Are you freakin' kidding me?

[TallanKhan]

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?

Words are only expressions of belief if someone is using them as such. Unless stated by the speaker, the belief someone chooses to infer from someones words is subjective. Even when words are an expression of belief sometimes they are just that, beliefs, and someone is free to believe what they like. Beliefs do not automatically translate into behaviour, and where it does translate into inappropriate then its the behaviour that is wrong.

As far as your example with a gun goes, a gun can do actual, physical damage to a person. You cannot just ignore a gun shot wound to the leg, you can ignore something someone says, however unpleasant. Shooting somone is an independant act, something you do to someone. Offending and becoming offended requires both parties to participate, your reaction to what someone says is much your decision as is their decision to offend you.

The reason that when it comes to offence itent is important is that offence is subjective. A physical wound is not. Anyone can be offended by anything. If no offence was intended then it is their problem. I'm offended by whistling in public, i find it irritating and think it's inconsiderate, and that's my problem, not the problem of the person whistling.

 

[Olas]

Oh look, people taking something completely out of context and making it about rape.

Guess we need to have atleast on rape controversy a month. Even if it has absolutely nothing to do with rape.

No kidding ehhh he was clearly talking about beating her in the game and it had nothing to do with rape by any extent of imagination.

Then why were people chuckling? No, even if you don't believe the speaker meant to reference rape (which I find unlikely) it can, and obviously was, interpreted that way by numerous people. And even as someone with a pretty clean mind I can understand why.

And while I wouldn't give 37% of a fuck if I heard this or much much worse things said between my friends at home, I think it's probably not the best choice of words for a press conference.

Still it was off the cuff and accidental, so aside from being maybe a sad reflection of the immaturity on the underbelly of gaming culture, it's really nothing to get mad about.

It's called a joke, you might want to look that word up in a dictionary.

You mean I can say literally anything I want without consequences if I claim it's a joke?

WOOHOO CONSEQUENCES ARE FOR SUCKERS!

You should be able to say anything you want without consequence regardless of whether it's a joke or not, that's how free speech works.

You mean without legal consequence I assume, which isn't even what this discussion is about. Your words can and do have consequence in most other contexts though. For example there are definitely consequences in these forums for saying things that are inappropriate or offensive. Most of us, me included, have probably gotten a warning from the mods for something they have (or haven't) said. And even outside of that there are always social consequences for saying things people will find hurtful and derogatory.

BTW: I don't know how things work in the UK, but in the US there are definite limits, as set down by the supreme court, as to what is and isn't protected legally as free speech as well. For example you can't walk into an airport and make a bomb threat without expecting legal repercussions. A threat to rape someone is probably a bit of a grey area, but definitely not worth trying.

 

[JazzJack2]

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?

And you too have no insight into the representative's mind so how can you claims about what he meant?
Seeing as you have provided no logical reason for this to interpreted as a rape joke, it can mean any number of different things and you only choose to see it as a rape joke to create a false controversy. Intentions are what matter and if he did not intend it to mean rape, then then it is not about rape, simple as.

EDIT:

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?

Well...
A) This example is unfair because a gun can go off without intent where as you can't be offensive without intent (A person being offended does not inherently make you offensive)

B)Even in your example whether or not it was intended clearly changes the result, if I intend to shoot someone in the leg I go down for GBH or even attempted murder, if I do it accidentally the worst I could be charged with would be negligence.

 

[Product Placement]

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.

Thank you for explaining to me the intricacies of rape and homosexuality, captain obvious. I can now live my life in peace.

...

However, I feel like throwing out that my real point was a simple sarcastic remark explaining pretty much exactly what you're saying.

Some people seem to draw too easily an equal sign, between rape and any sign of aggressive, dominating attitude. Establishing dominating position over someone else is a primitive behavior that we inherited from our pack animal mentality and is exercised through various means. Physical and sexual violence are the crudest forms, that have existed with us the longest. While beating someone to a bloody pulp or raping him has a very different effect on the victim, it achieves the same result. "I'm better than you. You obey me."

This may have worked fine during tribal era, but as our society has developed and these practices became detrimental to a stable civilization, we've developed more abstract methods, like ceremonial/social/military ranks and champion worshiping ("my gladiator/sports team is gonna trounce the one you're routing for"). Virtual fighting in video games is just another one of those recently developed abstract means to let loose those primal urges of domination.

So it's no wonder that some people see similarities between rape and banter between people fighting in a video game, but you'd see the exact same banter between people fighting in real life and those fighting in a video game.

In short:
Saying that video game banter is rape, is fucking stupid.

 

[JimB]

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.

Except I never said I want to be able to speak my mind. I said I want people to feel safe when they discuss rape. I did not say anything about wanting to be able to speak freely on any topic, nor on the specific topic of making televised rape jokes. I feel like, in your eagerness to condemn me, you are ignoring what I am actually saying and attributing to me statements I have never made.

It's not a choice if it's under fear of duress.

I am not sure "duress" means what you think it means. It means force or compulsion. You seem to think that you cannot have free will not only when you're being forced or compelled to behave in a certain way, but also when you're not being forced or compelled to behave in a certain way but are afraid you might be. If that's the case, then any sort of consequence imposed for any action is a violation of free will, and under that paradigm I still can't quite bring myself to feel much pity because all human agency is negated by the fact that other humans exist who might react negatively to to anything we do, so screw it, this is just a drop in the ocean.

Those against rape should understand that point very clearly.

I do not think it is in good taste to compare the victim of rape to someone having to weather bad publicity for making a televised rape joke.

Note that another one of my examples was a execution.

Sure. Back on page three of this thread, I said my first instinct is to interpret it as something very similar to an 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.

What does this conversation gain by removing any of the events we're discussing from context and placing them in some bubble of isolated hypothesis, where anything can refer to anything because we're not permitted to consider the environment in which they occur? It seems useless to me.

In this context they were talking about being beaten in a video game. Not rape, not medicine, not execution.

What he was talking about is not necessarily the same thing as what he was alluding to; the word for that is "metaphor." Similarly, what he intended to talk about is not necessarily the same thing he did talk about.

You declared someone's 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.

Of course it's cold. I'm a cold-hearted person. He made a poor statement; making a statement is an action; actions have consequences. The consequences of his actions on his actions do not interest me either positively or negatively. As far as I'm concerned, he could get fired from his job, blacklisted from the video games industry, and forced to work the rest of his life as a janitor at a truck stop, and I will sleep every bit as well as if his employer gave him a bonus of forty million dollars, a private island, and a jet made of platinum to fly back and forth from it. I don't care which of those he gets, or if it's some subtle grade of variation on the scale betwixt the two. Until the consequences offend my sense of justice, I am disinterested in them.

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.

Not in the least. I am responsible for exactly what I said I am responsible for: the accuracy of my word choice as it relates to reflecting the ideas I wish to communicate. Inferences are formed entirely in the minds of the audience, and if, for instance, you think that the statement "I want to be able to discuss rape in a safe environment" has an exactly equal meaning to the statement "I want to speak my mind freely," then that is a result of you not understanding that different words have different meanings, and I do not accept responsibility for your failure to take the language seriously enough to comprehend that.

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

I agree that the intent of the Microsoft representative's mind is not proven, but I also think that just being silent out of fear of causing a kerfuffle is cowardly and a tacit endorsement of rape culture. We need to be able to debate this calmly, and validating that debate more than punishing some sloppy game rep whose name I don't even know is what I am interested in accomplishing here.

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

What does this admission add to the conversation? It seems like a dare for someone to attack you. You do not care about the effect your words have on the culture: What, then, are we expected to do with this information?

Words are only expressions of belief if someone is using them as such.

I am personally unable to think of a time when words are not an expression of the speaker's beliefs. Even when the speaker is lying, his words are an action dissonant to the actions his lies are intended to obfuscate, so his words there reflect his belief that it's okay to lie in order to achieve what he wants. What scenario can you think of where words do not flow forth from belief?

Even when words are an expression of belief sometimes they are just that, beliefs, and someone is free to believe what they like. Beliefs do not automatically translate into behavior, and where it does translate into inappropriate then its the behavior that is wrong.

True, but I didn't say belief translates to behavior. I said belief informs behavior. The Microsoft representative's beliefs match those of a culture that demonizes sex and treats the victims of rape as being shamed and ruined, and he expressed that belief either by treating the topic as a joke or by being so casually contemptuous of it that he didn't bother to consider the associations of the joke he otherwise innocently chose. I do not argue that he is a pro-rape advocate, and indeed I'm sure he's outraged and horrified to know that so many people accuse him of supporting rape, but regardless of any of that, his words travel far and send more messages than he intends to a lot of people.

As far as your example with a gun goes, a gun can do actual, physical damage to a person. You cannot just ignore a gun shot wound to the leg, but you can ignore something someone says, however unpleasant.

I need to digress a bit here for my response to make sense. Please forgive me if I become a bit pedantic (okay, more pedantic than I already have been, then), but I intend to be careful here because I think one of the greatest mistakes feminists tend to make is assuming that everyone understands the specialized language we use, so I mean to unpack a few terms first to try to ensure understanding.

"Rape culture" is a term that refers to how American society in particular (I do not speak for any other culture I don't participate in) enables rape through ignorance and shame. There are a lot of fallacious beliefs surrounding rape--that rape is about a desire for sex rather than a desire for dominance and authority; that rape is always a violent act; that women require men to be the aggressors in sex and as such their protests are lies a man has to see past; others--our culture encourages. We don't discuss rape openly because we all agree it's the Worst Thing Ever, so since we don't discuss it, everyone is left to form his own opinion of what actually constitutes rape and what enables it. This is extremely problematic.

When rape is compared to the violence enacted in a fighting game, it reinforces the frankly wrong idea that rape is something that occurs in dark alleys, perpetrated only by men in ski masks with box cutters held to a woman's throat. That is so wrong as to be laughable if not for the horror of its implications. Rape is what happens when a woman's friend offers her a ride home from a party and decides she's attracted to him even if she says no; it's what happens when an eight-year-old boy is seduced by his school teacher; it's what happens when teenagers find a woman unconscious from alcohol and decide to manually stroke her vagina while filming it.

So my response to you is, words can be ignored by me, but that I ignore them does not mean the rest of the world isn't absorbing the lesson those words have to offer, and I will speak against it because I consider it dangerous.

You too have no insight into the representative's mind, so how can you claim about what he meant?

I have not claimed that. In fact, I have several times said the opposite, and I think you are attributing to me arguments I have not made.

This example is unfair because a gun can go off without intent where as you can't be offensive without intent.

My grandmother does not intend to be offensive when she talks about how it's unfair to the child when her white granddaughter marries, in my grandmother's words, a ******. She thinks, in fact, that she is being enlightened and empathetic for the struggles the poor baby will go through as a result of having a light brown skin tone, and she thinks "******" is an okay word to use because that's just what a black person is and people shouldn't be so touchy about it. Her intent makes her statement and her belief no less outrageous.

Even in your example whether or not it was intended clearly changes the result, if I intend to shoot someone in the leg I go down for GBH or even attempted murder, but if I do it accidentally the worst I could be charged with would be negligence.

What is GBH? I don't know that term.

In any event, what you are describing is not a mitigation of outcome. It is a mitigation of punishment. I don't care what punishment the courts choose to inflict upon you for your behavior; I care about the bullet in your friend's shin.

Thank you for explaining to me the intricacies of rape and homosexuality, Captain Obvious. I can now live my life in peace.

If you want to argue against a position no one has taken--that making sexually charged statements to a male friend defines you as a gay rapist--then I will rebut you until you quit insisting anyone has said such a thing. It is a distraction from the real issue, and it does no one a service.

Saying that video game banter is rape is fucking stupid.

I agree. However--and I'm a bit dismayed by how often I have to say this; perhaps I ought to underscore this for emphasis--no one is arguing that banter is rape. I, at least, am arguing that this specific man's specific banter is a reference to rape, whether intentionally or un-. Statements like "Video game banter is not rape," while accurate, are confusing the issue and missing the point, and I really wish they would stop so we could discuss what is actually happening.

 

[rasputin0009]

The phrases "Just let it happen." and "It'll be over soon" are commonly used during rape scenes in literature, movies, and television. The reason why it was considered a "joke" (and said in the first place) is because it is taking something as innocent as competing in a video game and attributing it to something dark. It was an attempt at humour, but it came out really awkward.

So yes, it was a rape joke. Can you make jokes about rape? Yes. I don't believe any topic should be avoided in comedy. Should rape jokes be made at a professional, corporate press conference that represents a large portion of a community? No. Highly inappropriate time and place. Can people rightfully be upset about it? Of course! I don't think it's silly. I think it helps point out the misogynistic undertones that are considered the norm in the video games industry.

If someone gets upset at a professional comedian for making a rape joke in a comedy club (see Daniel Tosh*), I think it's extremely silly.

* A heckler yelled at Tosh saying "You can't make rape jokes", and Tosh replied with "Wouldn't it be funny if that lady got raped?". He later apologized because of the media shitstorm that followed. Even though I think Tosh is a terrible comedian, I don't think he deserved all the backlash he got. I don't think he should have apologized, either.

 

[JazzJack2]

When rape is compared to the violence enacted in a fighting game, it reinforces the frankly wrong idea that rape is something that occurs in dark alleys, perpetrated only by men in ski masks with box cutters held to a woman's throat. That is so wrong as to be laughable if not for the horror of its implications. Rape is what happens when a woman's friend offers her a ride home from a party and decides she's attracted to him even if she says no; it's what happens when an eight-year-old boy is seduced by his school teacher; it's what happens when teenagers find a woman unconscious from alcohol and decide to manually stroke her vagina while filming it.

And yet there is no scientific evidence that rape jokes lead to a warped view of rape, rapists and rape victims.

My grandmother does not intend to be offensive when she talks about how it's unfair to the child when her white granddaughter marries, in my grandmother's words, a ******. She thinks, in fact, that she is being enlightened and empathetic for the struggles the poor baby will go through as a result of having a light brown skin tone, and she thinks "******" is an okay word to use because that's just what a black person is and people shouldn't be so touchy about it. Her intent makes her statement and her belief no less outrageous.

But she clearly does have the intent to be disparaging of interracial couples even if she doesn't understand that this isn't accepted in society. These presenters as far you know, not only had no intent to offend but also no intent to make a rape joke (I reiterate there is no logical reason to think this is about rape above any of the other millions of interpretations). If you imply that anything can be offensive even without intent to offend OR even intent to make a comment that is potentially offensive then anything can be taken as offensive. And let me ask you this, as a gay man if some bigot takes offense to an outward display of homosexuality is it my fault? I had no intent to offend nor the intent to do something that I knew possibly could offend, but my intentions are irrelevant and the person has taken offense so I must apologize right?

What is GBH? I don't know that term.

In any event, what you are describing is not a mitigation of outcome. It is a mitigation of punishment. I don't care what punishment the courts choose to inflict upon you for your behavior; I care about the bullet in your friend's shin.

But you have made the mistake in thinking your offense is the bullet in the shin when it is fact the reaction of judge in this metaphor. Words only have outcomes based on how people CHOOSE to react to them, and it is my opinion that if you pass judgment on what someone says their intentions should be the sole focus of how you react. Frankly it seems odd to me that you think words have an inherent objective meaning or outcome outside the speakers on intentions, speech is after all only a way of articulating a person's own intentions of opinions.

PS- GBH stands for Grievous Bodily Harm.

 

[unbreakable212]

Just seems like people are making a big deal out of nothing. I don't see any problem with it, it's game trash talk that's all, like someone said previously in the thread, if it was directed at another male no one would give a shit.

Hell, I've said things along those lines "Just let it happen, it'll be over soon" when thrashing a friend at Starcraft 2, never thought of it as a "rape joke".

 

[Xanadu84]

MS did a awkward, scripted stage show where they tried to simulate real, humorous trash talk and came across as awkward, creepy, and vaugely reminiscent of rape (Accidentally). They should have known that they were being stupid, and it was a complete PR failure that they have no one to blame on but themselves. Now sure, this wasn't meant as a rape reference, and to say that that was their intent is also wrong. But just maybe, the fact that so many people were made uncomfortable and went a little overboard because of their legitimate discomfort doesn't actually mean that all people talking about anything sexist in all video games everywhere are man hating feminazis out to destroy everything that is fun.

Just maybe, they have legitimate concerns with a massive cultural problem, a problem that speaking out against can literally get you threatened with rape, and because of that they have a difficult times not being a little stand-offish every now and again. Maybe, people could reasonably point out that it's not fair to accuse MS of encouraging rape in a tone deaf presentation, without trying to undermine the entire idea that maybe the culture of videogames has a bit of a sexism problem?

 

[Naeo]

While I am seriously doubtful that the presenter in any way meant this as a rape comment (it was probably an instance of "saying something that sounded better in your head but came out wrong"), it was still an incredibly poor choice of words given that there IS a rampant problem with sexism in the gaming industry (via portrayal of women in games) and culture. It does seem silly to me that it's created such an uproar, but I'm frankly glad that there appears to be a stigmatization of sexist/rape-related comments. It is a problem we need to do something about as a community, and stigmatizing such viewpoints seems a good place to start.

 

[JimB]

Yet there is no scientific evidence that rape jokes lead to a warped view of rape, rapists, and rape victims.

I was about to start digging up studies and articles when a suspicious thought occurred to me: This argument sounds very similar to the ones that decry global warming and/or evolution, which makes me wonder if this isn't perhaps a waste of my time. Would you mind telling me what form of evidence you would accept as compelling here, so I can look for it specifically without having to worry that I'm banging my head against a wall?

[Your grandmother] clearly does have the intent to be disparaging of interracial couples even if she doesn't understand that this isn't accepted in society.

I cannot think of any new ways to say that I care about the results and effects, not the intent behind them.

If you imply that anything can be offensive even without intent to offend or even intent to make a comment that is potentially offensive, then anything can be taken as offensive.

I'll more than imply it, I'll outright state it. The definition of "offensive" is "something that offends." If a thing has offended, then it is offensive. That is how words work.

And let me ask you this: As a gay man, if some bigot takes offense to an outward display of homosexuality, is it my fault?

I think this question is changing the topic. I haven't been discussing fault, and I'm not interested in laying blame. I am discussing effects I have to deal with.

I had no intent to offend nor the intent to do something that I knew possibly could offend, but my intentions are irrelevant and the person has taken offense, so I must apologize, right?

You're correct for most of that except for the part about being required to apologize. The scenario you describe is one where your happiness and his are mutually exclusive, and you owe no one an apology for prioritizing your happiness above that other fellow's.

But you have made the mistake in thinking your offense is the bullet in the shin when it is fact the reaction of judge in this metaphor.

No, in this metaphor, the judge is the court of public opinion condemning or defending the Microsoft representative in this discussion. The offense is the issue being settled by the court, and the issue being settled by the court is the bullet; the effects of his speech.

Words only have outcomes based on how people choose to react to them, and it is my opinion that if you pass judgment on what someone says, then their intentions should be the sole focus of how you react.

I disagree. To choose a metaphor less extreme than being shot or my grandmother using one of two words Americans largely refuse to use, I do not believe my niece has ever intended to kick me in the balls while we're swimming, but after the third time, I realized I cannot trust her to watch herself to keep her foot away from my crotch, and I will not get into a swimming pool with her because I am tired of nausea gripping my guts like a a claw every time her heel shoves my testicles into my pelvic bone.

Frankly it seems odd to me that you think words have an inherent, objective meaning[...]

I don't, but I do think they have standardized meanings which people need to adhere to in order to maximize the chances that we'll be able to make ourselves understood, and that people who disregard the standardized meanings invite response of anger and outrage through their carelessness.

[...]or outcome outside the speakers on intentions.

I think that is an empirically verifiable fact, yes. Accidents happen all the time.

GBH stands for Grievous Bodily Harm.

Thank you. I was unable to even guess that.

 

[JazzJack2]

Yet there is no scientific evidence that rape jokes lead to a warped view of rape, rapists, and rape victims.

I was about to start digging up studies and articles when a suspicious thought occurred to me: This argument sounds very similar to the ones that decry global warming and/or evolution, which makes me wonder if this isn't perhaps a waste of my time. Would you mind telling me what form of evidence you would accept as compelling here, so I can look for it specifically without having to worry that I'm banging my head against a wall?

I want what I asked for, scientific evidence.

I'll more than imply it, I'll outright state it. The definition of "offensive" is "something that offends." If a thing has offended, then it is offensive. That is how words work.

A)Then surely asking people to choose their words carefully is pointless if anything is offensive so long as I am offended.

B)Under this definition the word is rendered meaningless since everything becomes offensive (because someone can take offense to anything).

I think this question is changing the topic. I haven't been discussing fault, and I'm not interested in laying blame. I am discussing effects I have to deal with.

But we have been discussing who is at fault, this whole argument is about whether a lack of intent mitigates blame.

No, in this metaphor, the judge is the court of public opinion condemning or defending the Microsoft representative in this discussion. The offense is the issue being settled by the court, and the issue being settled by the court is the bullet; the effects of his speech.

But the effect of his speech is the SAME thing as public opinion, because the only effect it has is based on how people choose to react. The actual point of interest is merely the speech itself.

I don't, but I do think they have standardized meanings which people need to adhere to in order to maximize the chances that we'll be able to make ourselves understood, and that people who disregard the standardized meanings invite response of anger and outrage through their carelessness.

But that isn't meaning, meaning can only exist in the intention of the speaker and while words do carry certain connotations and associations which people may infer things from it does not change what the speaker meant and only implies what he said was poorly articulated. The most baffling thing about this is that the phrase "just let it happen it will be over soon" wasn't very ambiguous to begin with, and implying that in this phrase 'it' meant rape seems a long stretch.

Thank you. I was unable to even guess that.

Hmm I guess they don't use that term outside the UK.

 

[ShiningAmber]

I'm a survivor of sexual assault and I found it offensive. Let alone on E3.

Bring on the 'You should get over the fact you were viciously assaulted so I can have my rape humor. Because, rape is funny.'

 

[Wyvern65]

I'm a survivor of sexual assault and I found it offensive. Let alone on E3.

Bring on the 'You should get over the fact you were viciously assaulted so I can have my rape humor. Because, rape is funny.'

I'm sorry that you had to live through that, truly. I wish no one had to.

But because you lived through that, you are more likely to view ambiguous statements as referring to rape, whether they do or not. This is a tendency every human being has. You had the same tendency in regards to other emotional topics before your experience.

I'm trying really hard here (because it's important) to make you understand that this tendency isn't a /result/ of what happened to you, but a result of you being human. I have this same tendency, every human who ever lived has it. We can't escape Confirmation Bias without a lot of really complex circumlocutions, which is what a lot of science is about.

We see and hear what we expect to in a lot of cases. When we've experienced horrible pain, it doesn't take much to remind of us of it.

But none of the above means what was said was /actually/ about rape or not. I respect that you experienced it as such, and it caused you pain, but that doesn't mean it was a rape joke.

If the woman that it was made to, and the person who made it, both say it wasn't intended as such and have apologized if it was taken that way, can we at least agree that it was a simple mistake and no harm was intended?

 

[JimB]

I don't see any problem with it.

Then you suggest that we accept your vision as the only accurate one?

Like someone said previously in the thread, if it was directed at another male no one would give a shit.

And like I said to that person when he said it, that would be a damned shame.

Hell, I've said things along those lines; "Just let it happen, it'll be over soon" when thrashing a friend at Starcraft 2; but I never thought of it as a rape joke.

What of it? You have said those words and deny that they were a rape joke when you said them; therefore, if we accept that they are not a rape joke (not that I believe it matters, but I'm trying to understand your argument here), the Microsoft representative must not have meant them as a rape joke?

I want what I asked for, scientific evidence.

You perceive that this answer is a long way from helpful.

Then surely asking people to choose their words carefully is pointless if anything is offensive so long as I am offended.

If someone chooses to run out into the road just as you're driving around a blind corner, you will hit him and it will be unavoidable. That the collision was unavoidable does not mean there's no point to keeping your eyes on the road and minimizing the risks.

Under this definition the word is rendered meaningless since everything becomes offensive (because someone can take offense to anything).

It seems to me that you are now the one arguing that the word has an objective meaning, since subjectivity invalidates it.

This whole argument is about whether a lack of intent mitigates blame.

No, that is what your argument is about. Mine is about whether it mitigates the effects. If we are not having the same conversation, then excuse me for dropping this, because I am extremely tired of people telling me I am required to forgive someone who has done harm to me out of his own ignorance, laziness, and lack of skill, as if the harm done is irrelevant in the face of his lack of active malice.

But the effect of his speech is the same thing as public opinion, because the only effect it has is based on how people choose to react.

I think you are confusing reactions and effects.

I don't, but I do think they have standardized meanings which people need to adhere to in order to maximize the chances that we'll be able to make ourselves understood, and that people who disregard the standardized meanings invite response of anger and outrage through their carelessness.

But that isn't meaning; meaning can only exist in the intention of the speaker, and while words do carry certain connotations and associations which people may infer things from, it does not change what the speaker meant and only implies what he said was poorly articulated.

I used the word "meaning" in this instance as a synonym for "definition." You seem to use it as a synonym for "intent." Perhaps I chose my words poorly; if so, please forgive me, and pretend I said "standardized definitions" if it alleviates the confusion.

"Just let it happen, it will be over soon" wasn't very ambiguous to begin with, and implying that in this phrase 'it' meant rape seems a long stretch.

"It" does not mean rape. It refers to rape, sort of like how someone telling you not to look a gift horse in the mouth is not giving you equestrian-specific advice.

I guess they don't use that term outside the UK.

No, the word "grievous" doesn't really come up on our side of the pond. Shame. It's a good word.

I'm a survivor of sexual assault and I found it offensive.

Please accept my sympathies for the hardship you've endured, as well as my compliments on overcoming it to whatever degree you have.

Bring on the 'You should get over the fact you were viciously assaulted so I can have my rape humor. Because, rape is funny.'

I'm not sure how fair a characterization that is. Oh, certainly, some people make arguments that can best be summarized like that, but the primary argument I understand here is that it is more fair that you be required to alter your thinking to interpret these jokes more charitably rather than anyone having to alter his speech to avoid offending you with rape jokes.

 

[Wyvern65]

I'm not sure how fair a characterization that is. Oh, certainly, some people make arguments that can best be summarized like that, but the primary argument I understand here is that it is more fair that you be required to alter your thinking to interpret these jokes more charitably rather than anyone having to alter his speech to avoid offending you with rape jokes.

Meh. Not sure you're making any fairer a characterization, tbh. This thread has been all over the place. Some people are concerned with combating rape culture, some people are concerned with stifling free speech, some people are wondering why this is a being discussed, some people can see it might be taken that way but don't see it that way themselves, some people have been trying to diffuse some of the hostility with humor, some people are offended about people being offended about being offended (which becomes almost meta.)

Typical internet thread.

All the same I think you need to make some concessions to reality. There are some 7 billion people on this planet. Every one of them has things that others can say to them which will cause offense. None of us can read minds or past experiences or know what will be hurtful to others at a glance.

While attempting not to purposefully harm others with our words is laudable, and apologizing if we do so likewise, if intent /doesn't/ matter then we're kind of screwed. The standard of harm cannot simply be 'my feelings were hurt.' It's too subjective.

A car accident is a physical thing that takes place in reality. Your emotional state is an invisible internal state which is known only to yourself. Using that analogy doesn't really make much sense.

 

[ShiningAmber]

I'm a survivor of sexual assault and I found it offensive.

Please accept my sympathies for the hardship you've endured, as well as my compliments on overcoming it to whatever degree you have.

Bring on the 'You should get over the fact you were viciously assaulted so I can have my rape humor. Because, rape is funny.'

I'm not sure how fair a characterization that is. Oh, certainly, some people make arguments that can best be summarized like that, but the primary argument I understand here is that it is more fair that you be required to alter your thinking to interpret these jokes more charitably rather than anyone having to alter his speech to avoid offending you with rape jokes.

I'm not saying you can't have rape jokes. And I'm not asking anyone to alter themselves. I just don't think E3 was the place to say something like that considering the age range of people who are watching it.

R rated movie? Yeah, sure. Say whatever the hell you want. I won't be watching it. Adult rated games, yeah, whatever. I won't lose sleep over it. So and so book has rape and rape jokes in it? Fine, with me. I won't read it.

But, I don't expect to watch E3 and hear rape jokes. (I am saying it is a rape joke based on my past experiences. It was the first thing that came to my mind.) I don't think it was necessary or needed in that setting.

And thanks for your sympathies. I really do appreciate them. It means a lot to me. It's a hard fight.

 

[JimB]

Not sure you're making any fairer a characterization, to be honest.

I really do want to be fair here, so let's examine that.

This thread has been all over the place.

True enough, but I think the general undercurrent has been, "He didn't mean it as a rape joke, therefore anyone who thinks it was it wrong." Perhaps my estimation of the general conversation has been skewed by how much JazzJack2 has dominated the responses to me, but I think my understanding is fairly accurate in broad terms.

All the same I think you need to make some concessions to reality. There are some 7 billion people on this planet. Every one of them has things that others can say to them which will cause offense. None of us can read minds or past experiences or know what will be hurtful to others at a glance.

I'm not entirely certain how this advice relates to me. Have I given the impression that I think it's possible or even desirable to completely eliminate one's possibility of offending others? Have I been unclear that all I want is for people to feel safe discussing this topic, and to have a justified faith that those who disagree with them will do so civilly and gently without trying to shame, silence, or ridicule them?

While attempting not to purposefully harm others with our words is laudable, and apologizing if we do so likewise, if intent doesn't matter then we're kind of screwed.

I'm sure it matters to others. It doesn't to me, but I have never said my responses are or ought to be universal.

The standard of harm cannot simply be 'my feelings were hurt.' It's too subjective.

Harm is subjective, though. It's why, when you go to the doctor or visit a hospital, they tell you, "Rate your pain on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the worst pain you can imagine," rather than, "Hold still while I scan you with this device that measures your pain with a margin of error of three pain units."

Your emotional state is an invisible internal state which is known only to yourself.

Until I speak up about it, at any rate.

I'm not saying you can't have rape jokes. And I'm not asking anyone to alter themselves.

No, but nevertheless, that is the opposing position as best I understand it. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they take your feeling of offense as an attack, and therefore you as an aggressor?

I don't expect to watch E3 and hear rape jokes.

I agree, you oughtn't have to.

And thanks for your sympathies. I really do appreciate them. It means a lot to me. It's a hard fight.

You're entirely welcome. I don't know you, your internal strength, or how badly your attack taxed your resources, but I do know a little something about how defining such an event can be, and I can only cheer to see you defying it.

 

[Hagi]

Wait... I'm confused... That's a rape joke?

You know what my father told me and my brothers when we had a nasty splinter and he had to pull it out?

To let it happen, it'd be over soon.

You know what he told us when we got stung by a bee and he'd do his best to treat it?

To let it happen, it'd be over soon.

Maybe something is getting lost in translation but how does letting telling someone to let it happen, it'll be over soon imply rape?

Wouldn't rape be more along the lines of 'shut the fuck up, if you tell anyone I will fucking kill you?'

 

[JimB]

Wouldn't rape be more along the lines of 'shut the fuck up, if you tell anyone I will fucking kill you?'

No, it really wouldn't. Many rapists do not understand that they are rapists; they think they're just having sex with someone they know, a friend or acquaintance or even a lover. Why would they threaten to kill someone they know and like over what they think is just sex?