The Big Picture: Not Okay

[sapphireofthesea]

Disclaimer: The first sentence or the post that follows it is not meant to be baiting. I am a professor of philosophy and this is a sincere statement of my feelings.

Some of the views expressed in this video hurt me on a deep emotional level. If it was just one man's views then I wouldn't give it much thought since mistakes happen and it's often very hard to see, admit and correct one's own mistake. However, the delusion in question seems to have spread over large portions of humanity, including some of our best and brightest (Movie Bob being an example for both), and I am starting to feel like a the last sane guy in the asylum.

The mistake I am talking about is:


Unlike saying proven objective truths (for example "Randomly attacking people on the street will not make you popular among the police officers."), expressing purely subjective opinions does not obligate other people to agree with you (for example, I believe that the answer to most of philosophical question can be found in one or more episodes of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer', but I do not think that the fact Stanford didn't include that show in their curriculum makes Stanford's philosophy program inadequate.)


So far, I am sure that most of you are on board with me. However, for reasons that are entirely mysterious to me, most people believe that, if they wish it REALLY hard, their subjective opinions will MAGICALLY BECOME OBJECTIVE TRUTHS! Aalakazam!

For the betterment of the human race, I present you with a short list of things that DO NOT transmogrify your opinions into objective truths:

1. Shouting.
2. The fact that YOU really believe it to be true, despite the lack of conclusive evidence (unless you are being played by Kevin Costner).
3. The fact that you find the opposing opinion offensive does not make you right, it makes you small-minded (or else every racist, homophobe or fanatic of any kind would be a moral authority by virtue of insanity).
4. Equating the act of expressing an opinion that you disagree with or using an expression that you dislike (but which in itself is not meant as an actual threat against the life or well-being of another person) with an act of aggression does not make you extra sensitive; it makes you insane. (this seems to be stupidity du jour these days. As a method of reality check, I invite all of you 'words can hurt just as bad' people to go to find a rape victim and say to him/her: "What happened to you is terrible. It is just as bad as using 'rape' as a casual synonym for defeat.")

People do not need your permission to have or to express an opinion. If you think that they are wrong - challenge them. If you know them to be logically incorrect - prove it. If you can't but you are still bothered that they are allowed to freely speak their mind -

THEN
GROW
THE
*CENSORED FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW THIS WORD EXISTS*
UP!!!

EDITED on 3.7.2012. 9.14h
5. The fact that many people share your opinion does not prove your opinion to an objective truth (if you disagree, then please prove me wrong. Gather a herd of people who also don't believe me and win the lottery 10 times in a row by making everyone share your belief that you are going to win.

Mr. Psychology professor. I am aware that this was meant for the non-science crowd. However, being a scientist myself and in the interest of further enforcing the validity of your argument, please provide some references for the points you have made, otherwise you are at risk of finding your own statements fall victim to your line of logic.

I personally find your above, unsupported, statement flawed, without reinforcement, and ignorant of the possibly of collective moralities playing a part in supporting a right or wrong ideal. I am no expert but I am aware of the contention in psychology surrounding the idea of morality. I would love to give references myself but it is late and it is not my field of study so I have no grounding to make an informed search of the literature.

First of all, I am not a psychology professor, I am a philosophy professor. The only reason that I have mentioned that in my post has been to explain why I care deeply about people making the mistake that I described in my post. The validity of my objection should be judged solely on it's coherency and the quality of my reasoning. I do not believe that my academic title, by itself, makes my reasoning more or less sound. For the same reason, I see no need to make a reference to other people's work in order to strengthen my case. Non quis, sed quid. (it doesn't matter who said something, it only matters what they said)

As for collective moralities, I believe that, while it is true that many groups of people share certain moral beliefs or whole moral systems, I do not believe that an opinion, moral or otherwise, becomes more valid simply because more people believe in it. Just because something IS does not prove that it OUGHT to be (Hume's Law). The fact that many people believe in something does not prove their belief to be either correct or moral (the moral system shared by the majority of Germans during Third Reich is a commonly quoted example).

In fact, that whole "many people sharing an opinion make that opinion true, will make a nice rule 5 for my original post:

5. The fact that many people share your opinion does not prove your opinion to an objective truth (if you disagree, then please prove me wrong. Gather a herd of people who also don't believe me and win the lottery 10 times in a row by making everyone share your belief that you are going to win.

My issue was less against your argument and more that your argument is unsupported. As best I am aware, even philosophy requires that positions be backed up by some 'evidence', in the case of philosophy I know it to be the opinion of other noted Philosophers.
So please find some references to support your position otherwise your distinction of being a philosophy professor (in support of your position being informed) becomes only as valid as any of the other posters here.

The well informed inform, the Scientific refer.

This is because you do not understand what 'evidence' means. Which would be excusable were it not for the fact that, despite your ignorance of this you are trying to teach me what evidence means. Since you have not even bothered to wiki 'evidence' or 'proof', I most certainly will not do that work for you. I will, however, demonstrate why your opinion (that a 'proper' philosopher can not make an argument without supporting it with a quote of other 'notable' philosopher saying the same thing) is wrong. This is called reductio ad absurdum (again google it or wiki it)


Let us suppose that it is true that every 'proper argument' in philosophy must be supported by quoting a 'notable philosopher'.

For example, let's say that I support argument A, by quoting Kant who also said wrote that A is true. However, if we are considering Kant to be a 'notable philosopher' and are quoting him as such, then we are surely not quoting some trivial thing he said but a 'proper argument'. Then, ex hypothesi, Kant himself must have had quoted some notable philosopher before him, say Plato, who in turn quoted Socrates. But, alas, Socrates quoted no one, because he is the first philosopher to have come up with argument A. This means that A was not a 'proper argument' when Socrates said it, which means that any argument based on A is also not a 'proper argument'.

In other words if there are such people as philosophers (and supposing that human race does not exist eternally , but that it had a beginning) there must have existed one among them who has been the first philosopher. However, since you claim that it is impossible to be a philosopher without quoting philosophers who came before you, there couldn't have been a first philosopher. Which means that there are no such thing as philosophers.

Or you are simply wrong about your hypothesis.

So in effect, no, you have nothing to support your view so it is just your opinion and your status does not add or subtract any more to it. Just wanted to clarify that.

Well, we made it this far without insults, but I must say that you are thicker then the Earth's crust. Here is a quote from my post that YOU HAVE QUOTED IN YOUR OWN POST!!!!

"The only reason that I have mentioned that in my post has been to explain why I care deeply about people making the mistake that I described in my post. The validity of my objection should be judged solely on it's coherency and the quality of my reasoning. I do not believe that my academic title, by itself, makes my reasoning more or less sound. For the same reason, I see no need to make a reference to other people's work in order to strengthen my case. Non quis, sed quid. (it doesn't matter who said something, it only matters what they said)"

P.S. I am against eugenics. I think that it's a terrible, stupid ideology based on ignorance and delusions of grandeur. But you, sapphireofthesea, are a definite proof that some people should not be allowed to reproduce. Please get out of the gene pool and hit the shower.

If you did not feel it would add anything to your arguement you would not have made any mention of it. You said it for a purpose and that purpose was not to later dismiss it's presence.
As for the insult to me, you have been reported. My whole intention was to get you to support your statement as you made me expect you would (from stating your status as a Professor). I had no intention and to the best of my knowledge, did nothing to provoke such a targeted insult. Please in future think about what you type (both your dismissed statement of being a Professor and your decision to insult me).

 

[Ramzal]

So now we're policing what people may and may not say?

 

[notimeforlulz]

I was unfamiliar with the topic, so my thoughts on reading the blurb were "Let a man in the desert drink his imaginary water" but yeah that's kind of not the case here, more a case of an abusive bastard with an ego and no conception of what 'abject status' is and how it's bad. So props bob, for boring me with some insightful stuff on sexism. Points for topicality too. The best way to stop this kind of shit is to call people out on it in game. Trolls, insulters, etc, need to be questioned, over and over again as to what made their bad behavior acceptable, where you force them to take personal responsibility for their remarks. That's what's worked in the past for me when I've encountered that shit on servers, open the chat log, get typing.

Also, eugenics again? So now they're posting that stuff in threads that can't be deleted, why don't the moderators recognize that nazi level of ignorance shit as trolling yet.

 

[John Funk]

Do not trivialize rape. Period. Why is this a hard concept?

It "hard" for my to get how using the word starving is ok, or saying that "my backpack is so heavy, it's killing me" can be considered ok. Yet somehow using the word rape is crossing the line.

I don't doubt that. It seems like she just takes anything problematic involving rape and labels it rape culture. For instance teens knowing how to rape is rape culture? It's not that complicated if you have an unconscious person. It certainly isn't a sign that our culture doesn't take rape seriously.

Problematic things involving rape ARE part of rape culture. Some to more extent than others. For example, teens knowing that you could use roofies, or whatever. I don't think that's a particularly SIGNIFICANT problem, but everything contributes a little bit.

What an awkward way or working in that men have institutional power. Not that that prevents them from having domineering controlling wives who are also abusive.

We're not talking about an individual man with an individual wife. I've dealt with this on a personal scale, myself. But that does not change my institutional power and male privilege, nor does it change the situation for the vast majority of men and women. Yes, domestic violence is horrible no matter who it's from/towards. Nobody's denying that.

They provide no links to any of the alleged studies about how rapists think all men rape, so since it's completely unsourced ...

--

Well I don't know how they got the 20% so no.

Can't find the "Rapists think all men rape" study, but an official UK government report [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#cite_note-5] found that between 75%-95% of all rapes go unreported. In the US, from 2000-2005, it was 59%. Better, but not by much.

That seems way too simplistic. It's one thing to think it's trivial when you're just thinking about it. It's another to still think it's trivial when you're trying to do it and seeing first hand that it's hurting someone.

Also there's a reason why rape jokes are called dark humor. Most people who think they're funny acknowledge that they are sick jokes in a way that sex jokes aren't. And since they're called sick jokes well that kind of reinforces that rape is bad.

And yet you're still being asked to make light of it.

No I have not. All I've said is that they don't trivialize rape. I still think it's not cool to spring rape jokes on people who don't want to hear them.

You're asking a rape survivor to laugh at one of the most traumatic events in her life.

You act like they're the only people I can tell rape jokes too.

Rape jokes are not okay. Using 'rape' as a synonym for 'defeat' is not okay. Ever.

I disagree.

Well, you're wrong. Why are you defending the Neanderthalic impulse to use one of the worst things that can happen to a human by another as a *joke*?

Rape jokes. Are not. Okay. Ever.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

--
Well, you're wrong. Why are you defending the Neanderthalic impulse to use one of the worst things that can happen to a human by another as a *joke*?

Rape jokes. Are not. Okay. Ever.

Point out the part where I mentioned rape jokes, please. If you look, I was defending the right to say, "man that exam just raped me", because I don't see how its worse than saying, "I'm so hungry, I'm starving", or "after going to the gym yesterday, my muscles are killing me".

 

[axlryder]

Well, we made it this far without insults, but I must say that you are thicker then the Earth's crust. Here is a quote from my post that YOU HAVE QUOTED IN YOUR OWN POST!!!!

"The only reason that I have mentioned that in my post has been to explain why I care deeply about people making the mistake that I described in my post. The validity of my objection should be judged solely on it's coherency and the quality of my reasoning. I do not believe that my academic title, by itself, makes my reasoning more or less sound. For the same reason, I see no need to make a reference to other people's work in order to strengthen my case. Non quis, sed quid. (it doesn't matter who said something, it only matters what they said)"

P.S. I am against eugenics. I think that it's a terrible, stupid ideology based on ignorance and delusions of grandeur. But you, sapphireofthesea, are a definite proof that some people should not be allowed to reproduce. Please get out of the gene pool and hit the shower.

I just wanted to verify that it's obvious he's got nothing here and his posts are entirely pointless, seeing how they do nothing to contest or rebut your reasoning, as he's merely whining that your posts aren't "sourced" in order to reinforce his own delusion that they somehow hold less water for that reason alone. I'm not even commenting on what I think of your OP, guys like that just piss me off.

 

[John Funk]

--
Well, you're wrong. Why are you defending the Neanderthalic impulse to use one of the worst things that can happen to a human by another as a *joke*?

Rape jokes. Are not. Okay. Ever.

Point out the part where I mentioned rape jokes, please. If you look, I was defending the right to say, "man that exam just raped me", because I don't see how its worse than saying, "I'm so hungry, I'm starving", or "after going to the gym yesterday, my muscles are killing me".

There is no right to say that.

Let me ask you something: Even if you, personally, don't think that the use of "rape" in contexts that have nothing to do with debilitating sexual assault and violation trivializes it... when you are told that it DOES, by members of the half of the population who are at very real risk for experiencing it in their lifetime (1 in 6 women is a victim of sexual assault in their life)...

Why the FUCK are you arguing with that? What is so precious to you about rape? If it is hurtful to someone, *don't say it.*

It is a simple, TINY little concession that makes the lives of people around you, who have already suffered one of the most traumatic things a person can suffer, a little bit better. What do you have against that?

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

/quote]

There is no right to say that.

Let me ask you something: Even if you, personally, don't think that the use of "rape" in contexts that have nothing to do with debilitating sexual assault and violation trivializes it... when you are told that it DOES, by members of the half of the population who are at very real risk for experiencing it in their lifetime (1 in 6 women is a victim of sexual assault in their life)...

There are also people who starve that might be offended if I say I'm starving to express my hunger, or there might be people who have lost loved ones because they were murdered and they could be offended by me saying my arms are so sore that their killing me, and yet I don't think people consider those people when they use the expression "I'm starving", or "my arms are killing me", so why should I have to censor myself when I use the word rape?

Why the FUCK are you arguing with that? What is so precious to you about rape? If it is hurtful to someone, *don't say it.*

It is a simple, TINY little concession that makes the lives of people around you, who have already suffered one of the most traumatic things a person can suffer, a little bit better. What do you have against that?

I have nothing against not hurting people, but your trying to tell me what I can and can not say and I have a problem with that.

You still have not answered my question, why is it ok to say your starving or that your arms are killing you but it somehow crosses the line to say that a exam raped you?

 

[John Funk]

/quote]

There is no right to say that.

Let me ask you something: Even if you, personally, don't think that the use of "rape" in contexts that have nothing to do with debilitating sexual assault and violation trivializes it... when you are told that it DOES, by members of the half of the population who are at very real risk for experiencing it in their lifetime (1 in 6 women is a victim of sexual assault in their life)...

There are also people who starve that might be offended if I say I'm starving to express my hunger, or there might be people who have lost loved ones because they were murdered and they could be offended by me saying my arms are so sore that their killing me, and yet I don't think people consider those people when they use the expression "I'm starving", or "my arms are killing me", so why should I have to censor myself when I use the word rape?

Why the FUCK are you arguing with that? What is so precious to you about rape? If it is hurtful to someone, *don't say it.*

It is a simple, TINY little concession that makes the lives of people around you, who have already suffered one of the most traumatic things a person can suffer, a little bit better. What do you have against that?

I have nothing against not hurting people, but your trying to tell me what I can and can not say and I have a problem with that.

You still have not answered my question, why is it ok to say your starving or that your arms are killing you but it somehow crosses the line to say that a exam raped you?

Because rape is a very real violent concern against half of the population. Most women are taught from a very young age that avoiding rape is one thing they need to think about *at all times.* Murder and starvation are not. There are worlds of difference between the two of them.

In what way is failing an exam like being sexually violated? You are comparing something traumatic to something insignificant.

Were you violated because of your exam?

Are you at risk of STDs because of your exam?

Are you at risk of pregnancy because you failed your exam?

Because you failed, are you assumed to be lying when you tell someone about it?

Because you failed your exam, will you be forced to testify in court and relive your violation if you want to have any hope of seeing justice done, OR let the person in charge of your violation get off scott-free?

Are you going to be told that you "deserved it" and you "had it coming" because you failed your exam?

Is your boyfriend/girlfriend going to break up with you after you failed your exam because you're 'dirty'?

Are people going to start calling you 'slut' and 'whore' because you failed your exam - people you once called friends?

Do you need to see a counselor to deal with the trama of failing this exam?

Is it assumed that you're just lying about failing the exam to get back at the teacher?



Do you see how impossibly huge the gulf is between these two things? Do you see the *complete lack of correlation* between these two things? How hard is it to excise one word from your vocabulary?

I am not telling you what you can or cannot say. I am saying that, by what you say, you can choose to support rapists, or choose to support rape victims. And you are supporting rapists.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

I am not telling you what you can or cannot say. I am saying that, by what you say, you can choose to support rapists, or choose to support rape victims. And you are supporting rapists.

No, just no. I don't support rapist when I say a exam raped me anymore than I support murders when I say that my arms are killing me.

You know what people are also taught from a young age? To watch out for people who might cause them physical harm(see:kill them)

 

[John Funk]

I am not telling you what you can or cannot say. I am saying that, by what you say, you can choose to support rapists, or choose to support rape victims. And you are supporting rapists.

No, just no. I don't support rapist when I say a exam raped me anymore than I support murders when I say that my arms are killing me.

Yes, just yes. You are either supporting rape victims, or supporting rapists. And you sure as hell aren't supporting rape victims, so...?

You know what people are also taught from a young age? To watch out for people who might cause them physical harm(see:kill them)

...really? Really?

Are you really trying to say that the two of them are in ANY way the same? Ladies and gentlemen, a shining example of male privilege at its finest, here.

When you and I go out, that is never something we think about. We never have to worry about a drink offered to us at a bar, that maybe it's poisoned. We never have to scan a party when we enter, wondering, "Which of these strangers is most likely to kill me tonight?" We never have to worry about if the shirt we want to wear out is more likely to get us shanked.

These are all things that many, many women think about *every time.* And that you are trying to somehow equate it to "we're taught to watch out for physical harm" is an astounding example of rape culture in action.

Schrodinger's Rapist [http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/]. Read it, and learn something about how women are taught to view the world and how astoundingly different it is from the privilege you and I have of viewing the world. Or, more likely from what you've demonstrated here, keep your eyes firmly shut and don't learn a thing.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Yes, just yes. You are either supporting rape victims, or supporting rapists. And you sure as hell aren't supporting rape victims, so...?

Provide me a quote where I specifically stated that I support rapist.

...really? Really?

Are you really trying to say that the two of them are in ANY way the same? Ladies and gentlemen, a shining example of male privilege at its finest, here.

When you and I go out, that is never something we think about.

Your kidding, right? I live in a major city, in a neiborhood where regular people(ie not criminals) are descouraged from going out alone at night do to the high number of students targeted for muggings, and other criminal acts.

We never have to worry about a drink offered to us at a bar, that maybe it's poisoned. We never have to scan a party when we enter, wondering, "Which of these strangers is most likely to kill me tonight?" We never have to worry about if the shirt we want to wear out is more likely to get us shanked.

While I don't live in a gang controlled area, if I wore red in some neighborhoods in California, I might get killed. If I wore blue, I could also die. You do realize that gangs have killed people because they wore the "wrong" color before, right?

This [http://www.kolotv.com/caravan/headlines/Police_Non-Gang_Member_Killed_For_Wearing_Red_114249049.html], this [http://www.texasgopvote.com/restore-families/community/crips-gang-puts-out-hit-kill-any-us-soldier-uniform-texas-missouri-and-oklahoma-003638], and this [http://blogs.denverpost.com/coldcases/2010/03/14/aspiring-rap-producer-gunned-down-wearing-wrong-color/1249/] are example of guys who wore the "wrong" shirt, even though they were not part of a gang.

 

[John Funk]

Yes, just yes. You are either supporting rape victims, or supporting rapists. And you sure as hell aren't supporting rape victims, so...?

Provide me a quote where I specifically stated that I support rapist.

...really? Really?

Are you really trying to say that the two of them are in ANY way the same? Ladies and gentlemen, a shining example of male privilege at its finest, here.

When you and I go out, that is never something we think about.

Your kidding, right? I live in a major city, in a neiborhood where regular people(ie not criminals) are descouraged from going out alone at night do to the high number of students targeted for muggings, and other criminal acts.

We never have to worry about a drink offered to us at a bar, that maybe it's poisoned. We never have to scan a party when we enter, wondering, "Which of these strangers is most likely to kill me tonight?" We never have to worry about if the shirt we want to wear out is more likely to get us shanked.

While I don't live in a gang controlled area, if I wore red in some neighborhoods in California, I might get killed. If I wore blue, I could also die. You do realize that gangs have killed people because they wore the "wrong" color before, right?

This [http://www.kolotv.com/caravan/headlines/Police_Non-Gang_Member_Killed_For_Wearing_Red_114249049.html], this [http://www.texasgopvote.com/restore-families/community/crips-gang-puts-out-hit-kill-any-us-soldier-uniform-texas-missouri-and-oklahoma-003638], and this [http://blogs.denverpost.com/coldcases/2010/03/14/aspiring-rap-producer-gunned-down-wearing-wrong-color/1249/] are example of guys who wore the "wrong" shirt, even though they were not part of a gang.

You believe your right to use the word "rape" for cavalier, minor things that have nothing to do with sexual violation supersedes the right of rape survivors to not have their trauma marginalized and belittled.

Ergo, supporting rapists. Or are you going to pretend that you're supporting rape victims? (PS. You're not.)

 

[axlryder]

Do not trivialize rape. Period. Why is this a hard concept?

It "hard" for my to get how using the word starving is ok, or saying that "my backpack is so heavy, it's killing me" can be considered ok. Yet somehow using the word rape is crossing the line.

I don't doubt that. It seems like she just takes anything problematic involving rape and labels it rape culture. For instance teens knowing how to rape is rape culture? It's not that complicated if you have an unconscious person. It certainly isn't a sign that our culture doesn't take rape seriously.

Problematic things involving rape ARE part of rape culture. Some to more extent than others. For example, teens knowing that you could use roofies, or whatever. I don't think that's a particularly SIGNIFICANT problem, but everything contributes a little bit.

What an awkward way or working in that men have institutional power. Not that that prevents them from having domineering controlling wives who are also abusive.

We're not talking about an individual man with an individual wife. I've dealt with this on a personal scale, myself. But that does not change my institutional power and male privilege, nor does it change the situation for the vast majority of men and women. Yes, domestic violence is horrible no matter who it's from/towards. Nobody's denying that.

They provide no links to any of the alleged studies about how rapists think all men rape, so since it's completely unsourced ...

--

Well I don't know how they got the 20% so no.

Can't find the "Rapists think all men rape" study, but an official UK government report [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#cite_note-5] found that between 75%-95% of all rapes go unreported. In the US, from 2000-2005, it was 59%. Better, but not by much.

That seems way too simplistic. It's one thing to think it's trivial when you're just thinking about it. It's another to still think it's trivial when you're trying to do it and seeing first hand that it's hurting someone.

Also there's a reason why rape jokes are called dark humor. Most people who think they're funny acknowledge that they are sick jokes in a way that sex jokes aren't. And since they're called sick jokes well that kind of reinforces that rape is bad.

And yet you're still being asked to make light of it.

No I have not. All I've said is that they don't trivialize rape. I still think it's not cool to spring rape jokes on people who don't want to hear them.

You're asking a rape survivor to laugh at one of the most traumatic events in her life.

You act like they're the only people I can tell rape jokes too.

Rape jokes are not okay. Using 'rape' as a synonym for 'defeat' is not okay. Ever.

I disagree.

Well, you're wrong. Why are you defending the Neanderthalic impulse to use one of the worst things that can happen to a human by another as a *joke*?

Rape jokes. Are not. Okay. Ever.

using rape as a hyperbolic colloquialism is not the same as a rape joke. I'd also guess that it's not necessarily trivializing anything (though, for arguments sake, let's operate under the assumption that it is). Saying it's okay to reference killing and murder but not rape is a double standard. I personally knew 5 people who were murdered (I lived in a dangerous city). You can't say that because I'm part of a smaller percentage of people who are directly affected by murder then somehow my own sensitivity and emotional damage can be suddenly marginalized and one's casual usage of the word murder, i.e., "you murdered me at that racing game", is somehow more justified. That said, I'm not going to flip out when someone does, because I feel that would make me an overly PC jerk who thinks I should attempt to tell people that innocently using a word outside of its initial meaning is never okay and deserves chastising regardless of the situation (though let's be clear I'm not calling anyone names here). I'm not saying I wouldn't say something or indicate that it's offensive, but that's different from what you're doing here.

I also have to question the "rapists thinks everybody are rapists" source. If anything, I'd at least like to see it. I'd also have to question the "6% of college students are rapists" survey. I'd like to see those questions. I can think of several questions that could easily artificially inflate that statistic and merge several very different situations and actions under the damning umbrella of rape. Of course, that last point is a bit moot, as rape is obviously a very real thing that happens frequently enough to take into account when speaking about it.

I also don't like the implication that you're saying some of my mates from when we were kids till now are potentially rapists and us casually using the word rape around each is dangerous because one of them is so stupid that they might go out and actually do it due to all of that "apparent" trivialization. Even if there's a grain of truth in there, to me that's no different than saying violent video games can make people more violent (there's legit research to support it!!!11!1!) and thus we should take the stance that violent video games are NEVER okay in order to help prevent trivialization and squelch the urges of the few would-be criminals with violent tendencies. Hell, going by that logic, I'd say violent video games are likely far more influential and dangerous, as they're readily available to anyone and involve repeatedly simulating specific actions in detail. Of course, to you it would appear that casually simulating screwing and then killing a hooker in GTA with my friends is totally okay, but using the word "rape" around them when not actually talking about the act of rape? WAAYYYY OUT OF LINE! Conflicting ideals? Nah, bruh, see, I handed her money before screwing her and blowing a hole in her brain, so it's aaallllll gooood!

I also don't think it's okay that so much of this is specifically directed towards men. Where I come from black males are FAR more likely to commit a crime, yet that doesn't mean that suddenly we should start directing all of our anti-crime movements towards that specific group of people. I'm sure there are LOT'S of sober woman who have had sex with drunk men at one time or another. That constitutes rape. Hell, I've known a couple woman who feel they'd be JUSTIFIED in sexually abusing a man who crossed them. Poetic justice or some shit. Point is, just because men are indeed far more likely to sexually abuse someone doesn't mean it's suddenly okay to explicitly direct your comments towards them.

This entire thing reeks of double standards and I don't like it. Honestly, I don't even use the word rape unless I'm actually talking about rape. To me it's an ugly word about an ugly thing and not something I readily associate with a fun activity. It also just sounds aesthetically displeasing in a sentence. I also generally agree that there's no real good reason to reference something devastating for the sake of hyperbole. I even discourage people from using it, as I don't think it's very mature and potentially offensive. However, I'm not suddenly going to try and silence people's usage of the word by flat out telling them "it's not okay ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" for the reasons stated above.

Also, as a man, I did have to be concerned about what colors I wore when I was in a certain area (along with pretty much every other aspect of myself and those around me). You'd actually see people changing clothes on the bus for that very reason. You're operating under the assumption that everyone lives in suburbia.

p.s., I probably won't be replying back to your inevitable reply. I've said my bit, and I doubt you're going to change the tune you've been tooting for all these posts. I have no desire to further reply to said tune, as it will likely result in the same circular banter that's been going on up to this point (which I'll inevitably have to drop later on, as I don't have the free time or desire to engage in a battle of attrition).

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Yes, just yes. You are either supporting rape victims, or supporting rapists. And you sure as hell aren't supporting rape victims, so...?

Provide me a quote where I specifically stated that I support rapist.

...really? Really?

Are you really trying to say that the two of them are in ANY way the same? Ladies and gentlemen, a shining example of male privilege at its finest, here.

When you and I go out, that is never something we think about.

Your kidding, right? I live in a major city, in a neiborhood where regular people(ie not criminals) are descouraged from going out alone at night do to the high number of students targeted for muggings, and other criminal acts.

We never have to worry about a drink offered to us at a bar, that maybe it's poisoned. We never have to scan a party when we enter, wondering, "Which of these strangers is most likely to kill me tonight?" We never have to worry about if the shirt we want to wear out is more likely to get us shanked.

While I don't live in a gang controlled area, if I wore red in some neighborhoods in California, I might get killed. If I wore blue, I could also die. You do realize that gangs have killed people because they wore the "wrong" color before, right?

This [http://www.kolotv.com/caravan/headlines/Police_Non-Gang_Member_Killed_For_Wearing_Red_114249049.html], this [http://www.texasgopvote.com/restore-families/community/crips-gang-puts-out-hit-kill-any-us-soldier-uniform-texas-missouri-and-oklahoma-003638], and this [http://blogs.denverpost.com/coldcases/2010/03/14/aspiring-rap-producer-gunned-down-wearing-wrong-color/1249/] are example of guys who wore the "wrong" shirt, even though they were not part of a gang.

You believe your right to use the word "rape" for cavalier, minor things that have nothing to do with sexual violation supersedes the right of rape survivors to not have their trauma marginalized and belittled.

Ergo, supporting rapists. Or are you going to pretend that you're supporting rape victims? (PS. You're not.)

I'm not supporting anybody when I use the word rape. I'm using a word to explain to my friends that I just took a test that I didn't think I did well on. You are trying to connect that to me supporting a person raping another person, which I never even mentioned.

 

[John Funk]

Yes, just yes. You are either supporting rape victims, or supporting rapists. And you sure as hell aren't supporting rape victims, so...?

Provide me a quote where I specifically stated that I support rapist.

...really? Really?

Are you really trying to say that the two of them are in ANY way the same? Ladies and gentlemen, a shining example of male privilege at its finest, here.

When you and I go out, that is never something we think about.

Your kidding, right? I live in a major city, in a neiborhood where regular people(ie not criminals) are descouraged from going out alone at night do to the high number of students targeted for muggings, and other criminal acts.

We never have to worry about a drink offered to us at a bar, that maybe it's poisoned. We never have to scan a party when we enter, wondering, "Which of these strangers is most likely to kill me tonight?" We never have to worry about if the shirt we want to wear out is more likely to get us shanked.

While I don't live in a gang controlled area, if I wore red in some neighborhoods in California, I might get killed. If I wore blue, I could also die. You do realize that gangs have killed people because they wore the "wrong" color before, right?

This [http://www.kolotv.com/caravan/headlines/Police_Non-Gang_Member_Killed_For_Wearing_Red_114249049.html], this [http://www.texasgopvote.com/restore-families/community/crips-gang-puts-out-hit-kill-any-us-soldier-uniform-texas-missouri-and-oklahoma-003638], and this [http://blogs.denverpost.com/coldcases/2010/03/14/aspiring-rap-producer-gunned-down-wearing-wrong-color/1249/] are example of guys who wore the "wrong" shirt, even though they were not part of a gang.

You believe your right to use the word "rape" for cavalier, minor things that have nothing to do with sexual violation supersedes the right of rape survivors to not have their trauma marginalized and belittled.

Ergo, supporting rapists. Or are you going to pretend that you're supporting rape victims? (PS. You're not.)

I'm not supporting anybody when I use the word rape. I'm using a word to explain to my friends that I just took a test that I didn't think I did well on. You are trying to connect that to me supporting a person raping another person, which I never even mentioned.

Exactly. Not supporting rape victims. So you are supporting rapists.

Words mean things. Get over your privilege.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Exactly. Not supporting rape victims. So you are supporting rapists.

You didn't read what I said, did you? I said my expression doesn't support either party. I am merely explaining the level of difficulty a recent test was.

Words mean things. Get over your privilege.

Didn't we just go over this? You brought up how I have privilege and focused on going out at night, and wearing clothes that could bring harm to myself, and I clearly showed you how being a guy didn't make me immune to being afraid to go out at night(because people in my neighborhood like to mug and attack students), nor does being a guy prevent me from potentially being killed because I might wear the "wrong" colored shirt, which could lead to me being killed by a gang member.

 

[dyre]

Exactly. Not supporting rape victims. So you are supporting rapists.

Sorry, just thought that was a pretty weird line. I'd better go support some rape victims...wouldn't want people to think I support rapists.

 

[cobra_ky]

I also have to question the "rapists thinks everybody are rapists" source. If anything, I'd at least like to see it. I'd also have to question the "6% of college students are rapists" survey. I'd like to see those questions. I can think of several questions that could easily artificially inflate that statistic and merge several very different situations and actions under the damning umbrella of rape.

Spoiler: These are the questions they asked:

(1) Have you ever been in a situation where you tried, but for various reasons did not succeed, in having sexual intercourse with an adult by using or threatening to use physical force (twisting their arm, holding them down, etc.) if they did not cooperate?
(2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they were too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances (e.g., removing their clothes)?
(3) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with an adult when they didn?t want to because you used or threatened to use physical force (twisting their arm; holding them down, etc.) if they didn?t cooperate?
(4) Have you ever had oral sex with an adult when they didn?t want to because you used or threatened to use physical force (twisting their arm; holding them down, etc.) if they didn?t cooperate?

Unfortunately the study isn't free to read anywhere as far as i know, but here's a good breakdown of it. The conclusion is especially relevant if you really think "the mates you grew up with" are really beyond reproach.

I also don't think it's okay that so much of this is specifically directed towards men. Where I come from black males are FAR more likely to commit a crime, yet that doesn't mean that suddenly we should start directing all of our anti-crime movements towards that specific group of people.

So in America, the racial breakdown for violent crime arrests is roughly 60% white and 40% black. Blacks may be statistically more likely to commit violent crimes (due to economic and other factors) but singling them out won't solve the problem because the majority of violent crimes are still committed by whites.

Now, when it comes to rape? 99% percent of the perpetrators are men. Women shouldn't condone or trivialize rape either, but the overwhelming majority of actual rapists are men.

I'm sure there are LOT'S of sober woman who have had sex with drunk men at one time or another. That constitutes rape.

Only if the drunk man didn't actually want to have sex.

 

[cobra_ky]

Exactly. Not supporting rape victims. So you are supporting rapists.

You didn't read what I said, did you? I said my expression doesn't support either party. I am merely explaining the level of difficulty a recent test was.

Your expression is hurtful to rape victims without condemning rapists in any real way. Rapists are the only ones who benefit from the type of statements you're defending.

Words mean things. Get over your privilege.

Didn't we just go over this? You brought up how I have privilege and focused on going out at night, and wearing clothes that could bring harm to myself, and I clearly showed you how being a guy didn't make me immune to being afraid to go out at night(because people in my neighborhood like to mug and attack students), nor does being a guy prevent me from potentially being killed because I might wear the "wrong" colored shirt, which could lead to me being killed by a gang member.

And women aren't subject to these same concerns?