The problem is that if people do not resist, do not be 'that guy' who goes through the humiliation, then it will never be fixed. This is nothing new; what is new is that we can see it now. In fact, now more than ever is the time to be disobedient.

Of course, this is within reason. If you are a non-white person and there is ANY chance that they could claim you had a weapon, it might be wiser to just not resist once they start screaming and reach for weapons. But then again, as I previously mentioned, that isn't a guarantee.

http://videosift.com/video/Unarmed-Man-Laying-On-Ground-With-Hands-in-Air-Shot

I agree with just about everything you said. Except...

This isn't a perfect world. You described this imperfect world. This guy should wait until all the corrections are made? Or does it make more sense to seethe silently and await for the humiliation to end NOW?

The situation with police departments getting training (and support for mentally ill people BEFORE they flip out) does need to be fixed.

Until it is, play meek. Unless you want to be arrested. Hit in the eye. Humiliated on your front lawn. What do you gain from fighting a losing battle IN THIS MOMENT?

What pissed me off about the Harvey screwup wasn't so much the screwup itself, but rather subjecting the runner up to the humiliation of having the crown "ripped" off her head.

The classy way of doing it would be during a commercial break, or off-stage. Let her compose herself, or run off screaming, or whatever she wanted to do, out of the public eye.

I couldn't find out, but I am assuming she possibly had on the pants and was trying to shoplift them. Alternatively, they might have lied and claimed she was a suicide risk so they could take them and humiliate her. Either way, they could have given her a pair for court instead of marching her up there in panties.

I can't imagine what that would be like. To be a US Senator---and have the adrenaline and fear and humiliation 7 times a year. I've been pulled over twice, and never addressed/accosted on foot by police for traffic issues in the last past 16 years. Each time, adrenaline, fear, anxiety...once I was speeding; once, he finally recognized that he'd pulled over the wrong blue vehicle (was looking for another one)...I can remember each in detail.

7 times in one year. As a Senator. I don't really think I can comprehend.

I had to stop watching. Yeah. Nothing to do with feminism.

As for saying that if you hit someone once, that person has the right to beat you senseless?

No. No, that is not true.

I know that men do that to men. And it is wrong when they do it to each other. That is very definition of poor impulse control. (And to sneak into feminist territory -- men who say "she made me do it" as an excuse for beating up their significant others? I suspect that behavior can be traced back, in part, to the beat downs and humiliations they received early in life, including from men.)

This is called the cycle of violence and has nothing to do with the true face of gender equality.

“What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.

Tony Benn said that. If the only choice I have is to leave now or never again, then I opt to leave a non- (possibly anti-) democratic system.

I'd stay for the protection it gives us from the Tories, but then I'd be making a lifetime choice based on a 4 year (or less!) problem. I'd stay for "togetherness" but that is just a nice word to describe a bunch of people that intentionally humiliated Greece for the sake of flexing muscle, dooming them to non-recovery for a pound of flesh.

@ChaosEngine.

Yeah. I know. Your last sentence says it all -- he didn't achieve near as much as was hoped for. Hence your disappointment.

From my perspective, I never believed he could do all that was hoped. Because this isn't a dictatorship (thank god, maybe we can survive Trump.) It was clear to me from the beginning that is wasn't possible.

So I wasn't disappointed. I was glad for all that he did manage to get through.

And that is what makes him consequential.

I have my list of things I am pissed at him about for doing -- including the murdering of brown people, including bin Laden. (And I'm pissed at most of the people in this country for cheering state sponsored targeted assassination and ignoring the huge collateral damage of that day and the days that followed.)

History isn't going to judge him on what he promised and couldn't get done. History will judge him on what he actually did. Half-assed heathcare is half an ass more than was managed in over a hundred years. LGBT people aren't disappointed.

And being the first black president -- he'll be in the history books for being that particular breed of person -- the minority who is 10 times better than the ruling majority, who swallows the indignities of prejudice with grace and determination, who rises above the humiliations to become The First. Think Jackie Robinson -- that is what we remember about him, that is the story that has survived. (The recent PBS doc taught me a fuller picture of who he actually was after he survived those brutal first two years in the majors.) That is the story we crave.

He's consequential, all right. Not perfect. Consequential.

Aaaaand -- The Clash with their hit song "Know Your Rights":

This is a public service announcement
With guitar
Know your rights all three of them

Number 1
You have the right not to be killed
Murder is a CRIME!
Unless it was done by a
Policeman or aristocrat
Know your rights

And Number 2
You have the right to food money
Providing of course you
Don't mind a little
Investigation, humiliation
And if you cross your fingers
Rehabilitation

Know your rights
These are your rights
Wang

Know these rights

Number 3
You have the right to free
Speech as long as you're not
Dumb enough to actually try it.

Know your rights
These are your rights
All three of 'em
It has been suggested
In some quarters that this is not enough!
Well

Get off the streets
Get off the streets
Run
You don't have a home to go to
Smush

Finally then I will read you your rights

You have the right to remain silent
You are warned that anything you say
Can and will be taken down
And used as evidence against you

Listen to this
Run

*quality kitty humiliation caught on video *kids might get a kick outta this

It's a difficult thing to really justify or demonize because sex is a head game, a dance but also a match of submissiveness versus dominance; it can become violent and abusive through the ebb and flow of permission and denial. One moment I'm smacking her ass during sex, after a year of smacking her ass, she needs to be spanked before sex even begins, and now 10 years later there's whips and clamps and shackles. It all started with a mildly amusing smack to the ass that over time became a mutual fetish.

All of that extreme abuse porn is a matter of course, just like the secret fetish in a relationship starts with something innocent then leads to something semi-professional. This is the end result of a fetish that started with Deep Throat in the '70s opening the world to oral sex. Now it's facial abuse. She doesn't need a deep throat, now she just needs to undergo a hazing.

Will regulation change an industry piloted entirely by desire and sex starved user demand? Or would the culture simply evolve around the regulations?

Japan blurs out genitals, so what happens? The culture evolves around the restrictions and now we have a thriving bukkake subgenre. You want cum in eyes? Niche. Cum in hair? Niche. Cum on teeth? For real though, the focus is on teeth. We don't even need genitals now! Just pick a spot on the body and then ejaculate in mass! What a phenomenon.

Niches form and when they trend, that's when you end up with a popular site like facial abuse.

But hazing porn exists in the reverse and is also quite popular. Pegging? Come on, where's my face sitting fans? Hey now, there's also a lesbian variety of big assed Brazilian women who abuse skinny blond girls. I don't know what they're saying, but clearly it means something along the lines of dig that white caucausian nose further up my brown latin pussy. One woman is empowered, the other not so much, but she likes it, so... empowered? But who watches it? Men? Surely not women. Well, I know several women who watch the shit out of lesbian domination porn.

I had the absolute pleasure to sit with some really open lesbians and watch lesbian domination porn where the women wrestle each other, and the winner gets to fuck the loser in humiliating and abusive ways. I mean... the topic of empowerment is tough here. If you do porn just own it. Damn. Come on, it's just sex. People just like giving each other a hard time and they're always worrying about the next generation, even though they know humans are all dirty, filthy, sex craved fiends.

I think the most abusive porn I've watched (was sort of forced to watch) was a man having his penis hit with a hammer by a very mean woman. He liked having his penis hit with a hammer for some odd reason.

Very. Even radio messages were intercepted that made that clear. The USA chose to ignore those, play them down.
Truman had his agenda with the Soviets. What does Russia has to do with Japan? Pretty simple actually. After Germany was defeated Russia was advancing very quickly towards Japan, and Truman didnt want them in Japan. Truman hated Stalin with a passion and used every opportunity to humiliate him or show Americas strength to him. One particular event was very telling, after he announced the nuclear bombs to Stalin and expected respect, fear and acknowledgement from Stalin but instead got indifference and burst in rage about Stalins reaction. Even Churchill noticed how much Truman changed after he got the bomb. He seemed like an insecure boy who suddenly got the power of a superhero. A very dangerous combination and it proved to be fatal for at least the Japanese and was pretty much the sole reason for the cold war.
Japan was bombed not only once but twice, even though the USA knew they would surrender soon, not because of them fearing more human loss on their side, but because they feared Russia would be able to reach Japan if they waited longer.

Looks like a bit of a wedgie there too ... the ultimate humiliation!

Look @00Scud00, Lewinski's talk is about shame and cybermobbing. She experienced the latter because of her actions and as a result, when she talks about online -abuse, she views it through the prism of her own lifestory, one that is about shame. It is similar to Tyler Clementi, whom she talked about.
However, at the end of the day, her talk is about cyberbullying, online abuse and mob-behaviour.
What connects her and Sarkeesian is cyberbullying and misogyny. They both expierenced that without a doubt.
The big difference is, Lewinsky did something wrong, she enganged in adultery. It may be excusable because she was young and in a relationship with very uneven powerdynamics, it may be understandable because people do fall in love and cheat but it was wrong. The problem is that a matter that should concern only a handful of people became a media event because of the politics involved. That lead to slutshaming and embarrassing her not just online but by all media.
Her case is special because she was the first person to get such an response online and that is what she focuses on in her talk. It's not just about the media (be it print or TV), it's especially about the internet. That is why Clementi is in part so important to her.
Sarkeesian on the other side didn't do something wrong. She started to talk publically about the way the media, especially games, treat and view women from a (sane IMO) feministic point of view.
The end result is disastrous. She experienced a backlash that was not only the highest degree of misogyny, it was also a prime example of a group of people online lashing out at somebody. Cyberbullying and online abuse at its worst.
There is the connection between the two. Sarkeesian wasn't slutshamed, she just got called 'slut' and 'whore'. She didn't have private, sexual details of her life revealed online, it was just her adress and getting rape-threats.
The connection between the two women is online abuse.

Actually, Sarkeesian got it worse. She just did a job but Lewinsky sucked off a married man. Monica didn't deserve what she got, that level of humiliation and hatred. She made a stupid mistake, she made a human mistake. The price she paid was unbearably, unfairly high. I'm sorry for her.
Anita just talked about a topic she felt strongly about. People online threatened her with bodily harm. That's worse.

@dag mentioned Justine Sacco. Her case is completely different from those other two women. Somehow, Monica Lewinsky still talked about her. That's why her TED Talk is so good, she talks about a problem that exists mainly in the online world nowadays.
Cyberbullying. Mobmentality. Onlineabuse.

Ah, this is totally in keeping with current theories. You're supposed to commend them for working hard to achieve goals (stressing the "you did good by working hard to achieve that, and you got the result you wanted" angle). Hard work is therefore more important than the actual achievement. When I was a kid, it was the "you're smart and you can do whatever you want if you put your mind to it" angle. I guess I turned out okay, but what that really says is "if you didn't succeed, it must be because you weren't good enough or smart enough" or even worse, the vaguer concept of "not having properly your mind to it" as though to get something done, all you need to do is *really* decide to do it. Looking back at my life through that filter, I can see that in lots of scenarios where I didn't live up to my potential it was because I was stuck in a deadlock situation because this notion of the requirement to fully commit myself to a thing in order to do it, which just made me anxious and avoid challenges.

I don't have any kids yet, but I'd go with the style in this video over the own style I was subjected to (with the best of intentions). Of course, by the time I have kids the paradigm will probably have changed again and we'll probably be back to whuppings and public humiliation or something.

Well, that was a good personal psychological session for today in response to an old video. I feel so much better. Where's my valium?