College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014) • Hacker News Board

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#221

Post by thaumasiotes » Wed, Apr 27, 2016, 1:22 AM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #192

thaumasiotes wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are some highlights from that article of KC Johnson's (from http://www.mindingthecampus.com/2014/06/if-she-had-drinks-yo... -- your call as to how mainstream Minding the Campus is): > Broadening what constitutes sexual assault by redefining consent has been a principal goal of “activists”—who have worked with sympathetic faculty and (increasingly) the OCR. The McLeod case at Duke is a particular obvious example…

I think we both know that's neither a mainstream, nor a neutral source, and it's not presenting it's argument fairly. It puts scare quotes around "activitists" for goodness sake. That doesn't even make sense. I don't see anything particularly shocking in your quotes, yet it's all written as if I should. For example, a "yes" from a sufficiently drunk person, may not count as consent, even if they're not literally unco…

When the school's formal policy is deliberately vague, and their orientation materials explicitly state that one drink precludes consent (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11570978 ; https://www.thefire.org/university-training-programs-can-mis... ), what conclusion do you think is justified about their policy?

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#222

Post by Dr_tldr » Wed, Apr 27, 2016, 2:24 AM UTC

deciplex wrote: post #129

Dr_tldr wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask anyone sufficiently conservative/radical feminist which groups of people they think are "probably rapists", and you get the same results as baseless discrimination but through a different explanation. People tend to think "probably" a lot more often with a lot less evidence about individuals or groups they dislike for any reason. For instance, I think you're probably a crypto-nazi and should lose your job, but th…

Good thing we're not talking about what some random person on the internet thinks, but rather a conclusion the university arrives at after a rigorous and hopefully well-defined process which still comes short of the burden of proof required for a criminal conviction.

Rigorous? Citation needed, since a great deal of evidence points to the opposite--that these are politically motivated kangaroo courts with decisions being made by a single individual with no appeals process and no oversight.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#223

Post by Steuard » Wed, Apr 27, 2016, 2:42 AM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #215

Steuard wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for answering: I appreciate it. I'll admit that that notion is pretty foreign to me: "unenthusiastic" is pretty antithetical to "awesome" in my book (not just when it comes to sex). But setting aside the "awesome" label, I can definitely see a place for occasional unenthusiastic (but fondly willing?) sex in a long-term relationship. And I'm willing to grant that some folks might be turned on by "hateful" sex (…

[deleted]

As noted, angry sex isn't my thing, but hey, everybody's got their own kink. I wasn't trying to advocate banning it at all! But I would think that it really ought to fall under the heading of "needs a safeword". Otherwise, I feel like it would have an unacceptably high likelihood of misunderstanding leading to rape.

If there's nothing resembling affirmative consent during the encounter itself and there's not a careful conversation about boundaries (including a safe word or something comparable) beforehand, what is the mechanism by which the people involved can feel confident that their partner is in fact consenting?

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#224

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 27, 2016, 4:59 AM UTC

Steuard wrote: post #223

[deleted] wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

As noted, angry sex isn't my thing, but hey, everybody's got their own kink. I wasn't trying to advocate banning it at all! But I would think that it really ought to fall under the heading of "needs a safeword". Otherwise, I feel like it would have an unacceptably high likelihood of misunderstanding leading to rape. If there's nothing resembling affirmative consent during the encounter itself and there's not a carefu…

[deleted]

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#225

Post by ZeroGravitas » Wed, Apr 27, 2016, 10:01 AM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #221

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we both know that's neither a mainstream, nor a neutral source, and it's not presenting it's argument fairly. It puts scare quotes around "activitists" for goodness sake. That doesn't even make sense. I don't see anything particularly shocking in your quotes, yet it's all written as if I should. For example, a "yes" from a sufficiently drunk person, may not count as consent, even if they're not literally unco…

When the school's formal policy is deliberately vague, and their orientation materials explicitly state that one drink precludes consent (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11570978 ; https://www.thefire.org/university-training-programs-can-mis... ), what conclusion do you think is justified about their policy?

I asked you to back up your 1 drink = drunk = rape claim, something you said was an explicit policy of many institutions, and you keep linking to stuff that clearly does not say that, and instead plays lawyer with the semantics of "intoxication" and "incapacitated" and interprets everything in the worst possible way. (Despite what your sources try to claim, "incapacitated" does not necessarily imply unconscious, either in standard speech or many of the legal definitions they quote. Why they are so keen for that to be the case geniunely worries me.)

The best evidence we have so far to support your case is an HN comment! From something someone said in an induction seminar, but of which there is no official public trace.

Maybe the person running that seminar googled for some info on the topic and found the BS that you and your sources keep repeating and didn't realise that it was political propaganda (and really, why would anyone assume that people would go around falsely claiming things about rape policies?).

If you wanted to have an honest conversation about how vague policies are a problem, then start with something like "phrases like intoxication should be clearly defined in campus policies" (though of course in the real world, there is no bright-line test for exactly when people move from sober to tipsy to drunk to intoxicated to incapacitated, but perhaps extra explanations may help those that are confused). I believe that the government's Title IX guidance actually says this is good practice, so you're in good company. Then you won't have to run around trying to justify your exaggerations. Claiming that policies explictly say 1 drink is the limit, is the opposite of vague, it's very precise, albiet fictional because none of the policies say that.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#226

Post by deciplex » Thu, Apr 28, 2016, 2:27 AM UTC

Dr_tldr wrote: post #222

deciplex wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good thing we're not talking about what some random person on the internet thinks, but rather a conclusion the university arrives at after a rigorous and hopefully well-defined process which still comes short of the burden of proof required for a criminal conviction.

Rigorous? Citation needed, since a great deal of evidence points to the opposite--that these are politically motivated kangaroo courts with decisions being made by a single individual with no appeals process and no oversight.

At this point I don't know what to tell you other than to re-read my post. I am clearly talking "ought" there, and not "is". This should be especially obvious considering I allocated a paragraph in my OP to explain that I think the tribunals currently are not doing good work, not to mention another paragraph to claim that the consequences of their findings are too high.

It seems like you're reading just enough of what I write to type up an indignant reply, but no more than that. "Dr_tldr", indeed.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#227

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 28, 2016, 3:44 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #154

FreeInternet wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, we must do our research and not form quick judgements. No excuse to not read all the article. If you don't have time to learn, please save time by not speaking.

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines.

[deleted]

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#228

Post by Dr_tldr » Thu, Apr 28, 2016, 6:52 AM UTC

deciplex wrote: post #226

Dr_tldr wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rigorous? Citation needed, since a great deal of evidence points to the opposite--that these are politically motivated kangaroo courts with decisions being made by a single individual with no appeals process and no oversight.

At this point I don't know what to tell you other than to re-read my post. I am clearly talking "ought" there, and not "is". This should be especially obvious considering I allocated a paragraph in my OP to explain that I think the tribunals currently are not doing good work, not to mention another paragraph to claim that the consequences of their findings are too high. It seems like you're reading just enough of wha…

yes, clearly swimming seamlessly between what you think should exist and what actually exists and then only distinguishing between the two when you're called out is both clear communication and rhetorically effective.

Especially on the internet, where everyone has full context of your life and personal views, can see your face, listen to your intonation, and hear the comment out loud in your voice, as it was intended.

Oh wait...

It's not like leaving incoherent posts on HN is a war crime, but it makes the site less good when you do that. So maybe you shouldn't do that.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#229

Post by chris_wot » Fri, Apr 29, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

arkades wrote: post #177

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I'd love to take your word on this, for me this still falls into the "they banned Christmas because of the Muslims" category of made up propaganda intended to enrage the more credulous (see the other reply for a demonstration of this). I asked for evidence on this once before on HN, and they came up with two links. Both referred to the exact same case. And that case involved two people so drunk that neithe…

I can only offer myself up as an anecdote, but: I was at grad school at Boston University in the very, very recent past and was lectured on the fact(?) that even a single alcoholic beverage precludes consent during their mandatory Title 9 intro. I can't find any thing regarding their sexual assault policies (other than "we do not allow or condone sexual assault") on their website, though.

You were advised badly then. Imagine, if you will, that the other party drank a Tourtell beer. That's hardly going to do anything, the beer has 0.4% ABV!