Are you freakin' kidding me?

[Psycomantis777]

Was it really a rape joke..? I mean... really? To me it seems people are looking for stuff to complain about now. I understand where people are seeing the apparent offence, but... He's just beating her at the game. Sure, even that's kind of "Hurr durr goils is bad at games", but I'm pretty sure that Microsoft at E3 wouldn't purposely make a "Rape joke"...

 

[Ayay]

I am sure if people went thru this writers..oh lets say twitter log someone would find a remark she made offensive. And thats pretty much how this things work . This was two ppl on a stage talking while gaming ,i did not find anything funny about it but i am not going to scream about it ,i am pretty sure i know why this writer is doing it thou. its all about the traffic.

 

[fletch_talon]

Rape was never mentioned, nor was it implied or inferred.

It's arguable that it wasn't implied, but it most definitely has been inferred. The word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Inferred, first hit in google.
Deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.

No evidence or reason leads one to the conclude that he was joking about rape. Unless of course you've got an awful broad definition of "reason".

The usual questions also arise.

All of which boil down to, "If the situation was different, would the situation be different?" Let's please stop trying to remove events from their context.

Why should I? Rape happens to both men and women and rape is enacted by both men and women. How does the context of the speakers' genders affect anything.

 

[JimB]

No evidence or reason leads one to the conclude that he was joking about rape.

There is a lot of evidence I could offer here that's none of my business to publish, so instead I'm going to direct you to the episode "Seeing Red" from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Spike says something very like "Just let it happen" at least twice while he tries to rape Buffy.

Why should I?

Because you are trying to argue that an imaginary thing which didn't happen prevents a real thing which did happen from being bad. It's like saying, "If OJ Simpson had killed an armed robber instead of his wife, no one would think this is a big deal."

Rape happens to both men and women and rape is enacted by both men and women.

Both of those statements are true. However:

How does the context of the speaker's sex affect anything?

Rape happens to both men and women, but it does not happen to both in equal proportion, and, regrettably (which is too mild of a word but I can't think of the one I really want right now), the male victims of rape tend to be invisible in the public consciousness or even punchlines to oh-so hilarious jokes about dropping the soap such that people only tend to notice and be aware of rape targeting women. That people would not make a big deal out of a situation they more or less intentionally ignore does not mean it's not a big deal when it happens in a scenario we are not willing to ignore.

 

[ShiningAmber]

snip

snip

Neither of you seem to understand my position, I've tried to explain it, but no matter what I say you keep falling back on arguments I'm not making, or beliefs I don't hold.

I've exhausted my vocabulary, I don't think I can express my opinion any different than this last statement.

You're not at fault. He's not at fault. Blame should go to the person at fault.

If this is not understood, nothing else can be gained from my participation in this thread, and I'll bid you all good day.

I don't understand then.

I don't understand why it's so wrong for me to be offended, because you know, I've been there. I've been raped. I know what it feels like and what it can do to you on every level. I'm not arguing anything. You obviously think I'm wrong and that the gamer didn't intend it that way. That's fine with me.

I'm telling you that for ME it came across that way. You cannot tell me how am I allowed to feel or react to something that reminds me of the worst day of my life. Hearing stuff like that is as bad as people asking, 'How'd you get those scars on your face?' It takes me right back to that exact moment.

I've told you I'm not looking to be offended. If anything, I don't want to be reminded of it. How the hell was I supposed to know that was going to happen on E3? I'm not looking for attention, but I think people on this site really need to understand, you might not have to deal with something that others have to live everyday. It becomes a lot less funny when you're the one dealing with it, fighting and hearing this stuff.

 

[fletch_talon]

No evidence or reason leads one to the conclude that he was joking about rape.

There is a lot of evidence I could offer here that's none of my business to publish, so instead I'm going to direct you to the episode "Seeing Red" from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Spike says something very like "Just let it happen" at least twice while he tries to rape Buffy.

So because you have an example of where that phrase, actually not even that phrase, something "very like" that phrase was used in connection to rape, it is apparently clear that its sole and primary meaning is related to rape?

Guess what, this one time (a couple of times actually) I heard someone call a vagina a fish taco. Because of that, everytime someone talks about eating fish tacos, they're obviously talking about oral sex. I've never seen a place selling fish tacos, I've never eaten or been exposed to them in my daily life. Therefore if someone says fish taco I can immediately jump to the conclusion that they're talking about lady-parts and be completely justified in doing so.

In case it wasn't clear, that is an example of your logic at work.

Why should I?

Because you are trying to argue that an imaginary thing which didn't happen prevents a real thing which did happen from being bad. It's like saying, "If OJ Simpson had killed an armed robber instead of his wife, no one would think this is a big deal."

No I am suggesting that had any of the other situations I described occurred, people would not have made a rape connection, or at the least fewer people would have. Unfortunately there's always going to be people who read more into a situation than it warrants.
This is because the phrase itself does not imply rape, not even when its said by a man to a woman.

You and people like you are attributing malice to the actions of someone who has done nothing wrong. If I'm asked to identify someone and I gesture to the young black guy and say "that boy there" are people right to call me racist? I'm Australian I've never worked on a cotton plantation or lived in America's deep south. Yet apparently when I said boy I didn't mean, young male. What I really meant was slave who isn't worth giving a name or pronoun to because black people are inferior to me.

Rape happens to both men and women and rape is enacted by both men and women.

Both of those statements are true. However:

How does the context of the speaker's sex affect anything?

Rape happens to both men and women, but it does not happen to both in equal proportion, and, regrettably (which is too mild of a word but I can't think of the one I really want right now), the male victims of rape tend to be invisible in the public consciousness or even punchlines to oh-so hilarious jokes about dropping the soap such that people only tend to notice and be aware of rape targeting women. That people would not make a big deal out of a situation they more or less intentionally ignore does not mean it's not a big deal when it happens in a scenario we are not willing to ignore.

Or, and I'm pretty much restating what I've said above, people wouldn't even think about rape. It was either just trash talk with little meaning other than "I'm winning. You're losing. Let me beat you now." or it was a reference to an unpleasant or painful experience which could be hastened by reduced struggling/resistance.
This can include rape, murder, torture, arm wrestling, drug use, surgery, removing a bandaid, popping a pimple, inserting contacts, using eyedrops, competing in a physical exertion based contest on a reality TV show like survivor, eating something disgusting, being corrupted by the dark side of the force... and now I'm tired.

Anyway, enjoy your list, no doubt you'll come back telling me how rape is the truly logical interpretation of his remark because you and everyone arguing this point like you are adamant that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. That the man's words were a freudian slip which proves that the games industry is filled with sexist pigs who think rape is a joking matter.

Or we might all luck out and you'll realise that you've just spent god knows how many posts trying to justify and rationalise the kneejerk reactions of yourself and everyone else who have persecuted this man by over analysing an innocent sentence.

 

[Whateveralot]

Wow. For someone to ever think that this is even closely related to a so-called "rape joke", one really needs to go through some more sensitivity training.

 

[fletch_talon]

I don't understand why it's so wrong for me to be offended, because you know, I've been there. I've been raped. I know what it feels like and what it can do to you on every level. I'm not arguing anything. You obviously think I'm wrong and that the gamer didn't intend it that way. That's fine with me.

I'm telling you that for ME it came across that way. You cannot tell me how am I allowed to feel or react to something that reminds me of the worst day of my life. Hearing stuff like that is as bad as people asking, 'How'd you get those scars on your face?' It takes me right back to that exact moment.

You can feel however you want, but some people (possibly but not necessarily yourself included) seem to think that because they feel a certain way that its okay to claim that this "incident, is something that shouldn't have happened. Something that deserved an apology and something the man should feel bad about. All this in spite of the fact that you can acknowledge that the only reason it affects you is because its something that inadvertantly triggers these feelings regardless of intent, context or actual literal interpretation.

No doubt any reference to rape, and in fact even this conversation brings up painful memories, but you've obviously come to terms with the fact that rape exists in our culture and people will speak about it, otherwise you'd avoid the topic completely. And this is an instance where we are in fact talking about rape, not simply saying something that you personally connect to rape.

If the man had come out and said, "I'm gonna fucking rape you" or if you prefer the more subtle approach, "I'm gonna make you my *****" or even "take it *****" I could be more understanding of the offence that you and others like you have taken to this. But he didn't, he said something which could refer to rape, not something that does or even probably refers to rape. And yet he was made to apologise, made to feel that he had done something wrong, possibly made to feel like he was a bad person. All this because people like yourself took offence (or more importantly vocalised that offence) at a comment that given adequate thought can be acknowledged as being unrelated to the issue you're trying to associate it with.

 

[Eryc Duhart]

As far as my black guy perspective can see, this wasn't so much a "rape as premise" joke but rather a "can be a trigger for rape victims and the like" joke. Thing is, BOTH kinds can (or directly do) reference the act and THAT is where the rubber meets the road. Self awareness is a glorious thing, but it's an art that seems to be lost on members of various communities on the internet and the like as they only ever read subtext when it's convenient for them such as when trying to find 'faulty' implications and fallacies in their opposition's argument (which ironically, doesn't automatically prove the other person wrong).

But lets be honest here, this kind of stuff is complicated. Many things are interconnected in ways that we might not even readily recognize. For example, the lion's share of rape seems to be the focus on dominance. Dominance can be exerted on many fronts: emotionally, physically, economically, sexually, etc. Even then, you'd be hard pressed to be able to exert it exclusively in one area. What's the lion's of trash talking? Lampshading the dominance that you're exerting over the other parties. You don't even have to try that hard to craw a connection between the two.

All that to really say, we all say and do things that harm other people without even trying to. But a big portion of growing up is accepting that while society was wrong, you were wrong too and that there's a way to make all the pieces fit. You can find ways to do right by other people without having to totally ditch your fun. The general rule of thumb is that if something you said can or does cause someone to wince, go "BOW CHICKA WOW WOW", etc., then you may want to reconsider what you're saying and rephrasing it, if it should be said at all........

 

[JimB]

So because you have an example of where that phrase, actually not even that phrase, something "very like" that phrase was used in connection to rape, it is apparently clear that its sole and primary meaning is related to rape?

I have many more than one example, but I will not provide them because I have no right to do so. The one example I provided is the one that I hit upon immediately without having to bother to think about it or go looking for anything, and it's proof of nothing but it is a form of evidence that you insist there is none of. Take it for all it's worth.

Guess what, this one time (a couple of times actually) I heard someone call a vagina a fish taco. Because of that, every time someone talks about eating fish tacos, they're obviously talking about oral sex.

Your irony fails here because I have never said or implied that my one example is proof of it being true every time. That is your assertion, not mine.

I've never seen a place selling fish tacos.

There's a franchise called Houlihan's that tends to have them on the menu, if you'd like to find one.

In case it wasn't clear, that is an example of your logic at work.

No, it is an example of what you want my logic to be so you can dismiss it.

No, I am suggesting that had any of the other situations I described occurred, people would not have made a rape connection, or at the least fewer people would have.

However, none of those situations did occur. They are false. They do not exist. The situation that did occur, did occur.

You and people like you are attributing malice to the actions of someone who has done nothing wrong.

No, I'm not. Malice requires intent, and I have said at least twice in this thread--feel free to go look for the posts yourself--that I am willing to concede any insult given may have been unintentional.

If I'm asked to identify someone and I gesture to the young black guy and say "that boy there," are people right to call me racist?

If you pronounce the word in italics like you wrote it, then yeah, it would probably be justified.

I'm pretty much restating what I've said above, people wouldn't even think about rape.

And they would be wrong not to.

No doubt you'll come back telling me how rape is the truly logical interpretation of his remark because you and everyone arguing this point like you are adamant that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

I have not been arguing that it is the logical interpretation. I have been arguing that it is a logical interpretation, and I think if you had bothered to read my posts in this thread rather than asserting your demonstrably inaccurate reading as my words, you would know that.

Or we might all luck out and you'll realize that you've just spent god knows how many posts trying to justify and rationalize the kneejerk reactions of yourself and everyone else who have persecuted this man by over analyzing an innocent sentence.

Uh huh. Tell me, fletch_talon, what punishment have I called for to be inflicted upon this man?

 

[fletch_talon]

snippety doo dah

Ooh my apologies.
I just read back a little over your posts. See I thought you were arguing that people have a right to use their own issues and biases to justify the public shaming of a man whose words they misinterpreted as being about an issue that's close to them.

But now it's becoming apparent that you're just arguing for the sake of it. You've acknowledged there is no blame or fault, yet you claim that the man should be held "responsible" for the fact that a minority of people over analyzed his.
Yo have yourself admitted that rape is not the only interpretation yet you still try to justify the outrage of people who jumped to that conclusion. There is no logical reason to believe the man was joking about rape, only irrational reasons based on bias caused by past experiences. This man should not be faulted, blamed or responsible for something he has no control over.

 

[JimB]

I thought you were arguing that people have a right to use their own issues and biases to justify the public shaming of a man whose words they misinterpreted as being about an issue that's close to them.

Yes, I know you did.

You've acknowledged there is no blame or fault, yet you claim that the man should be held "responsible" for the fact that a minority of people over analyzed his.

Not quite. I've said I don't care about assigning fault or blame. Those are useless concepts that differ from responsibility in that they carry a degree of judgment with them. I do not know the Microsoft representative and have neither the ability nor the interest to weigh his heart on a scale against a feather, and even if he genuinely is a bad person, I really don't want the conversation to be about that because it's dismissive and reductive. What I care about is people being able to express how his comments made them feel without, if you'll forgive me for using you as an example, people like you insisting that the real interest is in shaming some man whose name I personally don't know and whose face I couldn't pick out of a photo array.

Yo have yourself admitted that rape is not the only interpretation yet you still try to justify the outrage of people who jumped to that conclusion.

That there are other conclusions possible based on the information available does not mean the rape conclusion is wrong. It only means that conclusion has not been empirically proven, and it never will be because we do not have a way of measuring intent.

There is no logical reason to believe the man was joking about rape.

You can continue to insist upon this, yet your insistence is not evidence of illogic; it is only evidence that your personal experiences do not incline you to believe that he could have been referring to rape.

This man should not be faulted, blamed or responsible for something he has no control over.

Unless he has Tourette's Syndrome, he is perfectly responsible for the words that come out of his mouth. What I think you actually object to holding him responsible for is the feelings of the people who hear his words, which, as far as that statement goes, is fair enough. I think it carries with it a taint of defensiveness, but on its own I'd say it's fair.

 

[fletch_talon]

There is no logical reason to believe the man was joking about rape.

You can continue to insist upon this, yet your insistence is not evidence of illogic; it is only evidence that your personal experiences do not incline you to believe that he could have been referring to rape.

It is incredibly illogical actually. You're suggesting that people can criticise him because their past experiences make them believe that he is referring to rape, when its equally if not more likely that he was not.

It is logical to believe that he might have been joking about rape but acknowledge that he probably wasn't.
It is not logical to conclude that he was joking about rape and criticising him because of it.

I can understand initial reactions of people who have been exposed to rape being shock and offence, but then they need to let good ol' logic come in and remind them that their reaction is caused by their bias, not by his words.

This man should not be faulted, blamed or responsible for something he has no control over.

Unless he has Tourette's Syndrome, he is perfectly responsible for the words that come out of his mouth. What I think you actually object to holding him responsible for is the feelings of the people who hear his words, which, as far as that statement goes, is fair enough. I think it carries with it a taint of defensiveness, but on its own I'd say it's fair.

That is indeed what I meant. The words he spoke he should be responsible for, if there was anything inherently wrong with them. The fact that people made assumptions about his words, based on their own experiences is something he does not control and should not be held responsible for. Not when there are multiple other equally/more valid conclusions that could be drawn given adequate thought.

 

[JimB]

You're suggesting that people can criticize him because their past experiences make them believe that he is referring to rape, when it's equally if not more likely that he was not.

In the American legal system, there's a saying: Intent follows the bullet. It's a reference to a lot of different things, but probably its primary reason for existing is to warn you that if you're aiming your gun at Bobby, miss him, and shoot Billy instead, you don't get to say you're not guilty of killing Billy because your intent was to shoot Bobby. The law doesn't care: The fact that you shot Billy is proof your intent was not just to shoot Bobby, but to do so in a manner so careless that you were willing to risk shooting Billy in the process and you should be held accountable for it.

The term is of deliberately limited use; it can only be applied to acts of similar nature, so someone who shot at Bobby but instead hit Bobby's prize-winning cow can't be blamed for murder of the cow because cows can't be murdered (he still can be blamed for destruction of property). I bring all this up because I think it applies here: The Microsoft representative set out to use his words as a psychological weapon against his opponent, and, almost definitely unintentionally but nevertheless demonstrably, his words unsettled the minds of many, many more people than just her. The intent to harm those people can be inferred to follow the bullet that is his word choice.

Regardless of whether the Microsoft representative intended to convey a desire for his opponent to set down her controller and watch the game quietly or to convey that he wanted her to experience a helplessness that would lead her to silently submit to his power like a rape victim ought to in the face of her attacker's might, he chose words that some people can reasonably interpret as a rape reference, as proven by ShiningAmber's experiences, among others. How he can clear his name and/or atone for his actions are matters outside of my interests, and I won't address them; all I care about is people like ShiningAmber feeling like it's okay to say, "His words hurt me," and then people like her can decide for themselves what restitution, if any, they want.

EDIT: My mention of America's legal system should not be read as a belief that legal action against the Microsoft representative is necessary or appropriate. Unless someone can reasonably argue that his words caused real damage beyond hurting someone's feelings, I don't believe the law has any business addressing him or his actions. I only bring it up because I generally use America's legal system as a basis for my own beliefs about correct behavior.

The words he spoke he should be responsible for, if there was anything inherently wrong with them.

Nothing is inherently wrong with any words. Words are just tools, and they're no better or worse than their effectiveness in achieving the goal they're set to. Even a word as reviled here in America as "******" isn't inherently wrong, because there are situations in which it can be put to a constructive use, such as when black people use it among themselves in an effort to take its power away from the racists who want it to be a weapon. Any word or even sequence of words could conceivably be appropriate in some circumstance, so one can't judge based strictly on his words taken out of the context in which they were spoken. One can only judge how wrong his words were based on the effect they have, and this is bound to be a subjective standard since words themselves are symbols of the things they describe and are open to interpretation.

 

[Strain42]

I didn't necessarily think it was a rape joke, but to me whether it was or wasn't is 100% irrelevant. Because you know what it WAS?

It was unfunny, mean-spirited, and rude. I'm all for playful ribbing here and there, but this did not fall under that category. It was just dumb. Rape oriented or not.

 

[fletch_talon]

In the American legal system, there's a saying: Intent follows the bullet. It's a reference to a lot of different things, but probably its primary reason for existing is to warn you that if you're aiming your gun at Bobby, miss him, and shoot Billy instead, you don't get to say you're not guilty of killing Billy because your intent was to shoot Bobby. The law doesn't care: The fact that you shot Billy is proof your intent was not just to shoot Bobby, but to do so in a manner so careless that you were willing to risk shooting Billy in the process and you should be held accountable for it.

The term is of deliberately limited use; it can only be applied to acts of similar nature, so someone who shot at Bobby but instead hit Bobby's prize-winning cow can't be blamed for murder of the cow because cows can't be murdered (he still can be blamed for destruction of property).

My reply to this isn't really relevant to our discussion but I have to say I'm pretty sure I'd be charged for attempted murder or some form of armed assault even if I only hit Bobby's cow. Either that or the US legal system is stupider than I thought and rewards criminals for bein a shit shot.
Either way I understand the point you're getting at, but don't think it applies here.

I bring all this up because I think it applies here: The Microsoft representative set out to use his words as a psychological weapon against his opponent, and, almost definitely unintentionally but nevertheless demonstrably, his words unsettled the minds of many, many more people than just her. The intent to harm those people can be inferred to follow the bullet that is his word choice.
Regardless of whether the Microsoft representative intended to convey a desire for his opponent to set down her controller and watch the game quietly or to convey that he wanted her to experience a helplessness that would lead her to silently submit to his power like a rape victim ought to in the face of her attacker's might, he chose words that some people can reasonably interpret as a rape reference, as proven by ShiningAmber's experiences, among others. How he can clear his name and/or atone for his actions are matters outside of my interests, and I won't address them; all I care about is people like ShiningAmber feeling like it's okay to say, "His words hurt me," and then people like her can decide for themselves what restitution, if any, they want.

And we're back to attributing malice. If this had been a competition, some form of e-sport, I can imagine him using his words as a "psychological weapon" in this case, its just trash talk/banter. When playing games with someone, some people prefer talking to silence, rather than talking about the weather or the football game, they'll generally choose to playfully mock each other. Its certainly something I do with my friends and they do the same in return.

And again whilst the words can be reasonably interpreted as a rape reference, it is not reasonable to conclude that it was a rape reference. So it is not okay to say "his words hurt me" instead its a case of, "his words reminded me of a time when I was hurt" the difference being that the man could not (or at the very least shoult not) be responsible for knowing those words were going to affect specific people in this way.

Words may be open for interpretation and it is certainly possible to arrive at more than one logical conclusion for many words and sentences. There is however such a thing as a wrong conclusion, or in this case an unreasonable conclusion. A conclusion is supposed to be reached after giving the subject a degree of thought. You say that context is important, yet the people who are jumping to conclusions, based on their past experiences are ignoring context. This is a man representing his company in front of a live audience playing a video game with someone he probably knows/works with. There was no rape reference, no reason to believe there was a rape reference.

 

[JimB]

I'm pretty sure I'd be charged for attempted murder or some form of armed assault even if I only hit Bobby's cow.

Well, yeah, that too.

And we're back to attributing malice.

How so? You don't think it's possible to accidentally hurt someone?

It is not okay to say "His words hurt me;" instead, it's a case of, "His words reminded me of a time when I was hurt."

I hate to say this, because I feel like you and I are getting along pretty well and I don't want to ruin that, but with all due respect, this is an area I just can't bend on: Yes, it is okay to say "His words hurt me." It is at least as okay to say that as it is for the Microsoft representative to say "Just let it happen, it will be over soon."

You say that context is important, yet the people who are jumping to conclusions, based on their past experiences are ignoring context. This is a man representing his company in front of a live audience playing a video game with someone he probably knows/works with. There was no rape reference, no reason to believe there was a rape reference.

You don't think there's an endemic undercurrent of misogyny in gaming and a rape culture in the West that informs his beliefs? And I know that probably sounds smug, but no, really, I'm asking. Do you disagree that those things are true and form part of the context of the situation?