The Big Picture: Not Okay

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT
 

Volf:
First off murder is very common deoending on your location.

Second, we've been over this, I pointed out the wholes in your "privilege comment".

And rape is probably more common in the same location.

And no, you didn't. You think you did because you don't understand what privilege means in this context.

dyre:

Err, yes, that's a difference between rape and murder, but it's not a relevant difference. We're talking about murder and using rape in a game supporting more murder or rape in society. Remember, my argument is that (in the context of gaming) any moron understands that "I murdered you" has nothing to do with a desire to murder IRL and in no way supports such action, and said moron also understands that "I raped you" has nothing to do with a desire to rape IRL and in no way supports such action. In fact, I would argue that there is a lot more societal support for murder (especially the positive view of vigilantism) than societal support for rape (there really isn't any societal support for rape). Thus, your counterargument is not relevant to my own.

cobra_ky's argument if unfortunately flawed. "Your expression is hurtful to rape victims without condemning rapists in any real way" indicates that the expression provides negative utility towards rape victims while creating neither a loss nor gain in utility in rapists. It does not follow that a statement that creates neither a loss nor gain in utility suddenly creates a gain in utility in rapists.

As for your question sheet, I don't really have to answer that. I've never used the word "rape" unless I was talking about rape in a real world context, and I've never joked about it. I voluntarily refrain from using the word rape because it is potentially hurtful and offensive to people. However, I still oppose the claim that saying "rape" promotes rape. Saying "rape" in a gaming context is stupid and offensive, but as I've argued earlier, it in no way promotes rape.

Society does support rape in that it's very negative towards rape victims. ("Oh, she was asking for it." "What a lying slut, he'd NEVER do that." "She shouldn't have been drinking, she should have known what would happen," etc.) There is a TON of victim-blaming re: rape. When was the last time you heard anyone said "Oh, s/he deserved it." when they were murdered?

Your statement is coming from a misunderstanding of rape culture. In games, generally "beat" does include some kind of violence. "I murdered you," then, isn't usually too... out of line with what actually happened in the game. (Also, when was the last time you've heard MURDERED!! shouted out in a game of Battlefield or COD or League of Legends? It's always RAPED!!!) "Rape" has nothing to do with... anything. It is entirely dissimilar.

It is not neutral towards rape victims. It is negative towards rape victims, as it is trivializing what happened to them. As something negative towards rape victims, it is consequently positive towards rapists, whether or not it is intended thusly. If something is negative towards rape victims, it promotes rape.

John Funk:

Volf:
First off murder is very common deoending on your location.

Second, we've been over this, I pointed out the wholes in your "privilege comment".

And rape is probably more common in the same location.

And no, you didn't. You think you did because you don't understand what privilege means in this context.

You provided example, and I countered them by bringing up the criminal activity where I live and that gang colors can get innocent people killed.

Volf:

John Funk:

Volf:
First off murder is very common deoending on your location.

Second, we've been over this, I pointed out the wholes in your "privilege comment".

And rape is probably more common in the same location.

And no, you didn't. You think you did because you don't understand what privilege means in this context.

You provided example, and I countered them by bringing up the criminal activity where I live and that gang colors can get innocent people killed.

Which... has nothing to do with male privilege at all?

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, but you're doing a terrible job of it.

John Funk:

dyre:

Err, yes, that's a difference between rape and murder, but it's not a relevant difference. We're talking about murder and using rape in a game supporting more murder or rape in society. Remember, my argument is that (in the context of gaming) any moron understands that "I murdered you" has nothing to do with a desire to murder IRL and in no way supports such action, and said moron also understands that "I raped you" has nothing to do with a desire to rape IRL and in no way supports such action. In fact, I would argue that there is a lot more societal support for murder (especially the positive view of vigilantism) than societal support for rape (there really isn't any societal support for rape). Thus, your counterargument is not relevant to my own.

cobra_ky's argument if unfortunately flawed. "Your expression is hurtful to rape victims without condemning rapists in any real way" indicates that the expression provides negative utility towards rape victims while creating neither a loss nor gain in utility in rapists. It does not follow that a statement that creates neither a loss nor gain in utility suddenly creates a gain in utility in rapists.

As for your question sheet, I don't really have to answer that. I've never used the word "rape" unless I was talking about rape in a real world context, and I've never joked about it. I voluntarily refrain from using the word rape because it is potentially hurtful and offensive to people. However, I still oppose the claim that saying "rape" promotes rape. Saying "rape" in a gaming context is stupid and offensive, but as I've argued earlier, it in no way promotes rape.

Society does support rape in that it's very negative towards rape victims. ("Oh, she was asking for it." "What a lying slut, he'd NEVER do that." "She shouldn't have been drinking, she should have known what would happen," etc.) There is a TON of victim-blaming re: rape. When was the last time you heard anyone said "Oh, s/he deserved it." when they were murdered?

Your statement is coming from a misunderstanding of rape culture. In games, generally "beat" does include some kind of violence. "I murdered you," then, isn't usually too... out of line with what actually happened in the game. (Also, when was the last time you've heard MURDERED!! shouted out in a game of Battlefield or COD or League of Legends? It's always RAPED!!!) "Rape" has nothing to do with... anything. It is entirely dissimilar.

It is not neutral towards rape victims. It is negative towards rape victims, as it is trivializing what happened to them. As something negative towards rape victims, it is consequently positive towards rapists, whether or not it is intended thusly. If something is negative towards rape victims, it promotes rape.

I've never heard ANYONE say "s/he deserved it" about rape, and if I did, I'd punch them in the face. On the other hand, I've heard PLENTY of "s/he deserved it" regarding murder. Just a few weeks back, people on this very site were claiming that high school bullies deserved to be murdered.

To be honest, I haven't played online games much since CS:S because they generally have shitty storylines and even shittier communities. But I would guess that people originally used rape because it symbolizes some kind of domination and humiliation? Dunno. By now though, it's just a replacement for "pwn;" people who say "RAPED!!" don't actually mean they used their generic soldier to rape the other guy's generic soldier. It's sort of like that thing with tea-bagging people in first person shooters; no one actually means they want to put one guys balls into another guy's mouth.

I didn't say it was neutral to rape victims. It probably causes a decrease in happiness in a rape victim due to the reminder of the past event. However, it is not trivializing the crime of rape; it is simply assigning the word a different meaning, one that basically means "to defeat utterly in a video game." I also reject the idea that something negative towards rape victims is automatically promotes rapists. For example, if there was a Congressional bill for creating mandated psychological healthcare for rape victims, and some people voted against it, would you say they supported rapists? No, they just had other agendas that were unfortunately resulted in negative consequences for rape victims, so the most you could say is that they were abandoning rape victims.

Honestly, this "with us or against us" mentality seems like something you'd expect from a 50s anti-communist rally.

John Funk:

Volf:

John Funk:

And rape is probably more common in the same location.

And no, you didn't. You think you did because you don't understand what privilege means in this context.

You provided example, and I countered them by bringing up the criminal activity where I live and that gang colors can get innocent people killed.

Which... has nothing to do with male privilege at all?

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, but you're doing a terrible job of it.

..that your comment about male privilege in this context isn't worth much.

Also that I don't support the act of rape nor do I support rapist, when I say a test raped me. Just like I don't support murder or murders when I say that a test murdered me.

dyre:

John Funk:

dyre:

o_O

Sorry, just thought that was a pretty weird line. I'd better go support some rape victims...wouldn't want people to think I support rapists.

Well, when we're talking about influencing culture and society and individual people with the things you say, it really is a binary.

Are you:

A.) Tilting society towards indirectly or directly supporting rape victims and potential rape victims?

Or

B.) Tilting society towards indirectly or directly supporting rapists?

I'm not saying you need to immediately go and volunteer at a battered womens' shelter or you're supporting rapists. I'm just saying that the words you use, and the context in which you use them, is part of a larger cultural paradigm.

So if I lose a game and say "geez, you just slaughtered me," is that tilting society towards supporting murderers? Clearly not, because anyone in his/her right mind would realize that there's a difference between using a jargon synonym for "soundly defeated" and encouraging murder. The same goes for "raping" at a game. It clearly does not mean my gaming character physically raped your gaming character, or that such actions should be supported in any way.

That's because we live in a culture where murder is much better understood, and not a culture where murder is excused or explained away and murder victims are blamed for their own murders as a matter of course.

Hell, maybe we should think about the way we trivialize murder with our language too. But rape is the bigger issue, because it's far more deeply ingrained in our culture.

dyre:
Rape jokes and uses of the word "rape" in gaming are tasteless and stupid, but to say that they support rapists is retarded and shows a serious inability to differentiate connotation with denotation, as well as childish taunts and real world crimes.

Keep in mind, we're talking about rapists here. People who don't understand the denotation of the simple word "no".

John Funk:

Volf:

John Funk:

And rape is probably more common in the same location.

And no, you didn't. You think you did because you don't understand what privilege means in this context.

You provided example, and I countered them by bringing up the criminal activity where I live and that gang colors can get innocent people killed.

Which... has nothing to do with male privilege at all?

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, but you're doing a terrible job of it.

The point you're missing is that women also have to worry about muggings and gang violence. But on top of that, they also have this entire complex centered on rape that we as men have no real equivalent to.

dyre:

John Funk:

Exactly. Not supporting rape victims. So you are supporting rapists.

o_O

Sorry, just thought that was a pretty weird line. I'd better go support some rape victims...wouldn't want people to think I support rapists.

If you're not against them you're with them!

Here's a question to John 'the authority on sexual violence' Funk.

My friend who was a victim of rape finds me the only person she can talk to about it BECAUSE of my blunt insensitive and fun making attitude. Everyone else goes all serious on her when she needs to talk and she can't deal with it. So she finds talking to me therapeutic.

An example of my assholery would be if we're out having a drink I'll make a comment like 'Oh no one REALLY gets their drink spiked, rapes just a myth.'

Yet because of this when she DOES need a serious conversation she feels she can talk to me.

I make fun of rape but also do my utmost to support a victim of it. Where do I fit into your black and white spectrum of 'People who are rapists' and 'people who would never use the word rape inappropriately'?

John Funk:

Abandon4093:

It's still a completely null point. We don't condone violence against women, far from it. As a culture we're much more accepting of women being violent to men than vies-versa.

Culturally we are far more likely to condone sexual violence if the woman is the perpetrator. Just look up that bullshit that happened with 'the view' or some other garbage day time chat show. When they brought up the story about that guy having his penis cut off and 3/4 of the panel burst out into fits of laughter and saying her probably deserved it, because he was a guy. They were then forced to do an apology, if that's what you could call it. Can you imagine that with the roles reversed? If a chatshow with male panellists had laughed at a women having her genitalia mutilated. They'd have been fired and probably had legal action brought against them faster than you could blink. I'm not bringing that up to whine about how women get preferential treatment etc, but you can't bring up cultural opinions about sexual violence and then ignore things like double standards.

That isn't an isolated case either. Just look at that experiment.

Are you really going to say that we culturally support violence against women? Because that's just bullshit.

It's true that violence against women by men is considered more acceptable - even funny - by society at large. Is this problematic? Of course. But it's ALSO seated in the inequal status of women, by and large. Women are viewed as weaker and inferior, so ergo violence by them against men isn't something to be taken seriously by large swathes of the populace. They see it akin to a child being violent against an adult.

Yes, it's a problem. But women don't have the social and institutionalized power that men do. So while people not taking violence against men seriously is problematic, it's also problematic when one state (Kansas? Missouri? Around that area, I forget) stops prosecuting domestic violence cases entirely because it can't afford to do so. It shows where the priorities lie.

You're not going to hear any argument from me that the reason female to male violence isn't seen as an issue is a double standard that effects both sexes/genders. It's drawn entirely out of a cultural view that's still clinging on from the very patriarchal society we used to be.

But that's still not the point. Both you and that article you linked heavily suggested that our society encourages violence against women. That is 100% not the case, it's the total freaking opposite.

The whole idea of rape culture is built on a complete non sequitur.

And on the harmless fetishisation side of things, females being dominant is ever more present in both pop-culture and the bedroom.

...which is, again, a male fantasy. Not that there's anything wrong with sexually aggressive or dominant women in fiction, but it almost always goes hand in hand with a "ingenue vs slut" narrative. How many of those women are the heroes, compared to a virgin "good girl"?

I'll give you that in literature these women are usually seen as the more unconventional love interest/character/whatever. But isn't that more a reflection of the times we're living in? The good girl is pretty much only used to parody itself presently. Anti heroes and people with questionable moral values are what most people (myself included) relate to more. Instead of being shown the unnerving glance of perfect humanity, that does nothing but highlight how imperfect we are. We get to see people who make questionable calls, full of flaws and baggage that we can understand, draw parallels too. Who the hell wants the good girl/boy any-more?

And to call it a male fantasy is pretty reductive. Plenty of women enjoy being in control.

So no, I didn't read down to that part because frankly it's more of the same tripe that always get brought up in conversations like this.

"MOAAR WOMANZ GET WRAPED THERFOR EET MATTERS MUUR!"

Making up a concept such as rape culture and then focusing on it's effects on one gender/sex is so unbelievably hypocritical I can scarcely believe I'm having to point it out.

Women AND men are both the target of sexual violence and assault, to focus on one more than the other is tantamount to saying that one matters more than the other.

Not to mention I doubt the figures on the percentage of women that have been raped in comparison to the percentage of men that have been raped are even close to being accurate. What is it, like an estimated 1 in 6 women report rape or sexual abuse. I'd wager the ratio is even more alarming with men. Because there is an even greater social stigma attached to that, especially if you identify as a heterosexual male and happen to have been raped by another male.

Yes, there is absolutely a stigma against reporting rape if you are a man, and these statistics only cover REPORTED rape. It's almost certainly higher for women, and much higher for men.

But frankly, it does make sense to focus on rape and sexual violence against women more-so than men - not excluding them, but focusing on the women - because not only do men have more institutional power, but it IS more common.

Here's the thing, in blunt facts: A man is more likely to rape somebody than a woman. If we want to prevent somebody from raping somebody, that message needs to be targeted at men. And since men rape women more than they rape men, well.

Should sexual violence against men be ignored? Of course not. But a widespread culture of sexual violence against women (and, it might be added, the "feminization" of men who are sexually violated) lends itself to certain forms of pushback.

You can't honestly believe that everyone isn't fully aware of how abhorrent sexual abuse of any kind is can you?

People who rape are well aware of that, that's why they don't walk about on the streets bragging about it. People are fully aware that burglary, assault and murder aren't socially acceptable. But they still do it.

And focusing on one more than the other does reinforce the notion that one is worse. It simply does, they are exactly the same and they need to be treated as such.

I'm pretty much going to put that 'rape culture' BS in the same category as Andrea Dworkins and her theory that all sex is rape because there's penetration.

--snip--

No no no.

You can't just bat that away.

Is saying "murder", "cripple" or any other word being used as a hyperbolic synonym for 'dominate', in the context of competition the same as saying "rape"?

If not, you'd better give me an actual reason. Not some quasi-feminist ramblings about our big bad culture being pro-raping women (because apparently raping men doesn't count) with a list of bias supposedly proving that.

I don't buy into Dworkin's ideas, but I sure as hell buy into the idea of a rape culture. Once you see it, you can't unsee it.

And here goes. I'd like you to read this, first: Why Rape Jokes Are Never Okay.

There is a reason that rape is considered very different from "murder" in this sense (and I'm going to just ignore the "cripple" bit, as A.) it's hardly used in the same context and B.) when it is used, it's used in a way that the word has been used for years; i.e. "his economy is crippled" in StarCraft. "Rape" as a synonym for "dominate", however, is a new development in language).

In 2006, there were 17,034 "murders and nonnegligent manslaughters" in the United States. In that same year, there were 92,455 "forcible rapes." This does not include other types of rape, like rape by duress - and as mentioned above, that number is likely to be MUCH higher given that this was just the number of REPORTED forcible rapes. There are some estimates that say that only 20% of rape cases are ever reported. While this may be a particularly highball estimate, we can both agree that this number is likely significantly higher, yes?

Right away, rape and sexual violence is a crime that affects far more people a year than murder. And from a consequence of that, you are more likely to know a rapist than you are to know a murderer (in fact, you probably do. And whoever they are, they sure don't seem like a rapist, because if there were an easy way to identify rapists we'd be doing it already).

Refer back to the article I linked. You read that, right? The vast majority of rapists think that *all men rape.* Now, obviously that's not true. And the idea horrifies most of us non-rapist guys, undoubtedly.

Which is why telling rape jokes, or trivializing rape as a synonym for "defeat in an electronic game" is problematic. Because it reinforces to a rapist viewing that "yeah, this is okay." And that makes it more likely that, y'know, he'll do it. The more trivial the concept of rape becomes, the easier it is for someone who's thought about it to go and do it.

And that's why "rape" is inherently different from "murder". Also, well, going back to the concept of a society that links sex with violence and aggression against women. There is no "murder culture," but there is a "rape culture."

Even if these two things weren't true, the fact that there are so many more people affected by rape than murder every year should be reason enough.

So pretty much your entire argument that this synonym is worse than all the others is because 1) it's new and 2) rapes more common than murder.

Welllllll.

1) That's how etymology works.

2) Rape fulfils a desire that more people have than murder.

No matter how many times you say it, it's never going to be the case. Rape isn't a trivial concept. It's probably currently looked down upon much worse than ever before in history. The occasional rape joke does not threaten to undermine that.

The sky is not falling!

dyre:

I've never heard ANYONE say "s/he deserved it" about rape, and if I did, I'd punch them in the face. On the other hand, I've heard PLENTY of "s/he deserved it" regarding murder. Just a few weeks back, people on this very site were claiming that high school bullies deserved to be murdered.

BAM!

And that ladies and gentlemen, underlines the exact hypocrisy with Johns argument.

Case closed, the end.

Can I get a drink to go?

Cpatcha: genghis khan

I find it's relevance disturbing.

Abandon4093:

dyre:

I've never heard ANYONE say "s/he deserved it" about rape, and if I did, I'd punch them in the face. On the other hand, I've heard PLENTY of "s/he deserved it" regarding murder. Just a few weeks back, people on this very site were claiming that high school bullies deserved to be murdered.

BAM!

And that ladies and gentlemen, underlines the exact hypocrisy with Johns argument.

Case closed, the end.

Can I get a drink to go?

Cpatcha: genghis khan

I find it's relevance disturbing.

No way man, I closed the case; that means I get the drink! *takes drink*

dyre:

Abandon4093:

dyre:

I've never heard ANYONE say "s/he deserved it" about rape, and if I did, I'd punch them in the face. On the other hand, I've heard PLENTY of "s/he deserved it" regarding murder. Just a few weeks back, people on this very site were claiming that high school bullies deserved to be murdered.

BAM!

And that ladies and gentlemen, underlines the exact hypocrisy with Johns argument.

Case closed, the end.

Can I get a drink to go?

Cpatcha: genghis khan

I find it's relevance disturbing.

No way man, I closed the case; that means I get the drink! *takes drink*

I want to make a joke about what I may or may not have put into that drink you just took.

But I think that might just go and top John over the edge if he reads it.

I don't want to be partially responsible for an Escapist offices shootings.

Now you see... I'd say that second joke was in far worse taste than the first one. Apparently not though, because they happen less.

Abandon4093:

dyre:

Abandon4093:

BAM!

And that ladies and gentlemen, underlines the exact hypocrisy with Johns argument.

Case closed, the end.

Can I get a drink to go?

Cpatcha: genghis khan

I find it's relevance disturbing.

No way man, I closed the case; that means I get the drink! *takes drink*

I want to make a joke about what I may or may not have put into that drink you just took.

But I think that might just go and top John over the edge if he reads it.

I don't want to be partially responsible for an Escapist offices shootings.

Now you see... I'd say that second joke was in far worse taste than the first one. Apparently not though, because they happen less.

LOL

That was brilliant...You win the potentially spiked drink.

Last week I was disappointed at what I find to be one of your worst videos. However, you came back strong Bob. This was a really great episode. I might be biased because I completely agree with you on the subject, but I really enjoyed the episode and it really made me think about my actions and the actions of others. I try to be good people whenever I can and I'm glad someone with a voice listened to be a big section of the gamer community is using his means to try and convince others to try to be good as well. Thanks for a great episode.

Wait a second, that part about free speech and the first amendment rights is something I've seen described as censorship right here on The Escapist when a troll is arrested here in the U.K.. I distinctly remember that our freedom was brought into question when someone was arrested for insulting a dead girl right on her tribute page, despite the fact that something like this doesn't really carry much of a heavy sentence over here.

Was it entirely justified to arrest him? I can't say, but for the reasons outlined in this video I think it's definitely fair that he was. You have the right to say what you like, but if you use that right to hurt others either directly or indirectly with the intention of hurting them for whatever reason, yeah, you should be punished for it.

captainfluoxetine:

dyre:

John Funk:

Exactly. Not supporting rape victims. So you are supporting rapists.

o_O

Sorry, just thought that was a pretty weird line. I'd better go support some rape victims...wouldn't want people to think I support rapists.

If you're not against them you're with them!

Here's a question to John 'the authority on sexual violence' Funk.

My friend who was a victim of rape finds me the only person she can talk to about it BECAUSE of my blunt insensitive and fun making attitude. Everyone else goes all serious on her when she needs to talk and she can't deal with it. So she finds talking to me therapeutic.

An example of my assholery would be if we're out having a drink I'll make a comment like 'Oh no one REALLY gets their drink spiked, rapes just a myth.'

Yet because of this when she DOES need a serious conversation she feels she can talk to me.

I make fun of rape but also do my utmost to support a victim of it. Where do I fit into your black and white spectrum of 'People who are rapists' and 'people who would never use the word rape inappropriately'?

You're supporting a rape victim, so you're on the side of supporting rape victims, at least in that regard.

Now if another rape victim, who you did not have a longstanding friendship with, overheard your comments, they would probably take it much more negatively. So that's something you should consider if you're making these comments in a public place.

Really this isn't about controlling what people can or can't say, it's about getting people to think about what their words actually mean and how they affect others. You're clearly well aware that you're helping your friend here, and that is admirable.

Abandon4093:

dyre:

I've never heard ANYONE say "s/he deserved it" about rape, and if I did, I'd punch them in the face. On the other hand, I've heard PLENTY of "s/he deserved it" regarding murder. Just a few weeks back, people on this very site were claiming that high school bullies deserved to be murdered.

BAM!

And that ladies and gentlemen, underlines the exact hypocrisy with Johns argument.

Case closed, the end.

Can I get a drink to go?

Cpatcha: genghis khan

I find it's relevance disturbing.

...

Google "She deserved it" and "rape". You'll find results. I'm not going to link them here for the sake of common decency.

You and dyre may also want to stop celebrating your argument from ignorance.

cobra_ky:

Abandon4093:

dyre:

I've never heard ANYONE say "s/he deserved it" about rape, and if I did, I'd punch them in the face. On the other hand, I've heard PLENTY of "s/he deserved it" regarding murder. Just a few weeks back, people on this very site were claiming that high school bullies deserved to be murdered.

BAM!

And that ladies and gentlemen, underlines the exact hypocrisy with Johns argument.

Case closed, the end.

Can I get a drink to go?

Cpatcha: genghis khan

I find it's relevance disturbing.

...

Google "She deserved it" and "rape". You'll find results. I'm not going to link them here for the sake of common decency.

You and dyre may also want to stop celebrating your argument from ignorance.

I could link a load of crap with people saying that they believe the earth is flat and there is a special branch of some world government keeping it secret.

Our point isn't that nobody says it, it's that the most people don't say it. And it certainly isn't socially acceptable to say it. Whereas saying such a person deserved to die is more common place.

You may want to understand a persons argument before you act as though you've debunked it.

I use rape as a synonym for defeat in a game. I might say, if you go into the Catacombs before the Burg in Dark Souls the skeletons will rape you in the ass with their curved swords. If it's wrong, oh well. Then again I laughed at the Dick Wolves joke.

I tend to be OK with any form of crude marginalizing language as long as it isn't directed at any person in particular. I know Bob disagrees with me on this.

I'd like to note that the word fuck is pretty synonymous with rape. If you say, "You better pay that on time or you're fucked" Since the person at hand doesn't want to be fucked in the sense. It's synonymous with rape, and since we use that terminology constantly on our culture in and our of video games. It becomes apparent that the context and tone of the language is all the matters in my opinion.

John Funk:

Well, you're wrong. Why are you defending the Neanderthalic impulse to use one of the worst things that can happen to a human by another as a *joke*?

Rape jokes. Are not. Okay. Ever.

BS. If you're only telling them around people who want to hear them, they don't cause any harm. It does not trivialize rape at all.

John Funk:

Volf:

John Funk:

--
Well, you're wrong. Why are you defending the Neanderthalic impulse to use one of the worst things that can happen to a human by another as a *joke*?

Rape jokes. Are not. Okay. Ever.

Point out the part where I mentioned rape jokes, please. If you look, I was defending the right to say, "man that exam just raped me", because I don't see how its worse than saying, "I'm so hungry, I'm starving", or "after going to the gym yesterday, my muscles are killing me".

There is no right to say that.

Yes there is. It's covered under the 1st.

John Funk:

Let me ask you something: Even if you, personally, don't think that the use of "rape" in contexts that have nothing to do with debilitating sexual assault and violation trivializes it... when you are told that it DOES, by members of the half of the population who are at very real risk for experiencing it in their lifetime (1 in 6 women is a victim of sexual assault in their life)...

Why the FUCK are you arguing with that?

So he's supposed to just believe it because a bunch of women tell him it's true?

Father Time:
Yes there is. It's covered under the 1st.

Oh, really? Might want to look up the "fighting words doctrine."

To summarize: purely abusive language is no more "covered under the 1st" than is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. And for rather similar reasons, no less.

John Funk:

You believe your right to use the word "rape" for cavalier, minor things that have nothing to do with sexual violation supersedes the right of rape survivors to not have their trauma marginalized and belittled.

They don't have a right to control how other people speak. They have a right to not listen but that's it.

John Funk:

Ergo, supporting rapists. Or are you going to pretend that you're supporting rape victims? (PS. You're not.)

News flash: rapists are people who rape, not people who joke about rape. Now knock off the really thin false dichotomy

Farseer Lolotea:

Father Time:
Yes there is. It's covered under the 1st.

Oh, really? Might want to look up the "fighting words doctrine."

To summarize: purely abusive language is no more "covered under the 1st" than is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. And for rather similar reasons, no less.

We're talking about rape jokes and "I was just raped by [insert inanimate object]". Those are not fighting words.

Father Time:
We're talking about rape jokes and "I was just raped by [insert inanimate object]". Those are not fighting words.

Got some proof of that, then?

Because unexamined privilege is not a justification. Just sayin'.

Farseer Lolotea:

Father Time:
We're talking about rape jokes and "I was just raped by [insert inanimate object]". Those are not fighting words.

Got some proof of that, then? Because "unexamined privilege" is not a justification.

You're the one that needs to prove they are fighting words.

Some info about fighting words from wikipedia

"The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969),[2] the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". In similar manner, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen's wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets"; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions-Gooding v. Wilson (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans (1974)-the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad."

John Funk:

Exactly. Not supporting rape victims. So you are supporting rapists.

Words mean things. Get over your privilege.

Words can change meaning or have more than one definition. They have done that multiple times.

And yes he's supporting rapists by equating rape with something bad, because you have to be supporting one or the other.

Father Time:
You're the one that needs to prove they are fighting words.

So...I have to "prove" that there is no value in making light of people's massively traumatic lived experiences (i.e. equating them with getting "pwned" in a video game or failing a test)? Or that trying to justify doing so, in the name of "freedom of speech" or anything else, is a sign of unexamined privilege?

Okay, then, although it sure looks like plenty of people have already done just that.

Some info about fighting words from wikipedia

"The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969),[2] the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". In similar manner, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen's wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets"; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions-Gooding v. Wilson (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans (1974)-the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad."

Irrelevant.

John Funk:

Society does support rape in that it's very negative towards rape victims. ("Oh, she was asking for it." "What a lying slut, he'd NEVER do that." "She shouldn't have been drinking, she should have known what would happen," etc.) There is a TON of victim-blaming re: rape. When was the last time you heard anyone said "Oh, s/he deserved it." when they were murdered?

When the victim was abusive. Also there's a really catchy song about blaming the victims for murder. Maybe you've heard of it.

Farseer Lolotea:

Father Time:
You're the one that needs to prove they are fighting words.

So...I have to "prove" that there is no value in making light of people's massively traumatic lived experiences

Nice dodge attempt, but no. You have to prove that rape jokes fall under the fighting words exception of the first amendment which is what you claimed.

Farseer Lolotea:

Or that trying to justify doing so, in the name of "freedom of speech" or anything else, is a sign of unexamined privilege?

We do have a right in the U.S. to tell rape jokes, and that right is covered under free speech. That's all I said, and those are facts.

Father Time:
Nice dodge attempt, but no. You have to prove that rape jokes fall under the fighting words exception of the first amendment which is what you claimed.

There is nothing to "dodge" at all. You are trying to defend something that can easily be construed as a form of harassment (also not covered under the First Amendment, for the record), apparently on the grounds that you don't see it as such.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

We do have a right in the U.S. to tell rape jokes, and that right is covered under free speech. That's all I said, and those are facts.

I'd love to see you try to argue that in a court of law, really.

You seem to think "free speech" equals the right to verbally piss on whoever you choose without fear of consequences. You also seem to think that you're not verbally pissing on anyone if you didn't intend to do so.

Please, by all means, enlighten me as to how any of that is not a case of unexamined privilege on your part.

Farseer Lolotea:

Father Time:
Nice dodge attempt, but no. You have to prove that rape jokes fall under the fighting words exception of the first amendment which is what you claimed.

I have nothing to "dodge," as you put it, here.

And yet you still haven't proven they fall under fighting words.

Farseer Lolotea:

You, on the other hand, are trying to defend something that can easily be construed as a form of harassment

No it can't. Saying "I got raped by the test" is not harassment. Not everyone who hears it is bothered by it, it's only harassment if you try to bother someone with it.

Farseer Lolotea:

, apparently on the grounds that you don't see it as such...and apparently attempting to "dodge" the fact that it doesn't work that way.

Which law/Supreme Court Decision/whatever shows that they don't fall under 1st amendment protections. You keep claiming they don't, you back it up.

Farseer Lolotea:

You seem to think "free speech" equals the right to verbally piss on whoever you choose without fear of consequences.

Knock off the fucking straw men. I never said that.

Farseer Lolotea:
Please, by all means, enlighten me as to how any of that is not a case of unexamined privilege on your part.

Just saying "no you're wrong because of privilege" is not a refutation.

Despite your desperate attempts to straw man and change the subject, this is a matter of what's legal and what isn't. Privilege doesn't come into it (well I guess maybe illiterate people have a disadvantage, that's it).

Never mind. Forget this post.

Father Time:
[snip]

Making rape jokes, bigoted jokes, what-have-you in private? No, there's no law against that.

However (and we'll skip how making, or being amused by, such jokes in the first place reflects on people), you just moved the goalposts by specifying "in private." I'm sure there's a hell of a lot that you can do in private that would be unacceptable otherwise.

In short: if anyone hears it except you and your friends? You've got no business being surprised, much less indignant, if you find out that you've crossed a line and can't just slide out of it by invoking the First Amendment. Actions have consequences.

And "straw man," hell. Regardless of whether or not you said it in so many words, or whether or not you intended to, that is what your argument adds up to.

There's also the fact that after reducing my argument to "you're wrong because of privilege," you're really in no position to cry "straw man." What I said that was you are clearly operating from a position of willfully unexamined privilege, and the matter of responsibility doesn't seem to occur to you.

If Bob really thinks that slurs and bigotry are not covered by free speech he really didn't do the research.

The WBC is covered by free speech as are Nazi rallies. The ACLU has gotten a bunch of Nazi rallies defended under free speech.

Farseer Lolotea:

Father Time:
[snip]

Making rape jokes, bigoted jokes, what-have-you in private? No, there's no law against that.

But you just moved the goalposts by specifying "in private." (We'll skip how making, or being amused by, such jokes in the first place reflects on people.)

Not really. She said you have no right to say that period. She didn't say "you have no right to say it in public".

Farseer Lolotea:

And "straw man," hell. Regardless of whether or not you said it in so many words, or whether or not you intended to, that is what your argument adds up to.

No it does not. You can have consequences from said speech but the government cannot punish you for it.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here