[Serious] PSA: Rape Apologetics

[The Architect Of Fate]

Good point. I was banned from part of the forum for saying there's no way Kobe Bryant should have been found guilty, because the accuser's friend came out and said it was a fake rape accusation and the accuser admitted she was planning on doing a fake rape accusation for money. If that doesn't qualify as reasonable doubt, what else possibly could, right? A moderator was in his feelings and got upset at how I phrased things, so I was banned from that part of the forum as a result. You're apparently not allowed to argue that black men should be given fair trials on the forum. It's funny with Cosby released now, that everyone is taking the same position I was banned for. Even if you're guilty, you still get a fair trial.

You have rightly banned. No one said a black person shouldn't get a fair trial. Cosby is guilty as fuck and no ones taking the position you were banned for.

I think one of the female moderators was also upset with a Michael Jackson pedo joke I made. I'm a bad person for making a joke, while Dave Chappelle literally joked that kids should be bragging at school that they lost their virginity to MJ, and The Rock Dwayne Johnson literally made jokes on SNL about child molesting robots.

Are either of them on this forum ? Nope

And the poster 'no one' just advocated that prisoners be tortured. How is that any better than defending rape? Rapists lack free will and could not have done otherwise. They should be locked up to keep other people safe, but you're not a humane and rational person if you think prisoners should be tortured. Rapists didn't choose to be this way. None of us have the free will to choose anything.

Being hyperbolic is not the same as defending rape

[Rev. Rye]

Good point. I was banned from part of the forum for saying there's no way Kobe Bryant should have been found guilty, because the accuser's friend came out and said it was a fake rape accusation and the accuser admitted she was planning on doing a fake rape accusation for money. If that doesn't qualify as reasonable doubt, what else possibly could, right?

You said, and this is a direct quote:

Maybe I'm biased because Kobe is my favourite player ever, but even if he was guilty, he still should have gotten off because of how shit she was as a human being with her supposed plans to lure Eminem out of money by accusing him of rape.

At best, this is an extraordinarily shitty way of saying that there was some serious evidence that this was a false accusation. Frankly, it's far too easy to read this as rape apologetics. Hell, it's easier to read it as rape apologetics than saying that there's no way he should have been found guilty. This is why, if I go into a discussion on a subject where I'm likely to have an unpopular opinion, I do my damnedest to choose my words very carefully.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Good point. I was banned from part of the forum for saying there's no way Kobe Bryant should have been found guilty, because the accuser's friend came out and said it was a fake rape accusation and the accuser admitted she was planning on doing a fake rape accusation for money. If that doesn't qualify as reasonable doubt, what else possibly could, right?

You said, and this is a direct quote:

Maybe I'm biased because Kobe is my favourite player ever, but even if he was guilty, he still should have gotten off because of how shit she was as a human being with her supposed plans to lure Eminem out of money by accusing him of rape.

At best, this is an extraordinarily shitty way of saying that there was some serious evidence that this was a false accusation. Frankly, it's far too easy to read this as rape apologetics. Hell, it's easier to read it as rape apologetics than saying that there's no way he should have been found guilty. This is why, if I go into a discussion on a subject where I'm likely to have an unpopular opinion, I do my damnedest to choose my words very carefully.

I take your point and fair enough if that's how you read it, but I definitely think me being one of the only people defending Chauvin and his rights definitely made that moderator biased against me. He already thought I was a POS for my views on Chauvin, so of course when he saw that post it was the last straw for him or whatever. I don't know. One can pretty much take anything and twist it around to support what they're saying. Christian apologists do it with Richard Dawkins' quotes all of the time. Everyone's position on Cosby now is the same as my expressed position on Kobe was then. "Even if he was guilty, Cosby should have gotten off." "Even if he was guilty, Kobe should have gotten off." See. Same thing. But I accept your response and I would have worded things better if I could go back like you suggested.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I take your point and fair enough if that's how you read it, but I definitely think me being one of the only people defending Chauvin and his rights definitely made that moderator biased against me. 

Bullshit you didn't give flip about "rights" the twisting and lies you engaged in to try and defend him make that clear.

He already thought I was a POS for my views on Chauvin, so of course when he saw that post it was the last straw for him or whatever. I don't know. One can pretty much take anything and twist it around to support what they're saying. Christian apologists do it with Richard Dawkins' quotes all of the time.

No one twisted your words.

 Everyone's position on Cosby now is the same as my expressed position on Kobe was then. "Even if he was guilty, Cosby should have gotten off." "Even if he was guilty, Kobe should have gotten off." See. Same thing. But I accept your response and I would have worded things better if I could go back like you suggested.

That's not EVERYONE's position and no it's not the same. This is just bullshit backtracking.

---

Good point. I was banned from part of the forum for saying there's no way Kobe Bryant should have been found guilty, because the accuser's friend came out and said it was a fake rape accusation and the accuser admitted she was planning on doing a fake rape accusation for money. If that doesn't qualify as reasonable doubt, what else possibly could, right?

You said, and this is a direct quote:

Maybe I'm biased because Kobe is my favourite player ever, but even if he was guilty, he still should have gotten off because of how shit she was as a human being with her supposed plans to lure Eminem out of money by accusing him of rape.

At best, this is an extraordinarily shitty way of saying that there was some serious evidence that this was a false accusation. Frankly, it's far too easy to read this as rape apologetics. Hell, it's easier to read it as rape apologetics than saying that there's no way he should have been found guilty. This is why, if I go into a discussion on a subject where I'm likely to have an unpopular opinion, I do my damnedest to choose my words very carefully.

It's easy because that's what it was.

[Irreligious Atheist]

I take your point and fair enough if that's how you read it, but I definitely think me being one of the only people defending Chauvin and his rights definitely made that moderator biased against me. 

Bullshit you didn't give flip about "rights" the twisting and lies you engaged in to try and defend him make that clear.

He already thought I was a POS for my views on Chauvin, so of course when he saw that post it was the last straw for him or whatever. I don't know. One can pretty much take anything and twist it around to support what they're saying. Christian apologists do it with Richard Dawkins' quotes all of the time.

No one twisted your words.

 Everyone's position on Cosby now is the same as my expressed position on Kobe was then. "Even if he was guilty, Cosby should have gotten off." "Even if he was guilty, Kobe should have gotten off." See. Same thing. But I accept your response and I would have worded things better if I could go back like you suggested.

That's not EVERYONE's position and no it's not the same. This is just bullshit backtracking.

---

You said, and this is a direct quote:

At best, this is an extraordinarily shitty way of saying that there was some serious evidence that this was a false accusation. Frankly, it's far too easy to read this as rape apologetics. Hell, it's easier to read it as rape apologetics than saying that there's no way he should have been found guilty. This is why, if I go into a discussion on a subject where I'm likely to have an unpopular opinion, I do my damnedest to choose my words very carefully.

It's easy because that's what it was.

My quote can only sound as bad as you try to make it sound if you cut it off mid quote and only focus on a few words while ignoring the rest. If you just highlight the part that says the accuser is a bad person, that could make me look bad, but then when you read the whole quote, you see I immediately followed that up with saying that what makes them bad is planning fake rape accusations. If planning fake rape accusations is not enough to consider someone a very flawed person, and if it is not enough to keep a black man in the prime of his life out of prison, then we must have a very different view of morality.

[arewethereyet]

Moderator Notice
Closing this thread temporarily so that staff can review it.

[Jackalope]

No, they won’t. But members of the forum who are survivors of sexual assault shouldn’t have to be subjected to his harmful rhetoric.

That’s a slippery slope when one of the main reasons I see in a lot of intros on this forum is trauma from religious guilt and fear. Replace sexual assault with religion and that would make a case for having no believers on the forums.

This is my personal opinion, nothing official.

I've been on staff for the better part of a decade. I can tell you the relative number of complaints regarding creeper behavior vs some random theist making someone uncomfortable because of past trauma are orders of magnitide apart. Our rules and how we apply them is intended to filter on behavior, not belief. You were on staff before I started so I can't say how it worked back then.

As far as I'm aware, the staff are all in favor of inclusivity, and further I think that if a staff member weren't so, they ought not be on staff.

If we ever got to the point where we excluded theists on that or any other basis, this would be not a place worth coming to.

MHO, offered for what it's worth.

[arewethereyet]

Moderator Notice
Thread reopened. Discussion of the clarification of the rule is welcome, however, further rape apologetics are not.

[LadyForCamus]

It’s weird, the hills people are willing to die on.

[The Architect Of Fate]

My quote can only sound as bad as you try to make it sound if you cut it off mid quote and only focus on a few words while ignoring the rest. If you just highlight the part that says the accuser is a bad person, that could make me look bad, but then when you read the whole quote, you see I immediately followed that up with saying that what makes them bad is planning fake rape accusations. If planning fake rape accusations is not enough to consider someone a very flawed person, and if it is not enough to keep a black man in the prime of his life out of prison, then we must have a very different view of morality.

Your quote sounds just as bad in any context. And planning false accusations of other people doesn't mean you weren't actually raped in this case, And yes we have a different morality as yours is the total absence of any.