POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[TristanLuigi]

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

dogs don't get consent before humping peoples' legs
i vote we prosecute all the dogs

[Ad Bot]

[PhantOS]

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

not preventing something from happening is synonymous with allowing it to happen. there's no neutral ground between consent and non consent- they are absolutes.

Obviously this is complex, and situations that make you unable to prevent or allow something don't count as real consent. But it's implied that the decision was made by a rational functional adult

[Nonnel]

it's generally pretty obvious whether they're into it or not

[PhantOS]

Wanting and allowing are different things. The law doesn't care what you wanted, it cares if you consented. You could say yes and really mean no inside, but all that matters is that you allowed it to happen. if you don't want it then it's your responsibility to communicate that so the other party understands

[TristanLuigi]

not preventing something from happening is synonymous with allowing it to happen. there's no neutral ground between consent and non consent- they are absolutes.

again, allowing it to happen is different from wanting something
back to the previous example of a mugging, i would allow them to take my wallet, because i was pressured into it; that doesn't mean i want them to take it

similarly, in a loveual harassment/assault case, someone could feel pressured into allowing something to happen (due to overt threats, social pressure, a difference in authority, not seeing resistance as viable, et cetera) without wanting it to happen.

Wanting and allowing are different things. The law doesn't care what you wanted, it cares if you consented. You could say yes and really mean no inside, but all that matters is that you allowed it to happen. if you don't want it then it's your responsibility to communicate that so the other party understands

Exactly. Consent is not based around the idea of allowing something to happen. It is based around the idea that two (or more, I don't judge) people are agreeing to do something they both want to do. Obviously, in the absence of coercion or threats, you can't go back and say "well I said yes but I didn't really want it," since the initiator could have been reasonably sure that the other person was being authentic.

Also, something I haven't mentioned yet is the fact that groping somebody (as Annoying Orange admitted to doing) generally occurs in just a second or two. That's not necessarily enough time to react and stop something from happening, and social pressure could prevent people from making a fuss afterwards.

[PhantOS]

Want shouldn't be used. Prostitutes probably don't want to forget really ugly guys but they consent anyways so they get paid. Also those examples of coercion and pressure don't count as consent, but it's not obvious anywhere that Annoying Orange threatened or coerced anyone

[IkeTheGeneric]

plot twist: he was referring to petting a cat when he said pusillanimous individual

[Rally]

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

Damn, he took her furniture shopping without her consent. What a loving nightmare

[TristanLuigi]

Want shouldn't be used.

Okay, there's no simple word to convey the idea, and "want" is an approximation. Consent is the idea that people are agreeing, in good faith and without coercion, to do something. Allowing something to happen is not that.

Prostitutes probably don't want to forget really ugly guys but they consent anyways so they get paid.

Prostitution is also illegal in most of the US, so this isn't a particularly bulletproof defense.

Also those examples of coercion and pressure don't count as consent, but it's not obvious anywhere that Annoying Orange threatened or coerced anyone

Perhaps not, but it's also not obvious that he obtained consent, and there's not much of a reason to assume that he did. Even if he weren't a figure of some authority, I would be suspicious about wording like "letting it happen"; but he explicitly prefaced his remarks with "when you're a star ...", so he clearly knows that these incidents were only allowed due to his fame/power. It's not necessarily a direct threat, but there certainly was a level of pressure on those women.

[Rally]

All this arguing about whether or not "they let you do it" means "they let me do it but they secretly didn't want it and I could tell because I'm telepathic but I did it anyway because I want liberals a billion years from now to use this audio log against me" or if it means "they let you do it"

[Nonnel]

Want shouldn't be used. Prostitutes probably don't want to forget really ugly guys but they consent anyways so they get paid. Also those examples of coercion and pressure don't count as consent, but it's not obvious anywhere that Annoying Orange threatened or coerced anyone

well uh

[Red Spy]

tfw your hair gets forgeted up and you end up raping your wife

[TristanLuigi]

well uh

Huh, I hadn't heard of this. Certainly does not inspire confidence (but then, so have few other things Annoying Orange has done).

[Red Spy]

on a serious note didn't ivana herself say that story was bullstuff

[TristanLuigi]

on a serious note didn't ivana herself say that story was bullstuff

Hurt said that the incident, which is detailed in Ivana’s deposition, was confirmed by two of her friends.
In it, she confirmed that she had said in a deposition that her husband had “raped” her, but added that she did not want those words to be interpreted in “a literal or criminal sense.” She also said, “As a woman, I felt violated.”
When the rape story resurfaced last summer, Ivana issued a statement saying that it was “without merit.” “She and Donald have raised three kids together. They’re picking their bedrooms in the White House,” Hurt said. “But she’s not saying it’s untrue, or that she didn’t swear to it under oath.”