Dragonlayer said:
You misunderstand me, or possibly I framed that comment inaccurately: what I was trying to say was that your comment about the rapist being sent to prison for buying a condom sounded like a dark joke, implying that society couldn't give less of a stuff about rape. Unfortunately in real life, English footballer Ched Evans was convicted of raping a 19 year old woman (with a friend), sentenced to five years in prison and only served two and a half before going right back to his old career because "the Football League values the reintegration of reformed criminals." So there you go kids, it's cool to rape as long as you're good at sports!
The point of the "dark joke" was to point out an underselling of the story. People do go to jail for rape, maybe not often enough, but they do.
Parallel it to this case, where a guy is being barred from entry for multiple reasons, none of which actually have to do with free speech, and people getting LOUD and ANGRY and defending him because FREE SPEECH.
The parallel here isn't so much that someone might or might not go to jail, but that someone wouldframe the story of the person going to jail as being for the purchase of a condom. Now the story is about the outrage that you can't buy a condom without going to jail.
If you want a less rape-y example, if the rape thing tripped you up (it just seemed appropriate given what this guy's done, claimed to do, and encouraged others to do), let's look at games reviews. Several games have received "bad" scores for well- argued reasons, but when the internet gets ahold of them, the story becomes "magazine X didn't like game Y because SEXISM!"
Sexism is sometimes a sizable portion of the review (Bayonetta 2), but usually is not (GTA V, Dragon's Crown, Wonderful 101), and framing it that way creates a new narrative (Sorry, CS) and frames it in a way to get maximum outrage not withstanding the facts. Another, non-sexism example might be the Pokémon ASRO (ass-row?) reviews, where a laundry list of complaints was boiled down to "too much water" and used to complain about the horrible horrible score of 78.
Or, for a better example:
insaninater said:
Yes actually. I enjoy watching the show dexter, and other similar crime dramas, and would be very sad they became illegal. I don't think that book OJ wrote should be banned. So yes.
Look, you can go live in china if you want some bureaucrat breathing down your neck for every piece of entertainment or information you consume, but i actually believe in freedom of expression.
This guy just took a question about instructing and encouraging people to get away with something and tried to turn it into some fascist statement that would ban Dexter and OJ Simpson's book, despite the reality that the act is illegal and these books are not. I'm not sure if he didn't read the question, didn't understand the question, or has just reframed the story (though given his recent claims about me, I'm betting the last one. And the kicker? This is someone who supports "ethics" in journalism!), but he has reframed things in a way that doesn't reflect the source material with no apparent purpose other than manufactured outrage towards me and my anti-free-expression ways.
At this point, there's nothing really to address, as his strawman argument has twisted the question beyond recognition. But it was a perfect example of the sort of thing I was just talking about.
