[Serious] PSA: Rape Apologetics

[tackattack]

Nope and I assume it’s deleted by now. Why?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Nope and I assume it’s deleted by now. Why?

Nope, it isn't deleted. Fair warning it's BAD.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-63005-page-5.html

[Jackalope]

Nope and I assume it’s deleted by now. Why?

It isn't deleted. Feel free to browse his most recent posts.

[Fireball]

I put the ignorant wretch on ignore a couple of days ago. I can't be bothered to go and look at whatever shite he wrote. His banning raised the collective IQ of the place a few points, though!

[Rev. Rye]

Nope and I assume it’s deleted by now. Why?

Nope, it isn't deleted. Fair warning it's BAD.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-63005-page-5.html

Actually, I think the first post to really hit the rape apology threshold was here.

I suppose he's technically accurate when he said that, at the time, Cosby's rape was seen as "business as usual" (I would have made clearer that this is a bad thing normalised by a fucked-up culture [rape culture or a depraved celebrity culture, take your pick], a descriptive but decidedly not prescriptive statement; fucking Hell, this is why I occasionally tag posts like that with "Why, Yes, That Does Suck"), and maybe treating Cosby's chief sin as hypocrisy kinda makes sense in a sort of "Hannibal-Lecter-saying-Buffalo-Bill's-Big-Sin-Is-Coveting-And-Not-Making-A-Lady-Suit-Out-Of-Real-Ladies" way



(Feel free to disagree with that particular assessment. I'm not sure how well it holds up myself.)

But the big thing that galled me was that he seemed to treat rape like any other kink (Anyone who's read me talk about women's feet should be able to guess that I know kink and rape ain't it). And I only just read the part where he treated most of the rapes as part of some sort of ploy to break into TV &c.

[Silver]

Perhaps Drich was confusing the fantasy creation of rape porn with reality. It is common, after all, for religious people to adequately differentiate between fabrication and authenticity.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Watch that them classification, unless it’s the other them those folks are assholes. Might want to expand and clarify topics of rape apologetics. Probably shouldn’t allow discussions of rape scenes on movies as well.

It isn't really either practical or desirable to list everything that qualifies as rape apologetics (hence the '...but not limited to' clause) - the more specific a Rule, the more people will try to get round it. This is why, in borderline cases, the Staff will discuss and vote on what actions, if any,  to take.

Boru

[The Valkyrie]

To be honest, he was lucky there was staff discussion on this.

If I had seen it, I would have arbitrarily banned him.

I'm pretty easy going most of the time, but I wouldn't tolerate that at all.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

And just so everyone’s aware, the permabanning of Drich wasn’t a majority vote.

It was unanimous.

Boru

[tackattack]

I think he was reaching and poorly explaining several points that I actually agree with.

1. To a Holy God, stealing a piece of bubble gum and rape( or murder, genocide, torture, mutilation, etc.) are equally “bad”.

2. He was potentially moving towards the crime was bad, but people knew and were enabling and covering for it for 40 years, which is worse.

It really came off as they got what they deserved, we r monsters for not forgiving a helpless old man, driving and raping women is just business as usual and no big deal. These views and opinions, I feel, are ban worthy and personally offensive so I think the ban was warranted, and if I ever let my tongue wag that far I would expect the same treatment.