Atheism +

[Autumnlicious]

There's nothing in the above statement that pertains to examining allegations with skepticism (ie the complainant is lying).

If anything, you've illustrated that all one needs to do is claim rape despite the order of events.

This makes for weak law and even weaker judicial decisions.

[The Grand Nudger]

By all means examine the allegation with skepticism. Intercourse occurred, one party was arguably too intoxicated to give consent, and this constitutes rape in some jurisdictions.

(I think the laws and process are weak in some ways myself - Im not entirely sure that I could either prosecute such a case or defend it competently)

[Red Celt]

By all means examine the allegation with skepticism. Intercourse occurred, one party was arguably too intoxicated to give consent, and this constitutes rape in some jurisdictions.

(I think the laws and process are weak in some ways myself - Im not entirely sure that I could either prosecute such a case or defend it competently)

In the example you gave, both parties were too drunk to remember what happened. So... how can you claim who was the raper and who was the raped?

Let's allow for 3 potential combinations:-

• Male & Female
  
• Male & Male
  
• Female & Female
  

Rape can occur in all 3 of those situations, but how can you prove who did what to who? If one of them were to complain that they were raped, the other can counter-claim that no, they were the one who was raped. I mean... if neither can remember giving consent, how is that even going to get as far as the courts?

[frankiej]

This is why everybody should always capture every sexual encounter on camera.

[The Grand Nudger]

How indeed, that would be the task for the prosecution. That a rape occurred (given the juridictions definition) is undeniable, but who to prosecute, how to do that (and how to defend as well) are all a little stranger. It may sound cynical but the question of "who to prosecute" would most likely be decided by whichever party decided to press charges (this could include the state as well).

How uncommon do you think allegations such as these are Celt? That our system seems currently incapable of proceeding is on the one hand understandable, but on the other, our lack of ability to prosecute this would mean that we may be telling the victim of a crime that they were at fault (specifically for our inability to proceed...at the very least) - que "victim-blaming".

[TaraJo]

Oh, wow.

Ok, I've had more than enough interactions with super-social activists online and, as a result, I've resisted the urge to explore Atheism+. I mean, I figured I could already guess most of what they have to say, right?

Well, today I found an article that was posted just a few days ago that really made me think of them:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...commenters

So, I decided I would take a look and see if any of them had read or posted the story. I mean, if I can think of any group this applies to, it would be Atheism+, right? Unfortunately, I didn't see anyone mention the article with my quick glance. What I did find was the most thin skinned group of people I have ever seen! I mean, really, if, for example, you have someone complaining that the word "female" is sexist and demeaning, how fucked up can you be?

[Darkstar]

Almost all of our readers are women, most of them are educated and many of them are quite politically liberal. Because of this large, diverse and progressive readership...

What part of that first sentence suggested anything other than homogenaity?

My big challenge is knowing how to respond to this kind of feedback, which comes in almost daily. Sometimes it feels like I have two options:


• Acquiesce to every complaint of anyone anywhere on the internet, until we're putting trigger warnings at the top of posts that mention balloons because some people are globophobic (TRUE STORY!).

• Align myself with insensitive assholes who defend their right to hate speech.

The first suggests that people just need to grow up, the second suggests that people on the internet are real savages. I vote for the first; even though there are some jerks on the internet, what is described here suggests you just need to grow up and it won't genuinely offend you. (Keep in mind she compares the level of offensiveness with Westboro Baptist Church anti-homosexual protests).

Lack of consideration for the context or intent. The focus is on this isolated incident (this one post, this one word, this one time), with de-emphasis on the author's background, experience, or the context of the website on which the post appears.

• And on a more stylistic note, these complaints are often prefaced with phrases like "Um," and other condescending affectations.

Oh no, he said um! Better report that pompous jerksore! So, because an author who says something stupid/incorrect has experience or a different background that means their mistake shouldn't be pointed out?

[TaraJo]

Well, yeah, there are general parts I'm not crazy about either, but I don't think I'll ever find something that's been written online that I'll agree with 100%. The point was that a lot of social activists are turning legitimate concerns into "I'm-more-progressive-than-you" contests and bullying in the name of social activism. It really makes it impossible to discuss certain topics. For example, we had a discussion here about the topic of rape:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14248.html

We were able to have an intelligent talk about it, and we brought up good and bad points to it. I can't imagine any of the social activists at Atheism+ being able to have this conversation because just he word 'rape' being mentioned will send someone into fits and the thread will be immediately locked. When you can't talk about topics like that, it can quite easily turn into an Emperor-has-no-clothes situation: people might not agree with something, but they know they can't say anything so they continue to pay lip service; unfortuntely, this also leads to the assumption that everyone believes in something, even if none of them believe it. I mean, have you ever read 1984? Most of the people there aren't really fond of Big Brother, but because they can't say or do anything about it, everyone always just assumes that everyone else supports Big Brother.

That being said, I'm glad to see one important piece of progression from them. One of them actually opened up a forum that's intended to be less of a 'safe space' (aka. Echo chamber). I think I'll keep an eye on this to see if they're willing to entertain legitimate questions of them or if it's just a facade they're going to use to make themselves look open minded.

http://atheismplus.4rumer.com/f3-atheism

[thesummerqueen]

Well...to be fair and honest, Tara, we've also got a pretty special group of people here. We have discussions with a level of civility and levity I can't imagine on social media sites or other forums

[TaraJo]

Well...to be fair and honest, Tara, we've also got a pretty special group of people here. We have discussions with a level of civility and levity I can't imagine on social media sites or other forums

I'm noticing that. I've found some very cool atheists out there on the internet and generally speaking, if you can talk intelligently about something, we're cool with you. I can really appreciate this, too.