Are you freakin' kidding me?

[GroovySpecs]

There really don't seem to be very many people who were offended by this joke - personally I'm not sure it even constitutes a rape joke, or a joke atall. As a woman I wasn't offended by the "joke", as a gamer I think could have felt more legitimatley offended by the 2-dimensional steriotypical depictions of gamers as portrayed in the clip.

On a side note I grow increasingly tired of people being "offended" by various things and my response is this: So What?
We teach children not to take any notice when other children say something nasty, that words can't hurt them, when exactly does this stop being applicable to adults? Offence and the taking there of is a two person activity that requires the participation not only of the person who acts to cause offence, but the person who chooses to be offended. Yes i agree that deliberatly causing offence is wrong, but in situations where there was no intent to cause offence then it is as much (if not more so) the ofendee's problem.

I couldn't agree more with your comment about offence. I used to work in HR (a few years ago) and even back then it was getting silly. I think you might appreciate this clip: http://www.snotr.com/video/8285/Steve_Hughes_-_Offended

 

[noahd]

*waits for the rape joke. clip ends* well! it takes a special type of special to turn everything man vs women in gaming into a rape joke.

by the way, every bit of it wasn't about rape. if i have to spell it out for you, you need to go back to your english teacher and tell her/him you learned nothing. parent comforts a child getting a needle from a doctor, well the doctor was obviously raping the child with a need. intern gets a cold and is forced into work, the intern was obviously raped by the his/her boss. a kid gets beaten up by the school bully, and gets taunted while being beaten up, saying; "had enough yet?" the bully was obviously raping the other kid.

well, well, well.... please stop associating everything to rape. when both parties are putting up a front; whether it's scripted or said on the fly. both of them were on even ground. if "she" had been a "he", there wouldn't be any talk about rape. and to add to this, it's not like she broke down crying. it's not like; she told him to get out of her personal space in a virtual world. it's a game people. are we suppose to compensate her for not moving her fingers and thumbs fast enough?

men and women's hand movements are the same, you get better the more you use them. another reason why people who learned to type, are good at multi-key movement games. and those that didn't learn it, still poke slowly at their keyboard while using their computer.

i think people are too sensitive with women after 2008-10 there's just people looking for a slight hint of discomfort and call rape to it. like they just learned the word through pop-culture and never learned what it actually means, what it actually is. so they're attributing both good and bad things to it almost on a weekly basis.

just let this phase die out. don't just keep adding to it. in this day in age you can't even be be anything without someone having a problem with it. and calling it something else. i bet you anything, if you went and interviewed her about this alleged "rape" she was receiving at the live broadcast at e3. she wouldn't know what you were talking about. and it was probably brought up as a problem to the microsoft guys, so they issued an auto apology like everything. people don't realize it's much more common than you think, think of changes in nintendo from japanese to english being toned down because phrases are too harsh for american ears. (even if they're english words to begin with.)

and that's how bad it is. and just for an added tidbit, the video they're using with the phrase "wow, you like this" as fuel to this is misheard. he said those, and she responded with "no, i don't like this." him referring to the attacks, and her referring to the situation she was in at the time of speaking.

in any other context he could have been complimenting her on something, and her mind being somewhere else at the time.

monkey see monkey do. monkey calls rape, shit hits the fan and all the monkey's throw their shit. welcome to the internet. i hate that it's almost to the point where you have to show someone what rape is for them to know what rape is.

 

[VanQ]

I STILL don't get why people are so surprised or outraged that gamers are considered a target worthy of discussion in context to women and sexism. Many gamers are terrible people in some cases, and the industry does little to discourage the prevalent awfulness.

The games industry does a whole lot more to discourage such behaviour than many others. They give us the option to mute, rate and report assholes and have the power to silence/suspend and even outright ban accounts of regular offenders. This is a lot more than say, the sports industry does with their players.

We even have the ability to self-police our own servers in some cases, allowing us to draw the line on what we consider acceptable and not. There are places where you can say what you want without fear and we have places where we know we can even send our kids and can guarantee they will be exposed as minimally as possible to assholes.

You have to give credit for that, at least.

 

[JimB]

If it was two females, it would obviously cater to fanboy tastes, and if it was two men, then women would be underrepresented.

I will grant that if the situation had been different, then things wouldn't be the same; though I kind of thought that was taken as granted.

They didn't even intentionally mention rape, they just did some standard, awkward trash talk.

I don't know that you have the necessary insight into the representative's mind to determine what his intentions were, but even if you do and even if he didn't intend to mention rape, so what? Is it impossible to mention something unintentionally?

No matter what you do, someone will find it offensive, so why even bother.

I bother to try to reduce the number of offensive statements I hear in the future.

That's it? Fuck, people, shut up.

I'm sorry if this conversation upsets you, though admittedly my sympathy is very limited by the fact that you're the one who made the choice to read and participate in it. My sympathy notwithstanding, though, I am afraid I cannot in good conscience shut up. This is a matter which our society needs to address, and your attempts to silence those who wish to speak out are harmful. There is already a culture of silence, shame, and derision oppressing the victims of sexual assault, and it is not okay to perpetuate it like this.

Where are you most likely to hear, "Don't worry, this will only hurt for a second;" "It'll be over soon;" and "There, that wasn't so bad now was it?" Being raped, or being a child getting an injection or other medical procedure?

Everyone who get's offended by those lines needs to grow up.

None of those three things are what was actually said. Words mean things, wulf3n, and it is dishonest to change the words the Microsoft representative used so that complaining about them becomes ridiculous. Please stop it.

I know we're giving the Microsoft PR department a hard time lately, but even those brainless monkeys wouldn't go, "Huh duh, I know what'll make da customer luv us, let's throw in some rape-related humour."

There are a couple of mistakes here, TrulyBritish. The first is that you seem to think the entire PR department at Microsoft is being blamed, when I don't think that's the case; to all evidence, everyone insists the banter was unscripted, so the blame only falls on one man. The second mistake is that you seem to think rape jokes can only be made intentionally, by people who say to themselves, "Hey, let's joke about sexually penetrating someone who does not consent to be penetrated." I think that's a ridiculous enough idea that I needn't explain why.

It's a poor choice of words as far as I'm concerned and nothing else.

Very well, but I don't see any particular reason to accept your judgment as authoritative.

Are we supposed to scrutinize all fighting game banter now?

I am pretty sure no one has suggested that, but even if they have, so what? What's the harm done by watching one's mouth?

I mean, the amount of times I've said or been told, "Give up, you'll never win" is practically uncountable, and I barely play fighting games.

The representative did not say, "Give up, you'll never win." He said, "Just let it happen. It'll be over soon."

We teach children not to take any notice when other children say something nasty, that words can't hurt them; when exactly does this stop being applicable to adults?

It is not an absolute rule. Words are expressions of belief; belief informs behavior; behavior can hurt someone. In this case, making a televised rape reference indicates a belief that rape is an okay thing to bring up in friendly competition, and that belief forms the cornerstone of what is, in the specialized language of gender politics, referred to as rape culture.

I agree that deliberately causing offense is wrong, but in situations where there was no intent to cause offense, it is as much (if not more so) the offendee's problem.

What about intent mitigates result? If I don't intend to shoot you in the leg while playing with a gun, does that mean the bullet isn't still lodged in your shin regardless?

If I beat another guy at a fighting game, while going "Yeah... You like that? Take it like a man," then clearly it makes me a homosexual rapist, right?

Of course not. A rapist is someone who has committed rape, and a homosexual person is one who is sexually and emotionally attracted only to members of his own sex. Making a statement fulfills neither of those qualifications, and I don't think anyone except for you has suggested that they do. What your statement does make you is someone who thinks it's okay to compare rape to losing at a video game.

Personally, I'm not sure it even constitutes a rape joke, or a joke at all. As a woman, I wasn't offended by the "joke;" as a gamer, I think could have felt more legitimately offended by the two-dimensional, stereotypical depictions of gamers as portrayed in the clip.

I agree that there's room to differ as to whether a rape joke was made, but I do wish you hadn't felt the need to mention your sex here. Was your intention to indicate that your genitals confer upon you authority to determine what should or should not offend people on this topic?

I used to work in HR (a few years ago) and even back then it was getting silly.

I might consider your work in HR a more valid qualification on this topic, depending on its nature, if you'd care to expand upon this.

[various ironic statements about people in authority raping those under their care that I do not choose to repeat]

Again, I do not think anyone has accused the Microsoft representative of being a rapist. We are accusing him of making a rape joke. You seem to be raging against a position no one here has taken.

If she had been a he, there wouldn't be any talk about rape.

There probably would not be talk about it, but the lack of talk would not be proof that we shouldn't be talking about it. When the sexual assault of men is treated as a punchline ("Don't drop the soap!") or as a thing to be desired ("My brother's teacher is having sex with him!" "Nice!"), it is very much a conversation that would need to happen in the scenario you have presented but that is not the scenario at hand which we are discussing.

It's not like she broke down crying.

Irrelevant. Whether his joke was about rape is not determined by her response to it.

Are we suppose to compensate her for not moving her fingers and thumbs fast enough?

No one has said that except for you. You are again raging against an imaginary position.

I think people are too sensitive with women after 2008-2010; there's just people looking for a slight hint of discomfort and call rape to it, like they just learned the word through pop culture and never learned what it actually means, what it actually is.

If you are so concerned with the state of public education regarding rape, then please, feel free to explain exactly what it is instead of complaining about an ignorance you will not correct.

 

[wulf3n]

Where are you most likely to hear, "Don't worry, this will only hurt for a second;" "It'll be over soon;" and "There, that wasn't so bad now was it?" Being raped, or being a child getting an injection or other medical procedure?

Everyone who get's offended by those lines needs to grow up.

None of those three things are what was actually said.

Ok.

Where are you most likely to hear, "Just let it happen" and "It'll be over soon;" Being raped, or being a child getting an injection or other medical procedure?

wulf3n, and it is dishonest to change the words the Microsoft representative used so that complaining about them becomes ridiculous. Please stop it.

You mistake intentional dishonesty with not recognising a single difference.

Words mean things,

Sure they do, but are you fully responsible for how every single person may interpret your words?

I wouldn't find this an issue if it was as simple as "I got offended"

What people seem to forget in these instances is when enough people get "offended" someone's life get's ruined. And I'm not going to be responsible for ruining someone's life when they meant no harm, especially when what was said so far removed from what people are actually getting offended by.

 

[JimB]

Where are you most likely to hear, "Just let it happen," and "It'll be over soon:" Being raped, or being a child getting an injection or other medical procedure?

I object to this question as being dishonest on the grounds that you are separating his two sentences as if they're two distinct sentiments rather than linked parts of a single whole, and on the grounds that likelihood is a measure of commonality, so even if one is more likely to hear those words, devoid of context, in a doctor's office than while being sexually assaulted, that in and of itself is only proof that children receiving injections is a more common occurrence than a rapist negotiating with his victim and is therefore neither explicit nor implicit proof of the representative's intent when making the statement.

You mistake intentional dishonesty with not recognizing a single difference.

I offer no opinion as to whether your dishonesty is intentional; it is entirely possible to lie to oneself without knowing or recognizing it as such. I do not, however, care about your intent. I care about the effects of it that I have to deal with.

Sure they do, but are you fully responsible for how every single person may interpret your words?

I am responsible for the words I chose and for how accurately they reflect the thoughts I am attempting to communicate. If my intent is to make a funny joke about winning at a game, yet the words I chose are interpreted as an allusion to rape, then I have, at the very least, made a grievous error in how sloppily I have chosen to express myself.

What people seem to forget in these instances is when enough people get "offended," someone's life gets ruined.

I haven't forgotten it; I just never bothered to consider it because I don't care. This representative's life is not my concern, responsibility, or interest. He is the one who chose his wording, and I am content to let him deal with the consequences of his choice to the best of his ability. What I am interested in and concerned with is contributing to an atmosphere where it is safe to discuss disapproval of rape without being attacked and silenced by people who don't want to hear about it.

I'm not going to be responsible for ruining someone's life when they meant no harm, especially when what was said so far removed from what people are actually getting offended by.

You are within your rights to choose what discussions you will participate in and what you believe about a stranger's motivations. I disagree with your priorities (I am not convinced that I agree or disagree with your stance as to the Microsoft representatives intentions), but I do not pretend I have the right, ability, or even the need to force you to continue speaking if you don't wish to.

 

[wulf3n]

I haven't forgotten it; I just never bothered to consider it because I don't care. This representative's life is not my concern, responsibility, or interest.

That's the only sentence I need to read from you.

I'm so disgusted right now it's sickening.

edit:

Oh look there's something worse. Hypocrisy

What I am interested in and concerned with is contributing to an atmosphere where it is safe to discuss disapproval of rape without being attacked and silenced by people who don't want to hear about it.

Instead your contributing to an atmosphere where it isn't safe to discuss anything out of fear of misrepresentation.

I actually think I'm going to throw up.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

I do not find this okay. Not because it was directed at a woman. This is in, fact, about rape. There are no other connotations were "Just let it happen. It will be over soon." is not meant to be related to rape. This is not "reading too much into things". That is using rape to trash-talk someone.

And I genuinely do not care about the genders of the people involved. This would be just as terrible for me if it was a woman saying that to a man.

I am also extremely disturbed by the amount of people who consider all this to be normal or even acceptable. I don't know what I find more repulsive, the line itself, or the fact that nobody gives a fuck.

Many people have said they heard that or similar while undergoing medical procedures, like going to the dentist/getting shots when they were younger. The words make sense in this context. I seem to remember something similar being used in a movie/book or something during a execution (I can't remember what the thing was but I think the line was "don't worry, it will all be over soon") to makes sense in this context. What about this makes it rape? It doesn't hint at sexual assault at all, just that something is happening that you would rather not, and if you let it it will end sooner... that could refer to a myriad of things, rape being one of them. It works in the context of video games. Please don't start declaring phrases used perfectly well in a appropriate context as rape references without evidence.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Where are you most likely to hear, "Just let it happen," and "It'll be over soon:" Being raped, or being a child getting an injection or other medical procedure?

I object to this question as being dishonest on the grounds that you are separating his two sentences as if they're two distinct sentiments rather than linked parts of a single whole, and on the grounds that likelihood is a measure of commonality, so even if one is more likely to hear those words, devoid of context, in a doctor's office than while being sexually assaulted, that in and of itself is only proof that children receiving injections is a more common occurrence than a rapist negotiating with his victim and is therefore neither explicit nor implicit proof of the representative's intent when making the statement.

You mistake intentional dishonesty with not recognizing a single difference.

I offer no opinion as to whether your dishonesty is intentional; it is entirely possible to lie to oneself without knowing or recognizing it as such. I do not, however, care about your intent. I care about the effects of it that I have to deal with.

Sure they do, but are you fully responsible for how every single person may interpret your words?

I am responsible for the words I chose and for how accurately they reflect the thoughts I am attempting to communicate. If my intent is to make a funny joke about winning at a game, yet the words I chose are interpreted as an allusion to rape, then I have, at the very least, made a grievous error in how sloppily I have chosen to express myself.

What people seem to forget in these instances is when enough people get "offended," someone's life gets ruined.

I haven't forgotten it; I just never bothered to consider it because I don't care. This representative's life is not my concern, responsibility, or interest. He is the one who chose his wording, and I am content to let him deal with the consequences of his choice to the best of his ability. What I am interested in and concerned with is contributing to an atmosphere where it is safe to discuss disapproval of rape without being attacked and silenced by people who don't want to hear about it.

I'm not going to be responsible for ruining someone's life when they meant no harm, especially when what was said so far removed from what people are actually getting offended by.

You are within your rights to choose what discussions you will participate in and what you believe about a stranger's motivations. I disagree with your priorities (I am not convinced that I agree or disagree with your stance as to the Microsoft representatives intentions), but I do not pretend I have the right, ability, or even the need to force you to continue speaking if you don't wish to.

If the life of a representative is absolutely none of your concern, why do you care about rape victims at all? They made their choices, let them deal with the consequences. You clearly don't concern yourself with the fate of your fellow humans, why make a exception?

 

[JimB]

That's the only sentence I need to read from you.

I'm so disgusted right now it's sickening.

You have my sympathy for your gastrointestinal distress, but please permit me to point out that you and I are doing more or less the same things, only in different directions. I have no interest in advocating for the one man who you suggest will suffer some nebulous, nonspecific form of ruin; you have no interest in advocating for the people who feel his comment contributes to rape culture and that its victims will suffer some ruin of their own. I suggest that your feelings and mine are much more similar than dissimilar.

Incidentally--and I doubt there's anything to be gained from this distinction, but still, let us be specific in our word choices--the "that" you mentioned is not one sentence. It is two.

edit:

Oh look there's something worse. Hypocrisy.

What do you think the word "hypocrisy" means? I do not think it applies here. You seem to think that it is hypocritical for me to have a goal to discuss rape in a safe environment if I don't also want people to be able to make public allusions to wishing rape upon someone, and I have to say I cannot find the logic in that assertion.

Instead you're contributing to an atmosphere where it isn't safe to discuss anything out of fear of misrepresentation.

If you choose to respond to fear of misrepresentation not by exercising more caution in your word choices, nor by arguing in favor of your preferred position, but rather by taking a vow of silence, then I can only shrug and wish you the best of luck with all that, because it is, at the end of the day, your choice to make, and I do not and cannot accept responsibility for how you choose to exercise your free will.

Many people have said they heard that or similar while undergoing medical procedures, like going to the dentist/getting shots when they were younger.

Are you suggesting that the Microsoft representative's statement was meant to be interpreted as, "This will cause you a momentary discomfort, but it is being performed for the benefit of your medical health, wherefore I implore you to cooperate with this procedure?"

 

[wulf3n]

What do you think the word "hypocrisy" means? I do not think it applies here.

You seem to think that it is hypocritical for me to have a goal to discuss rape in a safe environment if I don't also want people to be able to make public allusions to wishing rape upon someone, and I have to say I cannot find the logic in that assertion.

It's hypocritical to want to be able to speak your mind, but punish those who speak theirs.

If you choose to respond to fear of misrepresentation not by exercising more caution in your word choices, nor by arguing in favor of your preferred position, but rather by taking a vow of silence, then I can only shrug and wish you the best of luck with all that, because it is, at the end of the day, your choice to make, and I do not and cannot accept responsibility for how you choose to exercise your free will.

It's not a choice if it's under fear of duress. Those against Rape should understand that point very clearly.

 

[JimB]

If the life of a representative is absolutely none of your concern, why do you care about rape victims at all?

Forgive me if I do not choose to discuss with you the source of my sympathy for the victims of sexual assault.

They made their choices; let them deal with the consequences.

Are you suggesting that the victim of sexual assault should be held accountable for the crime perpetrated against him?

You clearly don't concern yourself with the fate of your fellow humans, why make a exception?

I think it requires a willful misreading of my words to leap from "This representative's life is not my concern, responsibility, or interest," to, "No human life is of any concern to me." I have made a statement about one, specific human being. You are attempting to extrapolate from that a position I do not hold that you can use to attack me with. Please stop it. It is dishonest and insupportable.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

That's the only sentence I need to read from you.

I'm so disgusted right now it's sickening.

You have my sympathy for your gastrointestinal distress, but please permit me to point out that you and I are doing more or less the same things, only in different directions. I have no interest in advocating for the one man who you suggest will suffer some nebulous, nonspecific form of ruin; you have no interest in advocating for the people who feel his comment contributes to rape culture and that its victims will suffer some ruin of their own. I suggest that your feelings and mine are much more similar than dissimilar.

Incidentally--and I doubt there's anything to be gained from this distinction, but still, let us be specific in our word choices--the "that" you mentioned is not one sentence. It is two.

edit:

Oh look there's something worse. Hypocrisy.

What do you think the word "hypocrisy" means? I do not think it applies here. You seem to think that it is hypocritical for me to have a goal to discuss rape in a safe environment if I don't also want people to be able to make public allusions to wishing rape upon someone, and I have to say I cannot find the logic in that assertion.

Instead you're contributing to an atmosphere where it isn't safe to discuss anything out of fear of misrepresentation.

If you choose to respond to fear of misrepresentation not by exercising more caution in your word choices, nor by arguing in favor of your preferred position, but rather by taking a vow of silence, then I can only shrug and wish you the best of luck with all that, because it is, at the end of the day, your choice to make, and I do not and cannot accept responsibility for how you choose to exercise your free will.

Many people have said they heard that or similar while undergoing medical procedures, like going to the dentist/getting shots when they were younger.

Are you suggesting that the Microsoft representative's statement was meant to be interpreted as, "This will cause you a momentary discomfort, but it is being performed for the benefit of your medical health, wherefore I implore you to cooperate with this procedure?"

Note that another one of my examples was a execution... I am simply saying that words have different associations and it is just as likely to be a reference to a medical procedure as a rape, without context. In this context they were talking about being beaten in a video game. Not rape, not medicine, not execution.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

If the life of a representative is absolutely none of your concern, why do you care about rape victims at all?

Forgive me if I do not choose to discuss with you the source of my sympathy for the victims of sexual assault.

They made their choices; let them deal with the consequences.

Are you suggesting that the victim of sexual assault should be held accountable for the crime perpetrated against him?

You clearly don't concern yourself with the fate of your fellow humans, why make a exception?

I think it requires a willful misreading of my words to leap from "This representative's life is not my concern, responsibility, or interest," to, "No human life is of any concern to me." I have made a statement about one, specific human being. You are attempting to extrapolate from that a position I do not hold that you can use to attack me with. Please stop it. It is dishonest and insupportable.

You declared someones life to be not your concern. That strikes me as rather cold, and incredibly odd for someone coming from a position dealing with rape culture. I am saying, in a somewhat exaggerated and sarcastic way, that his life should be your concern. The lives of people in generally should be your concern, rape victims and representatives both. If this representative warrants some special lack of attention, my question is why? What makes him less your concern than the victims of sexual assault? Moving on, of course I don't believe rape victims should be held responsible for crimes against them. I also don't believe that someone should be held responsible for others grossly misinterpreting his words. People shouldn't be blamed when bad things happen to them, yet you seem to flippantly disregard any potential consequences on the representatives head. That is my point.

 

[wulf3n]

If the life of a representative is absolutely none of your concern, why do you care about rape victims at all?

You are attempting to extrapolate from that a position I do not hold that you can use to attack me with. Please stop it. It is dishonest and insupportable.

Were you not the one who said:

I am responsible for the words I chose and for how accurately they reflect the thoughts I am attempting to communicate

Anything anyone infers is your own fault.

 

[Wyvern65]

Can we all just agree that from the perspective of a listener it was an ambiguous statement?

Surely those who are against the statement on the basis of discouraging Rape Culture have better targets to pick on? Cause I don't see a dearth of explicit rape jokes in mainstream culture.

Surely those who see it as harmless and simply another sentence in a cringe-worthy exchange can say "well I don't see it like that, but it's not important enough to argue about?"

I mean, why is this even a thing? Everyone will have forgotten about this in a week.

There are enough people on both sides of the issue that I would hope it would be obvious that this is a statement open to interpretation, regardless of your own conclusion in the matter.

 

[Candidus]

I make jokes about molesting, spanking and otherwise violating my friends (or the CPU, when I'm alone) all the time while playing videogames.

"TP bot they're going to touch me-nnooooOOOOshit!!"
"Eugh. Lion caught me in the jungle and fingered me." (he's got a nuke called finger of death)
"Can we go molest them bot?"
"Eat it!" (extremely general exclamation; why wouldn't you assume i mean the dragon fist unless i make it explicit that i mean something else? i don't know, but this is the most objected-to comment I make!)

I don't adjust those comments regardless of the sex or sensibilities of the people I'm playing with. If they (they being anyone, men or women) don't like it, they'll soon piss off won't they?

When the MS beat-'em-up incident guy said "just let it happen", rape didn't even cross my mind until the hysterical whining started.

If I were an MS employee up on stage, and I was scheduled to share that presentation with a woman, I think I'd play it safe from now on and make no expressions at all. Not a word. Nothing against her, but plenty against the crowd turning it into an `incident`.