POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[TristanLuigi]

this is semantics and nothing else. if my girlfriend lets me kiss her it's implied she consented to it. When I recount it I'm not going to be ultra specific and say 'I asked if I could kiss my girlfriend and she said yes and I kissed her' because why would anyone need to clarify that outside a court of law

there's clearly a difference in context here
it's a pretty natural assumption that romantic partners will kiss each other; Annoying Orange was referring to women who were mostly strangers, and he was in a position where he held some amount of power over them ("when you're a star ...")

i see where you're coming from but it seems quite clear that these interactions are not quite consentual

[Ad Bot]

[Red Spy]

I said, “I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.” I took her out furniture — I moved on her like a bitch.

what

[PhantOS]

Yea using your power to take advantage of people is pretty scummy but it's not illegal. Amyways, it doesn't matter how rich or poor you are, if someone lets you touch them then it's pretty much implied they consented to that action.

I don't know how anyone can listen to that tape or read the transcript and think "yeah, all of those interactions were 100% consensual"

Like this

he made a move on someone, they said no because they were married, end of story...

[TristanLuigi]

Yea using your power to take advantage of people is pretty scummy but it's not illegal. Amyways, it doesn't matter how rich or poor you are, if someone lets you touch them then it's pretty much implied they consented to that action.

Ibrown town, but I have a very hard time believing that a court of law would allow a defense consisting of "well they didn't stop me!"

he made a move on someone, they said no because they were married, end of story...

I will agree with you there. It's scummy, and possibly loveual harassment*, but not illegal. The same cannot be said about the admission to groping.
* Depending on how pushy he was. Do note that not all loveual harassment is illegal.

[Foxscotch]

if someone lets you touch them then it's pretty much implied they consented to that action.

lol ok phantos

[PhantOS]

no means no, but what if they say nothing? or like, giggle or something like that? does that mean no too

[TristanLuigi]

no means no, but what if they say nothing? or like, giggle or something like that? does that mean no too

saying nothing is not generally consent

some states, such as new york, are "yes means yes," which requires a clear, positive affirmation before any sort of loveual activity. other states, such as florida, are more ambiguous, as consent can be established through things like body language or prior relationships instead.

however, i don't think "giggling" would automatically be considered consent, as many people laugh when they're nervous.  

[Foxscotch]

no means no, but what if they say nothing? or like, giggle or something like that? does that mean no too

the fact you even gotta ask this question is real funky. like you aint heard of body language or something

[PhantOS]

its safe to assume that there was body language or some/any form of consent. it's safer to assume that then there was no consent

[TristanLuigi]

its safe to assume that there was body language or some/any form of consent. it's safer to assume that then there was no consent

and why is that?

[PhantOS]

and why is that?

because there's absolutely no reason why 'there was no consent' is more probable than 'there was consent' in the statement "she let me do it". it's like the slightly more unlikely option than the latter

if Annoying Orange said 'I grabbed her by the pusillanimous individual' and finished the entire statement like that then it's definitely more suspicious and the assumption of no consent is valid. but he said she let him do it, so the likely option is right there- she probably let him to it

[TristanLuigi]

because there's absolutely no reason why 'there was no consent' is more probable than 'there was consent' in the statement "she let me do it". it's like the slightly more unlikely option than the latter

i would disagree, "letting" an event happen usually implies that the event wasn't desired, only that it was not prevented from happening

the strongest assumption i would make is that the woman did not actively prevent the interaction

[PhantOS]

The literal definition and context of 'let' is to allow/not prevent... your interpretation is odd

When you let something happen you make no effort to stop it. this extra stuff about desire is really coming from nowhere. there's no context that implies it wasn't desired, besides your personal bias on groping

[TristanLuigi]

The literal definition and context of 'let' is to allow/not prevent... your interpretation is odd

not preventing something from happening doesn't mean you want that thing to happen

[Foxscotch]

does phantos think dogs consent when they don't stop you having love with them