[ZeroGravitas]

I think we both know that's neither a mainstream, nor a neutral source, and it's not presenting it's argument fairly.

It puts scare quotes around "activitists" for goodness sake. That doesn't even make sense.

I don't see anything particularly shocking in your quotes, yet it's all written as if I should. For example, a "yes" from a sufficiently drunk person, may not count as consent, even if they're not literally unconcious. That doesn't sound particuarly extreme to me. In fact I'm more worried about the schools that apparently require incapacitated to mean unconscious since I've seen plenty of people unaware of what was going on due to alcohol, without being literally passed out.

So we've arrived at a solid definition of "drunk" at least, as this article makes clear that if you've not literally passed out, then they consider you capable of giving consent to sex. That's not the line I'd choose, but if you continue to argue for this, please just state that up front so overyone knows where they stand.

[thaumasiotes]

I'll provide the text original to me from my other comment here as well:

When you can be found to have committed sexual assault over the top of your "victim"'s vociferous assurance that nothing of the kind happened, you need to read the sexual assault policy as if it will only ever be used to justify finding you responsible for sexual assault, because that is the case. Where there is ambiguity in the policy, it is fair to read it as if any formal proceeding will interpret it as far as is possible in favor of the accuser (or farther). And in the Minding the Campus report, 18 of 55 schools were found to have policies involving no stated threshold at all, while using language that is deliberately weaker than the legal standard for rape. At those schools, you are vulnerable to a claim of rape if the girl has had any amount of alcohol, just as you're vulnerable to a claim of rape by campus administration if the girl had nothing to drink, maintains an ongoing relationship with you, and makes the formal statement that you never raped her at any point.

If you want to appeal to the idea that vague policies are benign as long as they're applied reasonably in practice, then (a) this is a deeply misguided approach to a justice system, specifically designed to allow persecution on flimsy grounds of anyone disfavored, and (b) the facts are clear that, as applied, college sexual assault policies are being used to convict boys who have done nothing wrong. As cited in Emily Yoffe's article, one higher education insurer found that of the sexual-assault-related claims it paid from 2006 to 2010, 72% went to men suing their school for railroading them.

[thaumasiotes]

When the school's formal policy is deliberately vague, and their orientation materials explicitly state that one drink precludes consent (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11570978 ; https://www.thefire.org/university-training-programs-can-mis... ), what conclusion do you think is justified about their policy?

[ZeroGravitas]

I asked you to back up your 1 drink = drunk = rape claim, something you said was an explicit policy of many institutions, and you keep linking to stuff that clearly does not say that, and instead plays lawyer with the semantics of "intoxication" and "incapacitated" and interprets everything in the worst possible way. (Despite what your sources try to claim, "incapacitated" does not necessarily imply unconscious, either in standard speech or many of the legal definitions they quote. Why they are so keen for that to be the case geniunely worries me.)

The best evidence we have so far to support your case is an HN comment! From something someone said in an induction seminar, but of which there is no official public trace.

Maybe the person running that seminar googled for some info on the topic and found the BS that you and your sources keep repeating and didn't realise that it was political propaganda (and really, why would anyone assume that people would go around falsely claiming things about rape policies?).

If you wanted to have an honest conversation about how vague policies are a problem, then start with something like "phrases like intoxication should be clearly defined in campus policies" (though of course in the real world, there is no bright-line test for exactly when people move from sober to tipsy to drunk to intoxicated to incapacitated, but perhaps extra explanations may help those that are confused). I believe that the government's Title IX guidance actually says this is good practice, so you're in good company. Then you won't have to run around trying to justify your exaggerations. Claiming that policies explictly say 1 drink is the limit, is the opposite of vague, it's very precise, albiet fictional because none of the policies say that.