[Serious] PSA: Rape Apologetics

[arewethereyet]

This really isn't relevent to this thread.

I'll answer...yes, I think everyone should have due process.

The question is relevant,  if you belive Cosby should of been afforded due process then you are considered to be a rape apologist... That's why we need a clear definition.

I'm not playing word games with you.

Read the original post by Boru. That's your clear definition. If that's too difficult let us know what words you are struggling with.

[Huggy Bear]

The question is relevant,  if you belive Cosby should of been afforded due process then you are considered to be a rape apologist... That's why we need a clear definition.

I'm not playing word games with you.

Read the original post by Boru. That's your clear definition. If that's too difficult let us know what words you are struggling with.

OK, since rape apology is so "clearly" defined, are y'all going to start banning people for false accusations concerning rape apology?

[arewethereyet]

I'm not playing word games with you.  

Read the original post by Boru.  That's your clear definition.  If that's too difficult let us know what words you are struggling with.

OK, since rape apology is so "clearly" defined, are y'all going to start banning people for false accusations concerning rape apology?

A couple of you are really hung up on the concept that people just falsely accuse others of rape on the regular.

You read the opening post, no?

Maybe read it again...especially that part about "not limited to" and govern yourself accordingly.

[Rev. Rye]

Here's what I understand for cases like Huggy Bear's: If you can argue that someone was either falsely accused of sexual assault or that someone who probably might have been guilty was convicted under circumstances that should have had the case thrown out of court, without
A) Claiming that the act in question is either okay or not that big a deal, or
B) Trying to blame the victims for what happened to them
It shouldn't fall under the definition of rape apology.

Of course, if you're arguing that the trial was unfair, you need to be crystal fucking clear about that. I've learned that if I feel the need to express an opinion that's likely to be unpopular and/or misinterpreted, I need to choose my words VERY carefully and leave as little room for doubt as possible. If you're arguing for actual innocence, well, if you can't do that without condoning or downplaying the severity of the act accused or saying the victims are somehow at fault, then you probably shouldn't bother. If you can do that without doing those things, ideally keeping close to the evidence at hand, you should be in the clear.

Am I interpreting the rule accurately, mods?
Does this make sense, Huggy Bear?

[The Grand Nudger]

Let’s see if this helps Huggy. People may feel as though a poster is engaging in the behavior if they had a pattern of suggesting that rich influential men don’t need to rape, the victims weren't attractive enough to rape, that everyone was doing it back then, that they were Hollywood hopefuls who would do anything and/racists after a book deal and/or gold diggers out for money or…broadly, that it was all a giant conspiracy and shouldn’t we be judging these victims….who kept calling their victimizer?

…and if that happens, our mods will look it over and do the right thing, like always. They ban, they don’t ban, their discretion under advice of rules.

But…on a personal note unrelated to bans but very much related to rape apologism, can’t sum it up better than shell did for you last time you went down this same road. It all comes from a lack of understanding. If you can’t understand why the patterns of excuse above are poorly recieved… and it was clear then and now that you can’t, you might just want to be more guarded or careful in future conversations on the subject.

[arewethereyet]

Let’s see if this helps Huggy.  People may feel as though a poster is engaging in the behavior if they had a pattern of suggesting that rich influential men don’t need to rape, the victims weren't attractive enough to rape, that everyone was doing it back then, that they were Hollywood hopefuls who would do anything and/racists after a book deal and/or gold diggers out for money or…broadly, that it was all a giant conspiracy and shouldn’t we be judging these victims….who kept calling their victimizer?

…and if that happens, our mods will look it over and do the right thing, like always.  They ban, they don’t ban, their discretion under advice of rules.

But…on a personal note unrelated to bans but very much related to rape apologism,  can’t sum it up better than shell did for you last time you went down this same road.  It all comes from a lack of understanding.  If you can’t understand why the patterns of excuse above are poorly recieved… and it was clear then and now that you can’t, you might just want to be more guarded or careful in future conversations on the subject.

Thank you Nudger.

This thread is starting to look to me like some people want to know just how far they can go no matter if they believe what they say or are just playing at edgelord. At this point, I don't think anyone is confused as to the intent of the announcement made.

[The Grand Nudger]

I can get people don’t like being moderated, and that we don’t all agree with all of the rules of the board. I can’t say a bunch of the things about racists and racism that I’d like to say, in the manner I’d like to say them, I don’t agree with those rules….

….but I did agree -to- them. That’s really all a mod wants, in my experience. They’re not thought police, they’re janitors. If there’s some other place to say the things we just have to say and the janitors there don’t mind, that’s probably where we should take that sort of stuff. If we have to be booted to get the hint, well. It’s not a legal proceeding, nobody knows anybody, nothing is lost.

[Silver]

I don't consider being skeptical of a mainstream pronouncement as also being an apologist.

[Huggy Bear]

Let’s see if this helps Huggy.  People may feel as though a poster is engaging in the behavior if they had a pattern of suggesting that rich influential men don’t need to rape, the victims weren't attractive enough to rape, that everyone was doing it back then, that they were Hollywood hopefuls who would do anything and/racists after a book deal and/or gold diggers out for money or…broadly, that it was all a giant conspiracy and shouldn’t we be judging these victims….who kept calling their victimizer?

…and if that happens, our mods will look it over and do the right thing, like always.  They ban, they don’t ban, their discretion under advice of rules.

But…on a personal note unrelated to bans but very much related to rape apologism,  can’t sum it up better than shell did for you last time you went down this same road.  It all comes from a lack of understanding.  If you can’t understand why the patterns of excuse above are poorly recieved… and it was clear then and now that you can’t, you might just want to be more guarded or careful in future conversations on the subject.

Don't paraphrase, if you believe I said something, then post the full quote in context. I wasn't giving my opinion, I had linked to articles stating that Constand had changed her story multiple times, but that doesn't matter. A co worker of Constands testified under oath that Constand "had once remarked to her how it would be easy to fabricate such a charge to frame a celebrity and get money."... Another accuser was in jail for fraud, just another irrelevant detail I guess... the list goes on.

So yeah, based on all that, I was and am skeptical.

Seems your faith is strong when it's convenient.

[John 6IX Breezy]

At this point, I don't think anyone is confused as to the intent of the announcement made.

Nobody is confused about the intent—but questions remain concerning the poor execution.

Drich was banned before the PSA went up. IA was banned while discussing the rules in this very thread. I was previously banned for my comments on violence. And Belacqua was previously accused of being a rape apologist for mentioning that statutory rape is statutory in nature.

It's unclear how my comments (which stem from feminist legal scholars) unequivocally promote sexual assault, downplay sexual assault, or victim-blame. Clearly, the "not limited to" clause is insidious in nature.