If you haven't read it, Gessen's NYer article on the moral panic is just fantastic (would love for you to chat with her on the podcast too) -https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/when-does-a-watershed-become-a-sex-panic …
-
-
-
That was great, thanks. Will also try to get
@mashagessen on the podcast. -
You're welcome! A very concise summation of the current climate, I thought. And that would be fantastic; she's something of a hero, these days. Look forward to seeing you in Boston in Jan. Keep up the great work
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Excited to hear you two talk. I disagree with her whenever she is on
@RealTimers.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes. Responses to your prior post are morbidly depressing. Get her on the show, cut some dead weight from your audience. Love your work, FYI.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
All these things can be true at once.
@rtraister is obvious awesome, would *love* to listen to this interviewThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yeah, looks like a few people missed 1-2...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Nuance is dead Sam
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Haven’t read the piece but here’s my take. We are hastily purging anyone accused of misconduct from polite society as a way of collectively absolving ourselves of complicity and because we subconsciously fear that we are not that far removed from “offending” ourselves
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Read through it once and I have a bunch of criticisms. Mainly, I find the framing egregious, and I am surprised you do not find it the same. Also, @rtaister asserts demonstrable falsehoods in the article as though they are true. Would still like to see your discussion, though.
-
Ex 1: "They once cheated with a colleague; they once made a pass they suspect was wrong; they aren’t sure if they got consent that one time. " These are not comparable. 1st is dishonesty to a SO 2nd is just inappropriate behavior (free speech?) 3rd is sexual assault/rape
-
Ex 2: "it doesn’t sound bad, but in fact I don’t know: Maybe it was bad or maybe it was human and they really liked each other." What was done in that example fits all ethical standards for that behavior. He rejected her for unrelated reasons then made a polite invitation.
-
Ex 3: " I’m half-frustrated by men who can’t differentiate between harmless flirtation and harassment" In the previous paragraph (ex 2)
@rtraister said she could not tell the difference between a harmless invitation to a puppet show and harassment. I mean that literally. -
Ex 4: "an anonymously compiled Google document of unattributed and varied claims about some 78 men in our business" Do you support this,
@rtraister? Taking unverified, unaccountable accusations and distributing the names of men on what amounts to a hit list. It will be abused. -
Ex 5: "Lots of us are on some level as incensed about the guy who looked down our shirt at a company retreat as we are about Weinstein..." You know where this leads, don't you? Nottingham shire already made it a criminal offense to look at a woman.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya3ssMJPRJo&feature=youtu.be&t=1m36s …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@TheCut Good.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The internet really needs a lesson in 'nuance' - the meaning and application.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.