[Serious] PSA: Rape Apologetics

[The Architect Of Fate]

Mono culture?


Bwaaaahahahaha....

Obviously you haven' t seen the replies to some of my posts......

If I didn' t wear Nomex ® skivvies my nuts would have been toast YEARS ago...

[Huggy Bear]

You were essentially jumping for fucking joy that a rapist was freed 

Do you belive a person should be afforded due process?

[Mermaid]

WHY? I think this thread should stay up. It's an important topic and I'd disagree about it serving a purpose. It's a discussion.

about a topic that is declared toxic to this board, and has already resulted in another banning, and could result in more.

ok? That still doesn't preclude having a conversation about this topic. 
Whatever, the moderators are the decision-makers, but my two cents, for what it's worth, are that it's valuable for people to discuss.

[Angrboda]

Making rules against things is fine, but AFAIK it was never clearly communicated that the topic was off-limits prior to using it to justify a ban.  Did Drich know he could be banned for it?  I doubt it.

Drich was banned for comments he made after the PSA on rape apologetics was announced. If he didn't know he could be banned for those comments, it's on him for not having read the PSA.

Boru

No he was not. Drich's last post on it was the morning of 7/13 (here). The PSA was posted that evening (here).

[arewethereyet]

I vote for a thread closure.  It serves no useful purpose beyond the original rule change announcement.

This thread was closed. It was discussed among staff and reopened for people to discuss the clarification of the rule.

If you don't feel it's useful, you are free to not participate. This thread is here for people to voice their concerns. If, after reading the original post, someone decides to go back to rape apologetics they are clearly aware of the potential consequences of that action.

Having this be an active thread helps remove the plea of "I wasn't aware".

[John 6IX Breezy]

If you’re going to characterize someone else’s opinion as ‘outdated’, quoting a 35 year old article might not be your best move.

Old ≠ Outdated. 

Feminist legal scholars have done much since the 1970's to shape the legal definitions in use today. This includes not just moving beyond the violence paradigm, but also beyond outdated penile penetration requirements, and even marital exclusions. The way you define rape affects its prevalence, and the "rape is violent" stereotype has allowed rape to hide safely within "normal" dating relationships and marriages.

Until you demonstrate that this "35 year old article" is obsolete the moderators have no business calling anything they like "rape apologetics."

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Drich was banned for comments he made after the PSA on rape apologetics was announced. If he didn't know he could be banned for those comments, it's on him for not having read the PSA.

Boru

No he was not.  Drich's last post on it was the morning of 7/13 (here).  The PSA was posted that evening (here).

My mistake. I accept the correction.

Boru

[LadyForCamus]

I will not defend IAs statement.  My frustration isn't about rape apologetics.


But I will say this place is becoming a mono-culture, with low tolerance for other points of view.  It becomes boring patting each other on the back for our correct views, rather than having actual discussions.

Can you explain to me your reasoning behind why you think that  1. “Rapists should not be held responsible if their victim is unlikeable,” and 2. “Performing sexual acts on an incapacitated person isn’t rape,” are points of view that provide starters for productive, meaningful discussion? How does the culture of the forum suffer from not providing a platform for those points of view? And do you think the expression of those points of view harm anyone? If you believe the potential benefits of hosting that rhetoric outweighs the potential harm, please explain what they are.

[LadyForCamus]

I vote for a thread closure.  It serves no useful purpose beyond the original rule change announcement.

Oh, so rape apology is free speech that should be protected here, but a discussion about forum rules is where you draw the line? 

You can’t make this shit up.

[LadyForCamus]

So why not just prohibit the discussion of the subject altogether, I was accused of all that in trying to explain why Cosby's conviction would be overturned.

I vote for a thread closure.  It serves no useful purpose beyond the original rule change announcement.

WHY? I think this thread should stay up. It's an important topic and I'd disagree about it serving a purpose. It's a discussion.

Interesting, which type of “free speech” he’s defending and which he’s requesting be closed down. 🙄