Even The Wolf likely can't clean up Harvey Weinstein's pending troubles

I did 40 minutes on the elliptical. I've lost 25 pounds. I'm still ugly.

And I'm giving you permission to eat the ice cream. As in, devour the shit out of it. For me.

 

Totally agree.

 

I agree, too. Like I've said, I view rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment as different things. I don't think many people are saying that a grope is the same as rape. But it's on the same spectrum, and none of it is okay. I think that might be Ellen Page's point. Just because rape is worse doesn't mean groping is okay.

 

She really needs to reign in her tl;dr'ism.

 

I don't know why some of you can't just substitute "sexual" for "physical" in the spectrum of assault.

If I had a choice between being slapped in the face and being murdered, of course I'd take the slap. That doesn't mean I want to be slapped or that it's okay for someone to do that to me. That also doesn't make the slap something other or less than physical assault. "Well, he could have really kicked the shit out of you. What would we call that then?" Assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, and so on.

This isn't complicated.

 

No way. It was perfect. Just like the Washington Post’s Roy Moore story. Give every pertinent detail. Some gloss over the details because it’s awkward and icky to ask about and write about, and your story will make an impact anyway, so why push it? That was at the core of my problems with the NYT’s Louis C.K. story. The reporters left all these material loops unclosed, but no one really cared. That’s easy to do with Louis C.K. Conservatives are going to believe the story because they don’t like him or Hollywood and liberals are going to believe it because they have been schooled not to question an accuser. But when it’s Roy Moore, for example, or Bill Clinton, you have to get it cold. I like that Page took that approach. It’s a heroic effort.

 

Solo didn’t even use the term “sexual assault.” She barely gave any details. I know what Blatter allegedly did was wrong. There is no way there was enough in the story to just casually call it “sexual assault.” Your job is to make things clear to the reader and not mislead. The headline writer failed at that. Would everyone in your Saskatchewan Writers Group read that headline and process it as, “He must be accused of doing anything from slapping her on the rump to pinning her down and raping her.” Perhaps. You roll with some enlightened motherfuckers. We all do, in fact, when we post here. But I still don’t think most readers would process it that way, and I certainly don’t think Solo volunteered enough details to go with that term. I don’t even know that she would term it a sexual assault. Maybe she would. I don’t know. But she used the word “harassment.”

 

All righty. I've made my case. I think it's a good one. I'm going to have a nap.

 

It’s well-presented and fun to engage with. It’s when you and Dr. RickStain accuse me of being a misogynist or a “creep” with “underlying issues” that I get frustrated. I know you think I’m Public Enemy No. 1 here, the “board loon.” I also receive a lot of uncalled-for personalized bullshit.

 

An awful lot of humans don’t understand the distinction between “homicide” and “murder.” Why are people trying to drum out that distinction by not mentioning it in news articles?

 

I have investigated murders in which obviously innocent men went to prison for 20-plus years because no one, from the police to the prosecutor to the jury to their own lawyers, cared to hammer away at details that could not have plausibly been true. Just a buncha bullshit.

I care about details.

 

I need an example.