|
I'm just glad that this time around I'm not living in a county that's trying to force condoms onto pornstars.  Shear Modulus posted:My city has a shitload of measures to vote on and surprisingly a couple of fun ones. One is a soda tax and I've gotten like a hundred mailers from restaurant groups telling me to vote no because it's not fair What a waste of money on the restraunts' parts. This is the USA, nobody is going to stop buying their daily Mountain Dew/Coca Cola combo big gulp because the price got bumped up by a quarter.
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
VikingofRock posted:But those wastewater injection wells are part of the fracking process and are used by the fracking companies? I'm not sure why you're being pedantic here. The oil and gas industry uses wastewater wells for more than fracking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Pohl posted:This is true, but gently caress them. They can cry and be big babies. gently caress 'em. The problem is not that people weren't having consensual sex or weren't sure if they were, it's that the law appears to classify all non-verbal consensual sex as rape.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
withak posted:The oil and gas industry uses wastewater wells for more than fracking. Also there's very very little fracing in California and a lot of injection assisted conventional wells.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
The Whole Internet posted:The problem is not that people weren't having consensual sex or weren't sure if they were, it's that the law appears to classify all non-verbal consensual sex as rape. SB 967 posted:“Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. I don't see the word "verbal" in there. Anyone who claims non-verbal consent cannot be affirmative is being disingenuous at best. This is about reticence to say no being taken as consent. If someone nods their head when someone gestures to the bedroom by jerking their head in its direction, it's still (presumably) affirmative consent. Verbal consent is just the easiest way to tell. And don't forget that assholes will can still wheedle out verbal consent that's not affirmative. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Also there's very very little fracing in California and a lot of injection assisted conventional wells. It's literally in the first paragraph of the document he linked: quote:SAN FRANCISCO— Almost 3 billion gallons of oil industry wastewater have been illegally dumped into central California aquifers that supply drinking water and farming irrigation, according to state documents obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity. The wastewater entered the aquifers through at least nine injection disposal wells used by the oil industry to dispose of waste contaminated with fracking fluids and other pollutants. Later in the article: quote:While the current extent of contamination is cause for grave concern, the long-term threat posed by the unlawful wastewater disposal may be even more devastating. Benzene, toluene and other harmful chemicals used in fracking fluid are routinely found in flowback water coming out of oil wells in California, often at levels hundreds of times higher than what is considered safe, and this flowback fluid is sent to wastewater disposal wells. Underground migration of chemicals like benzene can take years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:It's literally in the first paragraph of the document he linked: Notice how I said there was very little fracing. Not none. Just because Benzene is found in fracing fluids doesn't mean Benzene isn't found in other wells too. There are <30 wells they are investigating out of the 1,500 active wells in California. If you look at the list of wells (http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/california_fracking/pdfs/20140915_State_Board_UIC_well_list_Category_1a.pdf) you'll see the classic truism applies: never trust small operators. Notice how Chevron, Shell, etc aren't on that list. There will be ~650 fracing jobs in California in 2013 compared to the 48,000+ oil wells in California.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:Well local government's only real discretionary powers are issuing bonds, deciding which friend to award contracts to and rejiggering property regulations so someone can make a quick buck. It only makes sense that the things that get put up for referendum are petty and/or confusing zoning adjustments without justification (because they have to leave out that the real reason is to forbid any competition from opening near the mayor's brother-in-law's restaurant or whatever). Right, also local news/papers don't really exist anymore (they do, but they are terrible), so it is impossible to get the real dirt on local politics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:I don't see the word "verbal" in there. Anyone who claims non-verbal consent cannot be affirmative is being disingenuous at best. This is about reticence to say no being taken as consent. If someone nods their head when someone gestures to the bedroom by jerking their head in its direction, it's still (presumably) affirmative consent. Verbal consent is just the easiest way to tell. And don't forget that assholes will can still wheedle out verbal consent that's not affirmative. Well that's fine I guess. Since nonverbal consent is so plainly obvious to a mind-reader like yourself, I'm sure every court on earth will side with you when the prosecutor asks "did you ever directly ask your partner if they wanted sex and did they ever explicitly say yes", and you respond "well, no... but it was heavily implied by their body language. it was really obvious they meant yes, and we'd been dating for some time so I felt we knew each other pretty well". No worries. No possible way any innocent person could ever fall through the cracks there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Notice how I said there was very little fracing. Not none. Just because Benzene is found in fracing fluids doesn't mean Benzene isn't found in other wells too. Also the actual letter from the state Water Control Board doesn't mention fracking at all. Wastewater is wastewater regardless of what kind of well it came from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
The Whole Internet posted:Well that's fine I guess. Since nonverbal consent is so plainly obvious to a mind-reader like yourself, I'm sure every court on earth will side with you when the prosecutor asks "did you ever directly ask your partner if they wanted sex and did they ever explicitly say yes", and you respond "well, no... but it was heavily implied by their body language. it was really obvious they meant yes, and we'd been dating for some time so I felt we knew each other pretty well". No worries. No possible way any innocent person could ever fall through the cracks there. I don't know. It seems pretty reasonable to assume that if you aren't actually loving raping someone, you shouldn't have to worry about it. Is this really a big concern of yours?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Affirmative consent works really well because the whole "She was asking for it" line of reasoning will no longer hold up in court. If you are seriously afraid that someone might accuse you of raping them, maybe don't have sex with them? And if you can't tell the difference between consensual and non-consensual sex, maybe you shouldn't be having sex at all?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
The Whole Internet posted:Well that's fine I guess. Since nonverbal consent is so plainly obvious to a mind-reader like yourself, I'm sure every court on earth will side with you when the prosecutor asks "did you ever directly ask your partner if they wanted sex and did they ever explicitly say yes", and you respond "well, no... but it was heavily implied by their body language. it was really obvious they meant yes, and we'd been dating for some time so I felt we knew each other pretty well". No worries. No possible way any innocent person could ever fall through the cracks there. Also the bill only applies to administrative proceedings at college campuses. So in fact your what-ifs only a creepy person would worry about don't really apply here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Affirmative consent works really well because the whole "She was asking for it" line of reasoning will no longer hold up in court. If you are seriously afraid that someone might accuse you of raping them, maybe don't have sex with them? And if you can't tell the difference between consensual and non-consensual sex, maybe you shouldn't be having sex at all? Yeah seriously, what kind of people are you having sex with and under what circumstances where you suspect they might feel like they were raped the next day? Like, do you think her parents are going to charge you with rape or something? (Don't have sex with minors.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Once again, this does not redefine the law in california about what consent is. It ADVISES UNIVERSITIES HOW TO ACT WHEN COMPLAINTS ARE LODGED. The universities, when deciding if someone raped someone else during a tribunal/university hearing/whatever, have to use the yes means yes guideline. They can not use it, and then get no funding. It doesn't affect courts and criminal cases in california.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
The Whole Internet posted:Well that's fine I guess. Since nonverbal consent is so plainly obvious to a mind-reader like yourself, I'm sure every court on earth will side with you when the prosecutor asks "did you ever directly ask your partner if they wanted sex and did they ever explicitly say yes", and you respond "well, no... but it was heavily implied by their body language. it was really obvious they meant yes, and we'd been dating for some time so I felt we knew each other pretty well". No worries. No possible way any innocent person could ever fall through the cracks there. I, too, am seriously worried about false rape accusations in long-term relationships.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Sydin posted:What a waste of money on the restraunts' parts. This is the USA, nobody is going to stop buying their daily Mountain Dew/Coca Cola combo big gulp because the price got bumped up by a quarter. Really it's a waste of money on their part because this is a liberal California city, we'll pass any tax (as long as it isn't on real estate). quote:Fracking The problem is that in popular speech all processes that involve wastewater injection are called fracking when they aren't technically equivalent. Unfortunately this difference in language leads to people who want more oversight of wastewater injection getting dismissive rebuttals since they aren't speaking the industry parlance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
redreader posted:Once again, this does not redefine the law in california about what consent is. It ADVISES UNIVERSITIES HOW TO ACT WHEN COMPLAINTS ARE LODGED. The universities, when deciding if someone raped someone else during a tribunal/university hearing/whatever, have to use the yes means yes guideline. They can not use it, and then get no funding. Yeah honestly all the bill is meant to do is curb the recent trend of universities throwing out rape complaints and generally victim blaming. It's actually pretty wishy-washy as far as bills go. The Whole Internet posted:Well that's fine I guess. Since nonverbal consent is so plainly obvious to a mind-reader like yourself, I'm sure every court on earth will side with you when the prosecutor asks "did you ever directly ask your partner if they wanted sex and did they ever explicitly say yes", and you respond "well, no... but it was heavily implied by their body language. it was really obvious they meant yes, and we'd been dating for some time so I felt we knew each other pretty well". No worries. No possible way any innocent person could ever fall through the cracks there. I know that I never ask my partner if they're in the mood for sex after we've been dating for awhile, I just sense they're up for it using my expert knowledge of what they're thinking. 
Sydin fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:The problem is that in popular speech all processes that involve wastewater injection are called fracking when they aren't technically equivalent. Unfortunately this difference in language leads to people who want more oversight of wastewater injection getting dismissive rebuttals since they aren't speaking the industry parlance. Wastewater injection and fracing aren't just technically different they're vastly different. One involves creating tiny cracks through pressure the other involves disposing of wastes deep into the earth. The issue here is wastewater injection wells not fracing, especially when you consider how little fracing there is in California.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Wastewater injection and fracing aren't just technically different they're vastly different. One involves creating tiny cracks through pressure the other involves disposing of wastes deep into the earth. By "technically different" I don't mean "different by some minute detail" I actually mean "different technical things." You are right in that they have different goals but they are similar in that both of them have you putting water with stuff in it into the ground, and that act is what people want regulated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:By "technically different" I don't mean "different by some minute detail" I actually mean "different technical things." You are right in that they have different goals but they are similar in that both of them have you putting water with stuff in it into the ground, and that act is what people want regulated. But it already is regulated, hence the regulatory action against a very small number of actors who failed to site their injection wells properly. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I don't know. It seems pretty reasonable to assume that if you aren't actually loving raping someone, you shouldn't have to worry about it. Is it possible to have an objective discussion about this without resorting to the good old "well if you disagree, clearly you're a rapist" crap? I mean, I'm being rhetorical. So far that appears to be the principle argument in support of the law. You know it is possible to be a feminist, and be progressive, and still question the effectiveness of well-meaning legislation that claims to be those things but potentially isn't? redreader posted:Once again, this does not redefine the law in california about what consent is. It ADVISES UNIVERSITIES HOW TO ACT WHEN COMPLAINTS ARE LODGED. The universities, when deciding if someone raped someone else during a tribunal/university hearing/whatever, have to use the yes means yes guideline. They can not use it, and then get no funding. That is part of the issue. Courts are subject to due process. This law won't be executed in a court of law where evidence is needed, it will be interpreted and enforced by university bureaucrats who may not be as capable of nuance. This law is literally straw-feminism, rather than real feminism. It contributes to a culture of fear toward male sexuality rather than doing anything tangible about rape. The first time a student is falsely accused and gets expelled under it it will backfire heavily. It'll just give MRAs and anti-feminists a martyr, and hurt women as well as hurt real feminists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
The Whole Internet posted:Is it possible to have an objective discussion about this without resorting to the good old "well if you disagree, clearly you're a rapist" crap? I mean, I'm being rhetorical. So far that appears to be the principle argument in support of the law. You know it is possible to be a feminist, and be progressive, and still question the effectiveness of well-meaning legislation that claims to be those things but potentially isn't? People aren't saying you sound like a rapist because you disagree with them but because your what-ifs are creepy as gently caress situations that don't occur in normal relationships. The Whole Internet posted:That is part of the issue. Courts are subject to due process. This law won't be executed in a court of law where evidence is needed, it will be interpreted and enforced by university bureaucrats who may not be as capable of nuance. This law is literally straw-feminism, rather than real feminism. It contributes to a culture of fear toward male sexuality rather than doing anything tangible about rape. The first time a student is falsely accused and gets expelled under it it will backfire heavily. It'll just give MRAs and anti-feminists a martyr, and hurt women as well as hurt real feminists. Well, there is already a university administrative system that is held to different bounds, this law didn't create the system. Is your argument is that universities shouldn't be able to punish anyone for any actions they take, and that only legal action should be the acceptable response? Do you believe the same for businesses?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well, there is already a university administrative system that is held to different bounds, this law didn't create the system. Is your argument is that universities shouldn't be able to punish anyone for any actions they take, and that only legal action should be the acceptable response? Do you believe the same for businesses? State universities (which this law covers) probably should not have extrajudicial punishment -- they are an arm of the state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
The Whole Internet posted:That is part of the issue. Courts are subject to due process. This law won't be executed in a court of law where evidence is needed, it will be interpreted and enforced by university bureaucrats who may not be as capable of nuance. This law is literally straw-feminism, rather than real feminism. It contributes to a culture of fear toward male sexuality rather than doing anything tangible about rape. The first time a student is falsely accused and gets expelled under it it will backfire heavily. It'll just give MRAs and anti-feminists a martyr, and hurt women as well as hurt real feminists. Yo if I had some sex I thought at the time was consensual my argument for thinking that would be a hell of a lot better than "She didn't say no" full stop, but I'd love to hear how ~*you*~ would approach that particular problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:People aren't saying you sound like a rapist because you disagree with them but because your what-ifs are creepy as gently caress situations that don't occur in normal relationships. A business can fire you. A public university system that you have already spent tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars on tuition to attend can ensure you will likely never have access to a university degree, consigning you to perhaps a decade or two of poverty as you try to pay off loans without the benefit of the degree you thought you'd have to get into a career you thought you'd have access to. Nobody should take college campus rape or sexual assault lightly (it is big problem) and nobody should take other offenses that can get you expelled lightly. However, college hearings are basically kangaroo courts run by petty bureaucrats engaging in cargo cult law. I have never been involved or known someone involved in a rape hearing, but I did know a guy who was accused of something completely bullshit and then run out of his college on a rail because the person making the accusations had good connections among administrative staff and he did not have access (could not afford) legal representation or any kind of a fair hearing, and he had previously been an annoyance to university staff due to his participation in student protest activity. I don't actually give a poo poo what standards the CA university systems use to define rape, but I do care that it is a red herring distracting from the terrible systems currently used by colleges and universities all over the country to routinely deny access to higher education to disadvantaged students who are accused of basically anything that the university would rather just not deal with or put any real effort into investigating. I think at the very least when a student is accused of something that is an actual crime, they should face actual legal action in an actual court and if they are acquitted or the charges are dropped by that actual court, the university should not be able to summarily expel them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I don't actually give a poo poo what standards the CA university systems use to define rape, but I do care that it is a red herring distracting from the terrible systems currently used by colleges and universities all over the country to routinely deny access to higher education to disadvantaged students who are accused of basically anything that the university would rather just not deal with or put any real effort into investigating. Yep. Basically it's just like how HR departments behave in most disputes: they prefer to just fire the trouble-causing employee(s) rather than field any sort of serious investigation into the root cause of the dispute.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I think at the very least when a student is accused of something that is an actual crime, they should face actual legal action in an actual court and if they are acquitted or the charges are dropped by that actual court, the university should not be able to summarily expel them. Do you likewise think that if a rape victim is unable to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it was rape, that they should have no recourse to prevent their attacker from being in the same classes as them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Nobody should take college campus rape or sexual assault lightly (it is big problem) and nobody should take other offenses that can get you expelled lightly. According to the following article by the Economist, http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21621819-californias-new-standard-consent-future-america-yes-means-yes-says-mr, rape and sexual assault rates are pretty much the same for 18-24 year old women who attend and who don't attend college. This seems to be at odds with the often-told narrative of college campuses being hotbeds for rape and sexual assault.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
It feeds into the "colleges are decadent hives" narrative, coupled with more educated/empowered women being more willing to talk about their experiences. It's got legs for both the left and right, so it becomes a thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Working through my backlog of the Forum episodes on election issues I've found that the Republican Insurance Commissioner appears to have a plethora of good ideas, like "The free market always works" and "Look at what Uner has done to transform the taxi industry worldwide... But what caught Uber up? Regulations caught Uber up!" EDIT: And "Tell me where governments have saved money for anyone." ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you likewise think that if a rape victim is unable to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it was rape, that they should have no recourse to prevent their attacker from being in the same classes as them? Yes? I mean, the alleged rape/assault victim likely has the option of dropping that particular class, taking it a different semester or something, and also can pursue a restraining order if he or she feels the need. Being the victim of a crime that could not be successfully prosecuted in court really sucks, and I have a lot of sympathy for people in that situation. They deserve support. But in our society if you are acquitted of a crime (or the legal system determines there is insufficient evidence to even pursue a case) you are not supposed to be punished anyway. It is sad that often in cases of sexual assault and rape there is not enough evidence to convict someone, but from a policy writing standpoint, attempting to differentiate between innocent people who were acquitted and guilty people who were acquitted is fraught with peril. The university administrative structure has a monopoly of power over students, and thus, has an added responsibility to be especially careful when wielding that power. People who were raped shouldn't have to be confronted with their rapist in their daily lives. But also, people who were innocent of a crime shouldn't be punished for that crime anyway. And in America, at least theoretically, we are (supposed to be) more concerned about protecting people from unjust punishment than punishing people who might be guilty but we can't really prove it. It's that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. I do not want to, and I hope we do not, see this discussion morph into one of those terrible arguments about whether or how often people are falsely accused of rape. I hope that we can all agree that unpunished rape/sexual assault is far more frequent and a bigger problem generally, than false accusation. I am focuses mostly on the practice of extrajudicial mock trials that take place at colleges and universities in general, and how grossly unfair they seem to me to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Joementum was the one who first posted this, but oh Kashkari, you out of touch wannabe-populist, you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:According to the following article by the Economist, http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21621819-californias-new-standard-consent-future-america-yes-means-yes-says-mr, rape and sexual assault rates are pretty much the same for 18-24 year old women who attend and who don't attend college. This seems to be at odds with the often-told narrative of college campuses being hotbeds for rape and sexual assault. I would bet the numbers would look very different if you compare the Greek systems with the rest of the university, however.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
In any event it's not even the issue: the problem isn't that more rapes/sexual assaults are being committed at colleges per say. It's that the ones that are go through the University's disciplinary system instead of the police, and many of them are sweeping it under the rug or at worst giving the offender a slap on the wrist. That's what the legislation is aimed at - telling universities that they need to take a hard line against sexual assault and stop trying to shift the blame to the victim.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
California will burn. That once fertile land will dry and dust will blow. Just as the land dries up, the the culture and civilizational spring of California's cities will dry up as well. Campus rape and fracking will seem like quaint problems of the past as fire and horrible droughts turns the state into a barren wasteland. There is no joke here. No jab at any posters. Just a grim reminder of what some of you will see in your lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
So stock up on gasoline and assless chaps. Spiked shoulder-pads optional.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:So stock up on gasoline and assless chaps. Don't forget grass. No one rides for free.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:California will burn. That once fertile land will dry and dust will blow. Just as the land dries up, the the culture and civilizational spring of California's cities will dry up as well. Campus rape and fracking will seem like quaint problems of the past as fire and horrible droughts turns the state into a barren wasteland. There is no joke here. No jab at any posters. Just a grim reminder of what some of you will see in your lifetime. Some researchers ran models predicting what would happen to California if the drought continued and the results were that it'd be bad of course but it wouldn't turn California into a wasteland or anything. I don't know anything about their models they ran, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:So stock up on gasoline and assless chaps. Spiked shoulder-pads optional. So, become a Raiders fan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:02
|
|
