[Serious] PSA: Rape Apologetics

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The following is found on the rules page, in case you've never bothered to read it.

The passage reads like a facsimile of mine doesn't it? It's almost as if I paraphrased it in my response. Surely, that's a coincidence.

You left out this bit, which seems the very antithesis of what you said earlier:

Therefore, the staff reserves the right to act against disruptive behaviors whenever necessary, as defined by staff and at its sole discretion.

Staff are not only explicitly and solely empowered to act against disruptive behaviours, we are also charged with determining what constitutes ‘disruptive’.

Boru

[Deesse23]

Staff are not only explicitly and solely empowered to act against disruptive behaviours, we are also charged with determining what constitutes ‘disruptive’.

Boru

"I am being oppressed!" in
10
...
..
.

[LadyForCamus]

None, really. I’m just drunk with power, I suppose.

This is a forum—inherent in it's telos is open discussion. Transforming discussions of injustice into an abhorrence competition is not conducive to that end. I'll remind you that the moderators have liberally called members of this forum rape apologists. 

That’s because some members of this forum have engaged in rape apologism, which will no longer be tolerated here; a decision which I fully support and will continue to defend. Sexual assault survivors should not be subjected to hateful and dehumanizing rhetoric like “rape isn’t really rape,” or “victims brought it on themselves.” That sort of content does not elevate or contribute to the quality of discussion here, and it’s potentially harmful to victims.

The same line of reasoning was invoked when we decided to ban slurs. Were you here for that? A subset of the forum community flew into a panicked outrage, ranting slippery slope fallacies about the dangers of censoring free speech. Do you know what happened? The forum continued to function as usual and as intended; discussion continues as usual, except now members don’t have to be subjected to hateful, dehumanizing speech related to their skin color, ethnicity, or sexual preference/gender identity. End of the fucking world, I know. You sound like a whining Trump supporter, tbh..

[John 6IX Breezy]

Staff are not only explicitly and solely empowered to act against disruptive behaviours, we are also charged with determining what constitutes ‘disruptive’.

Boru

Do you suppose I said you should give your power to someone else, just to be provocative? Could it be that I am addressing this specific clause in the paragraph?

[arewethereyet]

The following is found on the rules page, in case you've never bothered to read it.

The passage reads like a facsimile of mine doesn't it? It's almost as if I paraphrased it in my response. Surely, that's a coincidence.

No, sorry. That was written years ago and without your input.

I'd really like to know what it is about you that makes the topic of rape apologetics something you are so driven to try to out-talk everyone on?

What's the basis for that?

[arewethereyet]

Staff are not only explicitly and solely empowered to act against disruptive behaviours, we are also charged with determining what constitutes ‘disruptive’.

Boru

Do you suppose I said you should give your power to someone else, just to be provocative? Could it be that I am addressing this specific clause in the paragraph?

If that's the case your behavior falls under "trolling".

[HappySkeptic]

Don't allow discussions if you can't handle someone having a shitty feeling or idea.

It would be like having a rule against holocaust denial, and then having a thread "how many Jews did Hitler kill?". Sure, most people can keep within the rules, by what's the point of the discussion, when someone with a differing opinion has to self-censor or be banned? It serves no purpose. Such a thread should be shut down immediately if there were that rule.

Perhaps more to the point would be a thread "how much punishments should rapists get?". Everyone who says "fry them" would get lots of kudos, while those discussing the nuances of the issue would face getting banned. There is no point in having such a discussion when it is under the threat of banning.

If the purpose of the forum is to provide a safe space for rape victims, just say that, and stop having rape threads.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Staff are not only explicitly and solely empowered to act against disruptive behaviours, we are also charged with determining what constitutes ‘disruptive’.

Boru

Do you suppose I said you should give your power to someone else, just to be provocative? Could it be that I am addressing this specific clause in the paragraph?

Lol, I don’t suppose that at all. I was speaking more generally about the role of Staff.

Boru

[John 6IX Breezy]

Sexual assault survivors should not be subjected to hateful and dehumanizing rhetoric like “rape isn’t really rape,” or “victims brought it on themselves.”

Agreed—speech that is directly and intentionally harmful obstructs the telos of the forum; it should be mitigated or discouraged. The moderators have not, however, specified how my comments condone, downplay, or victim-blames; and they dismiss the work of feminist legal scholars who have argued my position.

I maintain that the moderators have been irresponsible.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Don't allow discussions if you can't handle someone having a shitty feeling or idea.

It would be like having a rule against holocaust denial, and then having a thread "how many Jews did Hitler kill?".  Sure, most people can keep within the rules, by what's the point of the discussion, when someone with a differing opinion has to self-censor or be banned?  It serves no purpose.  Such a thread should be shut down immediately if there were that rule.

Perhaps more to the point would be a thread "how much punishments should rapists get?".  Everyone who says "fry them" would get lots of kudos, while those discussing the nuances of the issue would face getting banned.  There is no point in having such a discussion when it is under the threat of banning.

If the purpose of the forum is to provide a safe space for rape victims, just say that, and stop having rape threads.

No one’s saying that rape or rape apologetics can’t be discussed.

It may help to think of this particular emendation of the Rules in the same way as the rule regarding racial slurs. It’s perfectly acceptable to discuss race relations and racial issues, but we expect it to be done without the use of the n-word and without hate speech.

Similarly, rape can be discussed without blaming or marginalizing victims of rape. It isn’t that difficult.

Boru