Are you freakin' kidding me?

[Reeve]

He wasn't joking about rape. He was talking about her losing the game. I can't see how anyone could misunderstand that...

 

[Hagi]

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?

Well... why would you say 'just let it happen, it'll be over soon' during what you consider to be just sex?

That makes even less sense...

 

[JimB]

Why would you say 'just let it happen, it'll be over soon' during what you consider to be just sex?

I'm not sure I can explain this fully without getting into a level of explicit and obscene detail that would be irresponsible and inconsiderate of those who have suffered such attacks. We will both have to be be content with "Just let it happen, it will be over soon" sounds, on the surface, like a much more appropriate thing to say, kind of like saying, "Just hang on, I'm almost done" when someone wants you to turn off a video game to free up the TV, for instance. It makes it sound like you're totally willing to respect the other person's wishes but you just need to finish up one quick thing first, as long as you ignore that the statement is clearly intended to indicate that you will not respect the other person's wishes until you get what you want.

 

[GladiatorUA]

"Just let it happen, it'll be over soon" by itself can be ignored. The follow-up "You like this" and an uncomfortable response "No, I don't like this", makes the meaning clear.
It's not so much offensive, as it is inappropriate. There are things you don't joke about with certain groups of people. Like rape with women. It was stupid. Expect less unscripted banter during such events in the future.

 

[wulf3n]

I said I want people to feel safe when they discuss rape.

You want people to feel safe discussing rape, yet you are perpetuating an environment where it is not safe to discuss anything. How can that not by hypocrisy.

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.

You don't think persecution is a form of duress?

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.

I wasn't once again you inferred something that didn't exist.

which leads me to:

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.

If you're not responsible for the inference of others, then why is the guy at E3?

 

[wulf3n]

say something like that

And that's the real issue at hand "Something like that"

If the scenario was guy said "You just got Raped!" after beating the host, there wouldn't be a discussion, there'd be a forum of people saying "That was an incredibly stupid thing to say at E3, and has no place in gaming culture".

But that's not what happened.

What was said was not so clear cut. It was an obscure statement with many different meanings.

Is my inference of it being a benign statement referring to the unpleasantness of being defeated on stage any more valid than your inference of it being a rape joke. No, but your inference has consequences.

What I'm seeing here is a lot of people say me, me, me. I'm offended, I find that offensive, I shouldn't have to hear that, but very few people saying, did HE intend it as a rape joke, did HE intend to be offensive, is it rational to think what HE said constitutes a rape joke?

As many have said before a person is not responsible for the Inference of others, yet here we are, blaming someone for our inferences.

 

[iRevanchist]

It was just a poor choice of words. he didn't mean to contribute to rape culture, he was just misinterpreted.
^not sarcasm. as a feminist, i wish he'd used other words, but i don't think he did anything wrong. just a little mishap. unlike the rest of microsoft's presentation--now that was a disaster.

 

[JimB]

You want people to feel safe discussing rape, yet you are perpetuating an environment where it is not safe to discuss anything. How can that not be hypocrisy?

I suppose because I don't accept your premise that voicing my displeasure when someone says something that displeases me constitutes an environment in which nothing can ever be discussed.

You don't think persecution is a form of duress?

It does, and if I agreed that the Microsoft representative was being persecuted, that would alter my voice in the conversation.

I wasn't; once again, you inferred something that didn't exist.

Yes, you did. You directly and explicitly mentioned the victims of sexual assault as a means of bolstering your position that I ought to never criticize the Microsoft representative. Your post is still there for anyone to see.

If you're not responsible for the inferences of others, then why is the guy at E3?

Because I do not believe that it is solely a matter of inference. I think his word choice, consciously or otherwise, is based on the idea that rape is a punchline, and I don't mind seeing him taken to task for it.

What I'm seeing here is a lot of people saying me, me, me. I'm offended, I find that offensive, I shouldn't have to hear that, but very few people saying, did he intend it as a rape joke, did he intend to be offensive, is it rational to think what he said constitutes a rape joke?

wulf3n, I'm kind of horrified that you're bringing this up because you are asking me to treat the perpetrator as a victim and prioritize him over those who found his statement troublesome. This bothers me because it's such a common occurrence to the victims of rape, that they're told they mustn't complain about the attacks in order to spare the rapists from having their feelings hurt. Here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_High_School_rape_case#Public_reaction] are links [http://www.salon.com/2013/04/10/teen_commits_suicide_after_photos_of_her_alleged_gang_rape_go_viral/] to three [http://jezebel.com/5686407/teen-rape-victim-commits-suicide-after-bullying] incidents in which the victims of rape were blamed for ruining the lives of their attackers and committed suicide because of the bullying. If you insist on treating the Microsoft representative as a victim here, then I wish you would defend him with tactics less likely to be employed by the kind of people who can watch video footage of multiple young men sexually assaulting an incapacitated, teenaged girl and still conclude that she is the person to blame for the attack.

 

[wulf3n]

I suppose because I don't accept your premise that voicing my displeasure when someone says something that displeases me constitutes an environment in which nothing can ever be discussed.

Normally I would agree with you. Unfortunately in this day and age we have to be careful as enough "outrage" causes people to lose their jobs.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/right-click/dongle-joke-turns-ugly-situation-two-tech-workers-194401020.html

No I'm not saying people can't have opposite opinions, it would just be nice if people thought about how their actions may affect others. Isn't this what you're asking of the one who made the "joke"?

It does, and if I agreed that the Microsoft representative was being persecuted, that would alter my voice in the conversation.

I think it's a case of "yet". Whether or not he will be is yet to be seen, however these things have a tendency to blow up rather quickly.

Yes, you did. You directly and explicitly mentioned the victims of sexual assault as a means of bolstering your position that I ought to never criticize the Microsoft representative. Your post is still there for anyone to see.

Please show me the direct and explicit comparison to the Microsoft representative. the actual comparison was to those who have been punished due to a misrepresentation of their words. You know like during the McCarthy trials.

Because I do not believe that it is solely a matter of inference. I think his word choice, consciously or otherwise, is based on the idea that rape is a punchline, and I don't mind seeing him taken to task for it.

That the "meaning" is so divided would indicate otherwise.

I'm kind of horrified that you're bringing this up because you are asking me to treat the perpetrator as a victim and prioritize him over those who found his statement troublesome

No I'm asking you to take a step back and ensure the perpetrator is actually a perpetrator.

You're still treating as a clear cut issue. If it were I'd be right there with you, but it's not. Treating as such is disrespectful to all, and only serves to punish those who might not deserve to be punished.

 

[Wyvern65]

I'm kind of horrified that you're bringing this up because you are asking me to treat the perpetrator as a victim and prioritize him over those who found his statement troublesome. This bothers me because it's such a common occurrence to the victims of rape, that they're told they mustn't complain about the attacks in order to spare the rapists from having their feelings hurt.

Okay, I've been patient and reasonable until now, but this is pure, unfettered bullshit you're trying to peddle. Which wouldn't even pass on Jezebel. [A place I enjoy now and again, btw.]

There was no 'perpetrator' here. There was no 'victim.' The /only/ person who could legitimately claim to be a victim of his comments was the one to whom they were directed.

She had no problem with them. So no one ELSE can claim to be a victim.

You have NO RIGHT to be a victim here. No one was /raped/ and your /direct/ comparison of his thoughtless comment to real life rape has crossed a line. YOU are the one trivializing rape victims here. Stop it.

Can I ask a serious question. Why are you trying to make this such a big deal? I 'get' rape culture and dismantling it, I do NOT get why you are focusing like a laser on this particular instance of human stupidity.

 

[JimB]

Unfortunately in this day and age we have to be careful as enough "outrage" causes people to lose their jobs.

If the Microsoft representative genuinely did have innocent intent, and if he does lose his job and future job prospects over his sloppy word choice, then that will be very sad, but he made a mistake and sometimes people pay dearly for them. It's the way of the world, and I am not interested in advocating for him.

It would just be nice if people thought about how their actions may affect others. Isn't this what you're asking of the one who made the "joke?"

No. I'm asking nothing of him. I have never seen nor spoken to the man, and I have no method of affecting his behavior. Forgive the emphasis, but I feel it's necessary, since I keep having to repeat this point: I do not care about the Microsoft representative. He is not the change I am attempting to effect. I am attempting to cultivate an environment in which it is possible to express displeasure at rape culture without being shouted down or being convinced that the rapist is a victim with a greater need of protection than the victims.

I think it's a case of "yet."

I will worry about whatever imaginary punishment he suffers once he has suffered it.

Please show me the direct and explicit comparison to the Microsoft representative.

Here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.410308-Are-you-freakin-kidding-me?page=5#19730644] is the comparison. You said that sympathy for the victims of rape ought to translate directly into sympathy for people who endure bad publicity for making offensive statements.

That the "meaning" is so divided would indicate otherwise.

The meaning of the theory of evolution is divided as well. I do not mind saying that this division is less of an indication of a fallacy in the theory than it is of willful self-deception on the parts of its detractors.

I'm asking you to take a step back and ensure the perpetrator is actually a perpetrator.

Fair enough.

You're still treating as a clear cut issue.

I believe that it is. I am personally satisfied within my own mind that, willfully or otherwise, the Microsoft representative made statements contributory to rape culture, and that this needs to be argued against.

I've been patient and reasonable until now.

I see. Well, thank you for waiting until now to choose to abandon patience and reason.

The only person who could legitimately claim to be a victim of his comments was the one to whom they were directed.

I am not arguing on behalf of his victims. I have never even said he has victimized anyone, except in the most general, impersonal sort of way, by contributing to the inertia of rape culture, sort of like how anyone who has bought an iPod has contributed to the culture of enslavement and suicide that drives Apple factories in China to install safety netting outside the employee dormitories so no one can commit suicide by leaping. I said I am arguing on behalf of those who find his statement troublesome.

No one else can claim to be a victim.

I know people who suffer PTSD over this topic who would disagree with you.

You have no right to be a victim here.

That's true. Fortunately for me, I never said I am.

No one was raped and your direct comparison of his thoughtless comment to real life rape has crossed a line.

I never said anyone was raped, either. In fact, I have said at least twice in this very thread that no one has been raped, and I invite you to go through my posts to find and count the number of times I've said so for yourself. What I said is that wulf3n is using a tactic in a conversation about rape that is common among those who blame the victims of rape for having been attacked, and that I wish he would avoid such tactics.

Can I ask a serious question?

If you'd like to.

Why are you trying to make this such a big deal?

The funny thing is, I don't think I am. I think I'm being extremely clear about my goals and my complaints, and that I am advocating for moderate and reasoned behavior in order to combat a pervasive social ill. Then I come along and find people insisting that, by saying a joke references rape, I am arguing that a man has committed rape on television. It's kind of baffling to me.

I 'get' rape culture and dismantling it; I do not get why you are focusing like a laser on this particular instance of human stupidity.

I'm focusing on it because it's the conversation at hand, and because this particular fandom genuinely dismays me with its cavalier hatred of women and sexual equality. I am, of course, speaking in generalities, since any attempt to attribute a single belief to every member of a group is automatically inaccurate, and I'm sure there's some amount of "vocal minority" distortion going on, but nevertheless, I want to like it here but cannot because I find that atmosphere to be morally unacceptable; therefore, I wish to change it, and I am using the only tools I have available to do so.

 

[Wyvern65]

I see. Well, thank you for waiting until now to choose to abandon patience and reason.

I know. Sometimes I even shock myself with how magnanimous I can be.

I am not arguing on behalf of his victims. I have never even said he has victimized anyone, except in the most general, impersonal sort of way, by contributing to the inertia of rape culture, sort of like how anyone who has bought an iPod has contributed to the culture of enslavement and suicide that drives Apple factories in China to install safety netting outside the employee dormitories so no one can commit suicide by leaping. I said I am arguing on behalf of those who find his statement troublesome.

So you aren't arguing on behaf of his victims, and you never said he victimized anyone.

Oh, wait:

I'm kind of horrified that you're bringing this up because you are asking me to treat the perpetrator as a victim and prioritize him over those who found his statement troublesome. This bothers me because it's such a common occurrence to the victims of rape, that they're told they mustn't complain about the attacks in order to spare the rapists from having their feelings hurt.

I know people who suffer PTSD over this topic who would disagree with you.

I don't care if they suffer from alphabet soup. They can be victims of rape culture at large, they cannot be the specific victim of this man's careless comment.

The /worst/ you can say about him is to say he is contributing to rape culture. Not an admirable thing, but to start laying guilt for the suffering of huge groups of people on one specific individual tells me you don't understand what rape culture /is/.

Rape culture isn't the /fault/ of any one comment or any one individual. It's the fault of /all of us/. Patriarchy theory doesn't tell you to go around blaming and shaming specific men, it tells you to go around educating them so we can /all/ get past all this nonsensical bullshit.

That's true. Fortunately for me, I never said I am.

No, you've just appointed yourself their one ardent defender.

I never said anyone was raped, either. In fact, I have said at least twice in this very thread that no one has been raped, and I invite you to go through my posts to find and count the number of times I've said so for yourself. What I said is that wulf3n is using a tactic in a conversation about rape that is common among those who blame the victims of rape for having been attacked, and that I wish he would avoid such tactics.

You linked to real life cases of actual rape and suicide. You did so in the context of attacking an offhand comment. I'll even stipulate it was a rape joke for this.

Even if what the MS speaker said was the most misogynistic, explicit, rapiest rape joke ever told, you DO NOT DO THAT. You do NOT bring up the old wounds and shame of actual feeling human beings as a tactic in an online debate.

FFS. You claim to be concerned about PTSD?

Talk about triggering - linking to actual articles? Over /what/?!?!

Yeah, I'm out of here. Thanks for the discussion and all, and good luck with that windmill, but in my opinion you're doing far more harm to the cause of feminist discourse than anything that poor helpless schmuck ever said.

Protip: Stop making the classic MRA Straw Feminist look like a reasonable alternative to what you're saying.

 

[likalaruku]

I'm a woman, I watched it, & I think whomever thought it was a rape joke was reading way too much into it. All I heard was lady whining that she sucked at blocking & that it wasn't her style of game (her bad for not learning the basics before showtime) while a guy gloated that he wasn't losing to a noob (which is dorky).

 

[JimB]

Oh, wait:

I feel I have explained fairly exhaustively that the complaint I raised is against the tactic he used because of the juxtaposition between the topic of rape discussions and the tactics used by rapists, to the point that I can think of no new ways to phrase it.

They can be victims of rape culture at large; they cannot be the specific victim of this man's careless comment.

Why not?

To start laying guilt for the suffering of huge groups of people on one specific individual tells me you don't understand what rape culture is.

I do not care about his guilt. I care about the effects with which I have to contend.

No, you've just appointed yourself their one ardent defender.

Ignoring the hyperbole of your wording: Yes, I have. I see something that offends me and that I find insupportable, so I am taking what actions I am capable of in order to correct that which offends me. You may deride me for this if you wish, but I do not apologize for it.

You linked to real life cases of actual rape and suicide. You did so in the context of attacking an offhand comment. I'll even stipulate it was a rape joke for this.

Wait, whose comment are we talking about? Are we talking about the Microsoft presenter's, or wulf3n's? I linked those stories because I thought there was a teachable moment, to explain exactly why requests to pity the instigator are not a tactic to use. I suppose I could have provided him with an alternate tactic to use--for instance, instead of appealing to my sympathy, he might have tried to prove that no harm was done--but I generally do not elect to make another person's arguments for him.

You do not bring up the old wounds and shame of actual feeling human beings as a tactic in an online debate.

It is possible I misstepped there, and if I've upset anyone for whom I'm advocating, I can only apologize sincerely. Nevertheless, I feel that ignoring the feelings of those who have been silenced in favor of protecting the accused is an endemic problem with horrific consequences, and I wanted to provide proof of why I think so. I cannot think of a way I can ask people to respect the feelings of those who haven't spoken up unless I cite such stories, but if you know of a way, then I will be grateful to hear of it so I can avoid doing this in the future.

You claim to be concerned about PTSD?

I did the best I could to indicate the nature of the stories contained in those links, and further, hovering the mouse over the links should provide perfectly explicit information as to the contents. If I have done harm despite my intentions and my efforts, then I am genuinely sorry, but I acted as best my conscience dictated.

Thanks for the discussion and all, and good luck with that windmill, but in my opinion you're doing far more harm to the cause of feminist discourse than anything that poor helpless schmuck ever said.

Protip: Stop making the classic MRA Straw Feminist look like a reasonable alternative to what you're saying.

I would probably give these complaints and suggestions more weight if I felt they contained any sincerity, as opposed to a desire to indict me with unanswerable charges before storming off after having had the last word.

Let me be clear: I am human. I am fallible. I will make mistakes, some of which I will recognize and some of which I will not. I concede the possibility of having made a mistake here, and if I have, I would like to learn what it was so I can avoid making it again. In the meantime, however, I intend to proceed from the assumption that my understanding is accurate, because I cannot identify any errors in my thinking at this time.

 

[Dimitriov]

Having read through most of this thread... all I really have to say is that I am offended that anyone could have been offended by such a benign comment. And yes the inherent hypocrisy and irony of that statement is quite intentional. I don't, however, expect anyone to care that I am offended when other people are upset by words.

I am mildly curious though, why those people seem to genuinely expect that anyone cares that THEY are offended? Some words upset you. Got it. And?

 

[BQE]

This is actually a pretty interesting point of contention for me. On one hand, I've been trying to radically alter the vocabulary I generally use, especially within the context of competitive gaming. I personally feel that it doesn't really add much to spout base and incendiary remarks. I just want to improve the sophistication of my speech, regardless of context. Also, I'd hate to lend credibility to or perpetuate such a toxic culture, particularly rape culture.

On the other hand, I get readily disturbed when it comes to this type of policing. I remember not to long ago (And I'm sure still today) the amount of discourse of the notion of calling someone a ****** in a gaming (or joking, etc) context and a similar debate occuring. One side holds the argument that people shouldn't be saying these things in the first place, as they don't exactly paint the most ideal picture of you and your intellect. On the other hand, is the idea that nobody should be policing speech in a manner like this and that it is a slipper slope; the notion to restrict or demonize phrasing due to one group's offense.

It's hard to say. I can only speak for myself and police no other individual. That being said, I'm going to try my hardest to better my speech. I can say in earnest that the major factor is because when I look at myself objectively, I sound ridiculous and lowbrow speaking like that, it's just a bonus that I'm respecting the wishes of others.


P.S. First post! Yay!

 

[wulf3n]

Here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.410308-Are-you-freakin-kidding-me?page=5#19730644] is the comparison. You said that sympathy for the victims of rape ought to translate directly into sympathy for people who endure bad publicity for making offensive statements.

Neither your nor my quote reference sympathy nor people who endure bad publicity and the "offensive statements" are contentious.

What it does reference, is people who are afraid to speak based on the misrepresentation of others out of fear of persecution.

or being convinced that the rapist is a victim with a greater need of protection than the victims.

Wait! who here's the rapist?

he might have tried to prove that no harm was done

Then I would have been lying. I never once stated no harm was done, simply that any harm done cannot be considered his fault.

What I said is that wulf3n is using a tactic in a conversation about rape that is common among those who blame the victims of rape for having been attacked, and that I wish he would avoid such tactics.

If you think my arguments are the same as rape apologists then you couldn't have misunderstood either concept any greater.

For instance:
Who here is the victim?
How am I saying it's the victims fault?
Why are you immediately assuming that if it's not the Microsoft Reps fault, that it then must be the fault of the offended party?

 

[JimB]

Neither your nor my quote reference sympathy nor people who endure bad publicity, and the "offensive statements" are contentious.

Okay, if you weren't trying to cause me to change my behavior by asking me to extend my sympathy to the Microsoft representative, then what was your goal?

Wait! Who here's the rapist?

Here? No one, that I know of. I'm describing a phenomenon, not making an accusation.

I never once stated no harm was done, simply that any harm done cannot be considered his fault.

I know you didn't say no harm was done. That is the context in which I brought it up.

If you think my arguments are the same as rape apologists then you couldn't have misunderstood either concept any greater.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say your argument is. I said your tactic is.

Who here is the victim?

I'm not sure how you're using the word "victim" here. To whom or what is it referring?

How am I saying it's the victim's fault?

I'm still unclear as to your meaning of "victim," so I might be missing the point, but: Here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.410308-Are-you-freakin-kidding-me?page=4#19728917], where you say anyone offended needs to grow up, is my best guess as to what you might be talking about.

Why are you immediately assuming that if it's not the Microsoft representative's fault, then it then must be the fault of the offended party?

This question makes so little sense to me that I cannot think of a response to it. If you'd like to try asking again with a different phrasing, I'll do what I can to answer it, but for now I have no idea what you're on about.

EDIT: Wait, I think I figured it out. Are you saying this is my interpretation of your position, maybe?

 

[wulf3n]

Okay, if you weren't trying to cause me to change my behavior by asking me to extend my sympathy to the Microsoft representative, then what was your goal?

Pointing out the hypocrisy of wanting a place to discuss issues without fear, by cultivating a situation in which you can't discuss issues out of fear of persecution.

You said if one doesn't speak then it's their choice, the reference was used to illustrate an action/inaction performed under duress is no choice.

Here? No one, that I know of. I'm describing a phenomenon, not making an accusation.

It comes across as you comparing the actions of the Microsoft rep to that of Rapist.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say your argument is. I said your tactic is.

Same difference.

I'm not sure how you're using the word "victim" here. To whom or what is it referring?

You tell me, you're the one who thinks I'm shifting fault onto the victim. So who is it I'm shifting blame onto?

I'm still unclear as to your meaning of "victim," so I might be missing the point, but: Here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.410308-Are-you-freakin-kidding-me?page=4#19728917], where you say anyone offended needs to grow up, is my best guess as to what you might be talking about.

Do you consider the offended the "victims" of this situation?

This question makes so little sense to me that I cannot think of a response to it. If you'd like to try asking again with a different phrasing, I'll do what I can to answer it, but for now I have no idea what you're on about.

EDIT: Wait, I think I figured it out. Are you saying this is my interpretation of your position, maybe?

Basically.

You seem to think I'm shifting fault onto the offended simply because I don't believe the Microsoft Rep is at fault. Which is untrue, I don't think either party is at fault.

 

[Al-Bundy-da-G]

Know what? No. Just no. We will not have another rape/sexism thread. I'm ending this now.