid FAD promoted for no other reason than to gain further political leverage.
ACTIVISM is a syninym for TROUBLEMAKING pure and simple
One of my FAVES as well!
I'm honestly fascinated by what's going on in our country right now. I consider myself a social conservative, and I don't see these accusations of sexual harassment as a "feminazi" movement to castrate men. I see it as a logical response to decades of immoral behavior. I'm not talking about mutual flirtations, etc. I'm talking about ABUSE and harassment. There IS a difference.
In fact, I don't think it's about gender at all. When there's a power differential, there's a moral obligation to treat the other with decency and respect. That moral behavior is what makes "good" bosses, teachers, preachers, doctors, etc...GOOD.
I'm glad people are speaking up.
and I'm glad to see scumbags from both sides of the aisle come tumbling down...we will reap what we sow.
I think there's a tremendous opportunity to reset our expectations about power and sexual dynamics, and it's an expensive error to fixate on any individual's peccadilloes.
@ Jen,
I do agree with you on one thing, and that is that the sexual abuses of "power" have gotten worse and shouldn't be tolerated. Where I disagree is when the parties leave the work place and meet in a "social" context. If a man (like Roy Moore) behaves "badly" on a date, slap his face and leave. Every 1st pass a man makes can be construed as "sexual harassment" if rebuffed. Successful passes make for successful and more "intimate" (translate- "obscene") relationships that lead to marriage and family. Without the initial "harassment", the relationship would stagnate and die. And so, if forty years after a "failed pass" (or perhaps even a "successful" one, you can ruin a man's life, there's a problem.
Europe's sexual practices and the rights of women originated with the daughters of Danaeus and Hypermnestra. A "pass" was made and rejected. The offending son of Aegyptus respected the rejection. And THIS is what makes ALL the difference, IMO. That the male REFRAIN from exerting his advantages in use of "force" (or power). NOT that he never make the pass (sexual overture), to begin with.
To "raise the standard" so as to penalize the overture is to disregard 2,500 years of western tradition.
@ jez,
As you can deduce, I have no desire to see a "raising of thresholds". The "expectation" that a man, even one in a "superior" power position, to refrain from initiating a sexual overture is a "modern" and in my opinion, "unreasonable" social expectation.
IMO, it's akin to the expectation that a "priest" refrain from ANY form of sexual relations.
I don't expect that. We need to be able to ask one another out on dates obviously, but there are contexts where sexual overtures are appropriate, and many where they are not. Power imbalance is an important input to that calculation eg., don't harass your subordinates at work or during an audition. Romance should not involve coercion. Hopefully, it is becoming harder to overlook the various systemic mechanisms that have subdued victims of coercion from reporting their experiences. These are valuable developments, or could be if we don't screw it up.
Romance should not involve coercion.
The operative word is "should".
I'm not a huge James Joyce fan, but I did read "Dubliners" and the first half of his "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man". One of Joyce's innovations was what I like to call the introduction of "low" epiphanies. In "Dubliners" there is one in particular which comes to mind, from the chapter on "The Boarding House", where Mrs. Mooney tricks Mr. Doran into marrying her daughter, Polly.
The analysis here, sums it up. Particularly: Love is not even a consideration, and the Mooneys seem unbothered that the marriage is based on trickery. Mrs. Mooney manipulates the weaker Mr. Doran, using his concern for his job and his fear of scandal. We can infer that Jack Mooney, Polly's brother, also has some idea what is going on. Fear of Jack also plays a tiny part in Mr. Doran's final decision. The end result is a marriage based on bullying and manipulation. But somehow, it doesn't seem to matter to Polly. She contents herself with pleasant dreams of the future; as far as she is concerned, security is the key issue. A trapped husband is a faithful husband. Nor, for all her feigned innocence, does she really not know what to do. The last glimpse of Polly reveals a woman every bit as sneaky as her mother. She knows well that her mother will take care of things for her. When she is called downstairs to see Mr. Doran, presumably to hear his marriage proposal, she is not in the least bit surprised.
To "penalize" the "pass" puts ALL power into the "passee's" hands. The fear of exposure and subsequent scandal will ruin ANYONE who in future would "make the first move".
The "standard" is, and should remain, "what happens when the pass is rejected". Roy Moore took his "date's" home. And THAT is all that we can and should expect from him.
You can argue that a 14 year old "innocent" shouldn't have to reject the flirtations of a 30+ year old man. But so long as the 30+ year old man behaves "honorably" and respects her wishes when she rejects him, I have no problem with what happened on that day in Alabama. And neither should anyone else except, perhaps, the 14 year old's parents.
You still need to teach your children what to do if they are approached.
Lower the "harassment" standard, and we'll simply be filling the courts with more and more of this nonsense.
What if the 30+ year old man were eg. the 14-year-old's teacher?
What if he attempted to persuade her with such incentives or threats as his position made available?
What if those incentives or threats remained implicit? Or only ever existed in the student's mind? Does it matter if the coercion was only "accidental," or does the powerful party have some obligation to be aware of the effect of his own status?
I think if we are to successfully empathise with the women in these cases, we need to take account of the power dynamic. While we might eventually agree that adolescents (even as old as 14!) should be spared exposure to this kind of thing, it's tougher to convince people that adult women shouldn't just accept it all with a smile. Maybe, but my attention is drawn by the extensive effort to hush these women up. Some men (many men in some industries) are behaving in ways that they would be embarrassed to admit, and these women have been silenced for decades (centuries?). Are you sure there's nothing about this that stinks? Your descriptions above have been quite romantic, I fear some of these "overtures" have been rather more lurid.
I'm not referencing Roy Moore, because I haven't read the news from Alabama beyond the occasional headline. But even if I were more aware, I still would not want to fixate on his peccadilloes -- actual criminals need to be tried and convicted; beyond that it's the system that interests me.
What if the 30+ year old man were eg. the 14-year-old's teacher?
Surely the school has a policy that already govern's this situation. The student, or parents, should report this misbehaviour to the school administration and allow them to investigate. If it is discovered that the allegations are true, the teacher should be disciplined.
The point is, there are already processes in hand to deal with the power dynamics. And if not, sue the school for NOT having them IMMEDIATELY. Don;t write a letter to the editor 40 years after the events demanding "retro-active justice".
The point is, we INVESTIGATE and then determine the veracity of the charges. We don't simply, "believe the accuser". BOTH parties have "rights" and advocates FOR them.
Democrats in Alabama tried Roy Moore in the Queen of Hearts court. "Sentence now, verdict LATER!"
The judicial system has been dealing with sexual harassment in the workplace for decades now. What the Left is insisting upon at present, is a change in judicial standards. And to that, I say, "Get BENT!"
I agree. Unfortunately, fixating is what the American media is good at.
"The point is, there are already processes in hand to deal with the power dynamics"
In a school, yes. In the rest of the world, there's nothing or worse: in some industries, the system serves the powerful to the extent that the victims of coercion are suppressed by hefty lawyers, promises of work / threats of no work, good old fashioned shame etc.
If they hadn't been inhibited from mentioning it in the '80s, they'd have done it then. This is the whole reason for the 40 year gap IMO.
"Democrats in Alabama tried Roy Moore"
I dunno, was he really such an appetising candidate in any case?
I do agree with you on one thing, and that is that the sexual abuses of "power" have gotten worse and shouldn't be tolerated. Where I disagree is when the parties leave the work place and meet in a "social" context. If a man (like Roy Moore) behaves "badly" on a date, slap his face and leave. Every 1st pass a man makes can be construed as "sexual harassment" if rebuffed. Successful passes make for successful and more "intimate" (translate- "obscene") relationships that lead to marriage and family. Without the initial "harassment", the relationship would stagnate and die. And so, if forty years after a "failed pass" (or perhaps even a "successful" one, you can ruin a man's life, there's a problem.
-----
FJ, seriously, that first pass is not necessarily a harassment, but I get your point.
Yes, there's always the first pass. And if rejected, the HONORABLE person will respect that decision. But I don't think that's what's happening here. First, I don't know all the details about Roy Moore's situation, but I do expect more of him than to just take his 14 year old date home when she rejects him. I would honestly hope we'd all expect better from a 30 year old than to make passes at 14 year old girls. It's not just how he responds when he's rejected, it's that he should have the moral compass and common sense to NOT make passes at 14 year olds.
And if we're going to allow adult men to proposition underage girls, we might as well leave it up to the parents to deal (without pentalty) with the "adult" men who do such things. Because yes, even propositioning an underage girl is WRONG.
What corporations or institutions prevented Roy Moore's accusers from coming forward? The fact that he was a County Prosecutor? That still wouldn't have prevented a police investigation or a private lawsuit.
Yes many women are intimidated and settle and sign non-disclosure agreements. They don't have to. They can file "police reports" instead. They have responsibilities. They aren't "unprotected minors".
@jen
I agree, propositioning 14 year old girls is wrong... provided you know she's only 14. But I don't know that he did.
There are also other charges you could bring. "Contributing to the delinquency of a minor" and/or "statutory rape/assault." Roy Moore was never charged.
If it wasn't "important enough" to do then, why is it "important enough" now that the woman's in her 50s/60s?
ps - If anyone had ever sexually abused my daughter, the man would be dead.
I'm sure that "jury nullification" would have left me free to kill him. That doesn't mean that I shouldn't have faced trial, though.
ps - When Moore was a judge, his case would have been tried by another court. He wouldn't have been able to "decide" anything.
People may lack confidence in "the judicial system" (or corporate systems) to treat them fairly. But that doesn't mean that they don't have an obligation to use it. And if they are treated unfairly, there are plenty of means to redress perceived injustices (private lawsuits, civil courts, etc.)
As you can deduce, I have no desire to see a "raising of thresholds". The "expectation" that a man, even one in a "superior" power position, to refrain from initiating a sexual overture is a "modern" and in my opinion, "unreasonable" social expectation.
----
It may be modern, but that doesn't make it worse. Don't you agree that in many situations, the "teacher", boss, coach, etc, should demonstrate personal control and NOT initiate sexual contact, in order to promote the best learning of the student?? (I'm talking now of adults.) The onus is on the person with the given authority in the relationship. Jez has said it better than I can.
The guardians of Roy Moore's accusers, if a crime was committed, never did their job. Shame on THEM. Shame on the Institutions that at the time did not, or would not, redress their grievances.
Don't you agree that in many situations, the "teacher", boss, coach, etc, should demonstrate personal control and NOT initiate sexual contact, in order to promote the best learning of the student?
Sure. They are in the school corporate and ethics policies governing their operation (where they belong). In most cases, the offender will lose his job, and the "power imbalance" will be remedied. Then, the person can be tried in either civil or criminal courts if the penalties aren't deemed "severe" enough by the victim or her guardians.
What corporations or institutions prevented Roy Moore's accusers from coming forward? The fact that he was a County Prosecutor? That still wouldn't have prevented a police investigation or a private lawsuit.
Yes many women are intimidated and settle and sign non-disclosure agreements. They don't have to. They can file "police reports" instead. They have responsibilities. They aren't "unprotected minors".
-----
I agree, women are not unprotected minors, and they do have the responsibility to stand up for themselves. And I agree, too, that 40 years down the line there should not necessarily be a quick and easy way to convict someone, in the public eye or in court.
I don't know why the parent's of Roy Moore's victims didn't do anything at the time...maybe they did?! Maybe they tried and were ignored. It's not far-fetched to think that powerful men have other powerful men around them who deflect and even bury all evidence of wrongdoing.
Sure. They are in the school corporate and ethics policies governing their operation (where they belong). In most cases, the offender will lose his job, and the "power imbalance" will be remedied. Then, the person can be tried in either civil or criminal courts if the penalties aren't deemed "severe" enough by the victim or her guardians.
------
I think we agree on this...but you might be the idealistic one this time. ;-)
Like jez said earlier, it's a systemic problem that needs addressing.
I would say that public shame and humiliation would be enough to make changes in our behavior, but I don't think so anymore.
i.e. Matt Lauer...that situation is just gross. He was surrounded by MEN and WOMEN who laughed it off and openly joked about his behavior. And there's another actor...can't think of his name at the moment....who has FOUR violent rape charges filed against him in LA county court. LAPD have done little to nothing and he's still working and earning a lot of money. Those women went with the legal system for protection and got nothing in return.
I'll look him up later and tell you his name. He starred in That 70's Show. I still can't figure out whey he's not behind bars. Money? Connections?
People with power/money are always going to abuse "the system" in any ways they can. We can't change that. The justice system isn't "perfect", it only guarantee's "due process". But that's also why we have "separation of powers". All we can do is make it as hard as we can for them to achieve their "personal" ends (by having parallel paths to justice criminal AND civil)
But the way to make sure that the system works, is to "exercise it." Not change it ala "Reverse Shari'a" and give women's testimony 4x the weight of men's (as feminists and their "Believe the Women" journalistic advocates currently seem to be demanding).
Idealistic? Moi? ;)
Finally, the fact that the powerful have lackies to help them manipulate the system and the less powerful shouldn't deter the less powerful. Worst case, you go old-school "vigilante" (ala - Orestes) on them. Your "peers" on the jury won't convict you.
Most, however, find it easier to "go along/get along." In that way, they achieve their own ends. It may not be "justice"... it just-is.
...and you can't blame "the system" for THAT bad result.
...just one "price" of liberty.
What prevented them? I don't know but I would certainly nominate politics as one of the industries that routinely shuts women down. How did Clinton buy his girls' silence?
"We can't change that [powerful abuse the system]"
Yes we can, is what i'm saying. Every so often the "system" shifts all of a sudden. Feudalism collapsed, suffrage was extended, workers formed unions etc. All mixed blessings, but each a profound paradigm shift. This could be one of those occasions.
Actually, I don't think the rich are abusing the system, I think they are enjoying facilities that are built into it. The system is (was) functioning as intended. We all tacitly accepted that men at the top of some industries get away with it, as a perk. We maybe didn't approve of it, but (I assume) neither of us was dumb enough to be surprised by it. It's a big deal to replace that tacit acceptance with an unmistakable declaration that this is not OK.
This could be one of those occasions. It's just the latest version of "Russia, Russia, Russia".
Sex is not okay? Good luck with that. It's what men and women "do" that make them men and women.
ps - I have a friend who's done a lot of research on the Autonomen in Germany, who "practice" this kind of paradigm shifting politics. I suggest you watch her video before deciding whether the idea of "believing the women" really "works" (solves ANYTHING). Jen has seen this. She knows Ali, too.
Sex is OK, coercion is not, and neither is systematic cover-up.
I only just saw this
"I do agree with you on one thing, and that is that the sexual abuses of "power" have gotten worse and shouldn't be tolerated. Where I disagree is when the parties leave the work place and meet in a "social" context. If a man (like Roy Moore) behaves "badly" on a date, slap his face and leave."
So we agree on the important stuff, and some of my remarks have been redundant.
But we do disagree on about reporting. Yes, women have a responsibility to file the police reports etc., but I claim that the system has made it unnecessarily difficult to do that -- and part of the problem is spontaneously emergent from our shared cultural expectations around what constitutes "normal" behaviour for a senator or a media mogul. That warped cultural value, which I've fallen for as much as anyone, is what allows ordinary people to contribute to the cover-up. "That's just what he's like," "you got off lightly, from what I hear" -- the cumulative effect of those dismissals must be crushing to a woman already struggling with shame and fear of an invasive court battle etc. It's something only the most resilient of women would bother with. The big problem about the reporting of rape is not malicious accusation, which is possible and probably happens rarely, but under-reporting which is commonplace, and in my estimation this situation extends to other flavours of harassment.
So I agree the women should report. But can we please try to set things up so that fulfilling that duty does not place such extraordinary demands on them?
I claim that the system has made it unnecessarily difficult to do that.
It should be extremely difficult to ruin a man's reputation and career. And if it's going to be done, it can't be just at some woman's say-so. The misbehaviour should be confirmed or rejected by disinterested 3rd parties before the "ruination" ever begins. People have "rights" and are entitled (only) to "due process".
...and ps, the "press" is NOT a disinterested 3rd party. Salacious stories SELL. Celebrity SELLS. Yes, the are journalistically required to dual source stories. But in a 24/7 news cycle, you get mostly speculation and opinion, not news or facts.
ut can we please try to set things up so that fulfilling that duty does not place such extraordinary demands on them?
Submitting to a medical examination when circumstances warrants can hardly be considered an "extraordinary" demand. It should be a mundane and routine REQUIREMENT for coraboration of accounts with forensic evidence.
That's just what he's like," "you got off lightly, from what I hear" -- the cumulative effect of those dismissals must be crushing to a woman already struggling with shame and fear of an invasive court battle etc.
Just because the majority of women lack the moral integrity and fortitude to actively pursue "justice" instead of "just-is" is hardly a "systems" problem. It's a character one. Most (modern) women lack the CHARACTER necessary to do what's right. Many are incapable of exercising the male preferred prerogative (courage) over the female preferred prerogative (charm/aka - temperance).
If they were men, we'd simply tell them to "man-up".
The Left and press LOVE to pander to women. I don't. I prefer to give them the facts, and let them "deal with them". There are reasons why people often state, "It's a man's world". Because not everything is "easy" and, contrary to capitalist expectations, the "customer" (female shopper) ISN'T always "right".
You want to make it easier on women? Invent a "truth detector". But if women "cry" for having to be submitted to its' "machinations", you can't let them get away with it. As they are getting away with all their crying now.
"Why" is sexual harassment getting a hearing at this precise moment? Because there are still a few women with some character/integrity left. The "pile-on "#Me-too" collaborators" like Selma Hayek and the Moore accusers should be tarred and feathered for not reporting when the incidents happened.
"you got off lightly, from what I hear" is a moral indictment of modern women, generally.
What encourages the Harvey Weinsteins and "other" abusers is that more and more women lack the moral character necessary to report them. It's "hard" to gain a conviction. It's "humiliating". But it "is" what it "is". We can only use the tools available that we have to authoritatively "determine truth"
If current events encourage more women to come forward and IMMEDIATELY confront their accusers, I say, "More power to them!" Sexual harrassment will go down. But if it means that the weak whiners are able to come out 20 years after the fact and thereby lower the standards vis "burden of proof" and "reporting"... I say, "Go to Hell!"
Just because the majority of women lack the moral integrity and fortitude to actively pursue "justice" instead of "just-is" is hardly a "systems" problem.
_-------
So the burden of proof is solely on the victim? I agree these women should have filed police reports and raised holy hell when the events happened. And Salma Hayek says that she did tell the people around her. Unfortunately weak moral fortitude is not just a female characteristic,. it seems like everyone in Hollywood has weak moral character and no courage, starting with the men who committed these violent acts in the first place followed closely by the men who protected them. You talk about filing reports and going through authorities as if that's a guarantee that the harassment and abuse will stop. The fact that the LAPD has not arrested the actor who's been accused of 4 rapes is a huge red flag that filing official reports does absolutely nothing. Stop blaming the victim and start looking at the systemic problems we have! If our judicial system cannot follow through and convict rapists when there is sufficient physical evidence to do so, what is a victim supposed to do?
How many men knew about Harvey Weinstein's sexual abuse of women in Hollywood? How many men actually witnessed it and didn't say anything? And you want to talk about week moral fortitude? How many men knew about it and yet signed deals with him which furthered both of their careers? Talk about week moral fortitude.
It's pretty disgusting how you seem to imply that women Corner the market on weak moral fortitude.
*weak
And get real, FJ. Just because courage has traditionally been linked to men in literature doesn't mean that women don't demonstrate courage today and everyday.
What the Left is insisting upon at present, is a change in judicial standards
-------
What change in judicial standards is the Left wanting to to implement?
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59fa8410e4b01b474048242a
His name is Danny Masterson, and the rape charges were filed 13 years ago. I don't like the way things are any more than you do, and I don't like that someone can make false accusations and ruin a person's career and life. But if we cannot depend on our legal system to protect us, then the criminals will be tried in the court of public opinion. I don't even think it's Justice. It's just a consequence. I do believe that what comes around goes around, and if these men are not punished by our legal system, and they have no more courage or moral fortitude to stand up and do what's right, then they will reap what they sow. Bill Cosby included and every other "sweet old man" that committed a crime and got away with it.
So the burden of proof is solely on the victim?
The HR authorities and police will respond as best they can to support the women's statements. This isn't always possible. The authorities need forensic or corroborating evidence. So yes, women have total responsibility for informing the authorities and supplying them with the "means" for verification of their accusations. So if they want "justice" they should cooperate with the authorities (ie - wear a wire) as necessary to take down the serial harassers/abusers/rapists.
weak moral fortitude is not just a female characteristic
Amen! Guilty as charged. Moral fortitude is HARD!
If our judicial system cannot follow through and convict rapists when there is sufficient physical evidence to do so, what is a victim supposed to do?
Good point! But this is a deficiency of the entire justice system. They seldom charge offenders with all the crimes they can prove (with certainty). They allow offenders to "plea down" their offenses. Personally, I'd go vigilante on the perp if the authorities were likely to fail. I'd put up posters at his workplace. I'd be ALL over social media. I'd jump him in a dark alley, and beat the living cr*p out of him.
But women's responsibility don't stop with unproveable and in many time ANCIENT reports.
How many men knew about Harvey Weinstein's sexual abuse of women in Hollywood? How many men actually witnessed it and didn't say anything? And you want to talk about week moral fortitude? How many men knew about it and yet signed deals with him which furthered both of their careers? Talk about week moral fortitude.
Touche. But how many had to perjure themselves on the witness stand?
Harvey Weinstein wasn't gang raping women. It's not a crime usually performed in public (ala Al Franken who would claim "I'm a comedian and I'm just joking around.")
Whenever I've witnessed a woman in danger of being physically assaulted, I've intervened. I've never been in a position to directly witness a sexual assault. But I'll be damned if I'll intervene every time I see a man flirt with a woman. If she wants to call the failed pass "sexual harassment," I'll testify as to what I saw and characterize it as to how it seemed to me (flirtation or assault). I won't perjure myself. But that may not be true for everyone (especially those who derive income or other advantages through their relationship with the perpetrator). But it isn't my responsibility to "report" every perceived flirtation to HR, unless the sexual assault is OBVIOUS.
What change in judicial standards is the Left wanting to to implement?
Look to the Universities for your answer. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is GONE. Changing the standard to a presumption of GUILT can't be the "solution".
The Danny Masterson case is pretty atypical in that the Church of Scientology is something akin, IMO, to a criminal enterprise protecting him. In such cases, I'd definitely pursue an "extrajudicial" form of justice against Masterson and the Church in general.
...but ps - I wouldn't pursue this remedy on hearsay unless the victim were someone very close to me, and in whom I had absolute confidence.
Think of me as an "Uncle" who holds a shotgun at a West Virginia wedding ceremony. ;)
'If current events encourage more women to come forward and IMMEDIATELY confront their accusers, I say, "More power to them!"'
I have high hopes for this, but I fear we're liable to squander our opportunity due to...
'... the "press" is NOT a disinterested 3rd party. Salacious stories SELL. Celebrity SELLS'
Absolutely right.
"tarring and feathering" women who "failed" to report incidents promptly is not my priority, but neither am I interested in castigating men (to a point, not excusing actual criminality)
'...women lack the moral integrity and fortitude to actively pursue "justice" instead of "just-is" is hardly a "systems" problem'
I don't see the reason. The "system" is not fixed, I do not find it implausible that the level of resistance to victims could be reduced. Can't we give it a good old go anyway? "Medical examination" is a red herring btw.
'If they were men, we'd simply tell them to "man-up".'
Some are men, and it's useless advice for them too. It doesn't take much imagination to understand how eg. Weinstein's team of lawyers might find some way to intimidate you regardless of how brave you think you are.
...and "yes" my standards deteriorate the closer they lie to "me and mine," personally.
The "system" is not fixed, I do not find it implausible that the level of resistance to victims could be reduced. Can't we give it a good old go anyway?
If the judicial "system" isn't pretty well "fixed" as to standards of evidence and its' admissability, we have a real problem.
The technologies used to forensically prove the allegations may improve over time, but Pre-Crime is a movie, not a reality. And the "Bill of Rights" weren't instituted w/o "reasons".
:)
The real reason why sexual harassment is still pervasive today:
"Rarely are sex harassment cases actually litigated. We know that historically, less than 5 percent of cases get to court. Fewer than those are actually litigated. And what normally happens when the cases are filed is they're settled with a confidentiality clause that prevents the victim from disclosing any details. And that's one of the issues that's gotten so much attention with these recent cases, because of course, the way that perpetrators maintained their power was through settlements that had confidentiality clauses that gag the victims."
Selling your "virtue" cheap is still the world's oldest profession.
The "excessive burdens" of obtaining justice in cases of sexual harassment... in 4 easy steps.
From your linked article in the atlantic:
"There is no doubt that until recently, many women’s claims of sexual assault were reflexively and widely disregarded—or that many still are in some quarters. ... Action to redress that problem was—and is—fully warranted."
The rest of the article focusses on how certain of the actions taken on university campuses are problematic. I don't disagree -- I keep saying how important it is not to mess it up. I'm fully signed up to rule of law, presumption of innocence etc. -- I assumed you knew this about me!
But from your remarks here, it looks like you're still reflexively dismissing claims, and resisting *any* action to redress this problem. I talk about systemic issues, and you reply about the judicial system. But most cases don't even go to trial, because the system shut them down before the judicial system got a chance to save the day.
Take the example detailed in the Atlantic. The problem here was not this individual boy's behaviour (as described), but the shared value system "... UMass Student Culture dictates that when women become sexually involved with men they owe it to them to follow through." The presence of this culture is not any individual man's fault; it's systemic. So let's not castigate chaps like him, let's work improving the culture that conditioned this girl to make a decisions she wasn't happy with ten minutes later.
These ideas are highly compatible with conservatism, surely?
I talk about systemic issues...
Please. Saying the word "systemic" isn't enough. Which SPECIFIC systemic issue do you propose changing? Which of the four steps to a sexual harassment lawsuit is the one that makes it "too burdensome" for the victim?
The accused often isn't even allowed to "name" his accuser. What part of THAT restriction is "too lenient"?
All "power of the press" lies with the victim (unless she "settles" for $$$). Then the "reverse" seems to predominate.
'Please. Saying the word "systemic" isn't enough.'
Enough for what? I never promised you a complete solution to these problem. Incomplete though my grasp on this material is, I am confident that blaming the victim isn't enough either.
"Which SPECIFIC systemic issue do you propose changing?"
Depends which system we're talking about: pick an industry. Even then, I might not know the answers, I'm not an expert. Personally, I have been inspired to review my assumptions about power imbalance and sexual dynamics, and reconsidering my duty to react helpfully to reports. You've mentioned the victims' "duty" to report, I've come to believe that 3rd parties have duties too.
You've mentioned the victims' "duty" to report, I've come to believe that 3rd parties have duties too.
Sorry, I don't. I went to the US Merchant Marine Academy, not West Point. There's a difference in the "oaths" we take. At USMMA, it's "A midshipman will not lie, cheat, or steal." At West Point it's "A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, OR TOLERATE THOSE WHO DO." When negative liberty transforms itself into positive liberty, you lose the "classical liberal".
You want to know "why"? Because sexual harassment, in a free society, is entirely "subjective." And one subject cannot interpose their reactions for another. "Subjective" violence is not "symbolic" or "systemic" violence. We can work together to interpret the latter forms of violence, but the former is strictly "personal".
I probably didn't use the terms above as precisely as I should have. Oh well.
...and if you mean by 3rd parties, "institutions," you are right. They already have "liabilities" of their own. They will "err" on whichever side, accuser-accused, benefits them most.
...but if your intent is to make these third parties lean towards women by imposing increasing penalties upon them for failure to maintain "safe" spaces, I'm sure they'll be happy to comply. Because they don't care about "justice". They care about "profits". And "cultural capitalism" is BIG money. Just ask "Starbucks".
You don't even have to win your lawsuit to get a pay-out if your "target" is famous enough...
A well-known women’s rights lawyer sought to arrange compensation from donors and tabloid media outlets for women who made or considered making sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump during the final months of the 2016 presidential race, according to documents and interviews. California lawyer Lisa Bloom’s efforts included offering to sell alleged victims’ stories to TV outlets in return for a commission for herself, arranging a donor to pay off one Trump accuser’s mortgage and attempting to secure a six-figure payment for another woman who ultimately declined to come forward after being offered as much as $750,000, the clients told
This is the "moral fortitude" of 3rd parties...
Normally when a publication decides to fire a reporter for cause, it does one of two things: It quietly announces their departure without stating a reason, giving the reporter some room to find another job; or, when the malfeasance may have impacted the reporting, it announces exactly why the person was fired, publishes the results of the internal investigation, and makes it clear which stories are being corrected or rescinded as a result of the reporter’s misbehavior.
The New Yorker did neither; after what appears to have been a fairly brief investigation, it announced that Lizza was a sexual abuser, but left the rest of us to guess at what sort of abuse might be involved. Lizza, meanwhile, says: “The New Yorker has decided to characterize a respectful relationship with a woman I dated as somehow inappropriate. The New Yorker was unable to cite any company policy that was violated. … This decision, which was made hastily and without a full investigation of the relevant facts, was a terrible mistake”.
Tavis Smiley of PBS reports a similar experience:
PBS launched a so-called investigation of me without ever informing me. … Only after being threatened with a lawsuit, did PBS investigators reluctantly agree to interview me for three hours.
If having a consensual relationship with a colleague years ago is the stuff that leads to this kind of public humiliation and personal destruction, heaven help us. The PBS investigators refused to review any of my personal documentation, refused to provide me the names of any accusers, refused to speak to my current staff, and refused to provide me any semblance of due process to defend myself against allegations from unknown sources. Their mind was made up. Almost immediately following the meeting, this story broke in Variety as an “exclusive.” Indeed, I learned more about these allegations reading the Variety story than the PBS investigator shared with me, the accused, in our 3 hour face to face meeting.
Now, I don’t know the truth of Smiley’s or Lizza’s cases; I don’t have enough detail to form an opinion. And yet, that in itself seems disturbing. It seems safe to say that few of these men will ever work in journalism again; there is a blacklist, and unless they can conclusively clear themselves, most of their names are on it.
Source
Jez,
Do me a favour. Stop feeding the Embarrassment-to-cash cultural capitalism complex. Find something broken, and THEN we can talk "fixes".
:)
Do me a favour and stop strawmanning me. I never was feeding that complex. I freely admit why I'm not being specific: it's because I don't know what I'm talking about. Sex, politics, entertainment, my experience with each is very limited. Very few partners, very little patience and entirely on my own terms, respectively. But I can tell something's wrong, and I know it's a fallacy to insist that everything's fine unless and until you can pinpoint the exact issue.
Perhaps. But you have to admit that parties with an agenda that lead to money "taints" this issue.
There is no "easy path" to justice. If there were "silver bullets", we'd have found them long ago.
;P
:)
;p
On making money off the "Trump groped me" express...
The products...
Ka-CHING!
Post a Comment