[Serious] PSA: Rape Apologetics

[HappySkeptic]

I agree that there should be rules around trolling behavior, but Drich wasn't trolling. He was serious.

Drich's biggest sin was his contention that Cosby's drug and rape victims were not really victims because they should have known what they were getting into. That is a disgusting point of view, but would probably be more prevalent if this discussion were taking place in the 70s or 80s.

People won't just change their views because we ban them.

[Angrboda]

Bad speech or trolling. If simply being "provocative" is the standard, then it's a very subjective standard for the rule. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but the rule was written to emphasize repeat behavior, which this was not.

Since all the theists left there seems to have been a sea change from rational moderating to rationalizing moderating. I'm not a fan.

[Ranjr]

It's great to have clear rules that are fairly administered.  I appreciate that effort.  Nevertheless, I think it's fine to ban whomever you want.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I agree that there should be rules around trolling behavior, but Drich wasn't trolling. He was serious.

Drich's biggest sin was his contention that Cosby's drug and rape victims were not really victims because they should have known what they were getting into. That is a disgusting point of view, but would probably be more prevalent if this discussion were taking place in the 70s or 80s.

People won't just change their views because we ban them

Were not trying to change Dirch's views. He just won't be spewing them here

[LadyForCamus]

I agree that there should be rules around trolling behavior, but Drich wasn't trolling.  He was serious.

Drich's biggest sin was his contention that Cosby's drug and rape victims were not really victims because they should have known what they were getting into.  That is a disgusting point of view, but would probably be more prevalent if this discussion were taking place in the 70s or 80s.

People won't just change their views because we ban them.

No, they won’t. But members of the forum who are survivors of sexual assault shouldn’t have to be subjected to his harmful rhetoric.

[LadyForCamus]

Bad speech or trolling.  If simply being "provocative" is the standard, then it's a very subjective standard for the rule.  Nothing wrong with that, per se, but the rule was written to emphasize repeat behavior, which this was not.

Since all the theists left there seems to have been a sea change from rational moderating to rationalizing moderating.  I'm not a fan.

This is absolutely not the first time Drich has engaged in rape apology rhetoric. He has committed all three of Boru’s bullet points in the PSA on several occasions, directly toward a victim of sexual assault and abuse.

[arewethereyet]

It should be noted, perhaps, that the only times banning is done without a discussion between several members of the admin team is when it's an obvious spam bot or a sock account. We have the ability to basically put an egregious post "on hold" so that the forum members at large don't see it until it can be discussed.

Those of us who are involved aren't all of one mind about things and do take the time to look at and discuss actions taken or not taken.

The fact that actions are announced publicly on the board should speak to the efforts to be transparent.

[no one]

Ding dong the drich is dead!

---

drickhead is now lighting up another forum.

[Mermaid]

I agree that there should be rules around trolling behavior, but Drich wasn't trolling.  He was serious.

Drich's biggest sin was his contention that Cosby's drug and rape victims were not really victims because they should have known what they were getting into.  That is a disgusting point of view, but would probably be more prevalent if this discussion were taking place in the 70s or 80s.

People won't just change their views because we ban them.

No, they won’t. But members of the forum who are survivors of sexual assault shouldn’t have to be subjected to his harmful rhetoric.

As one of these people, thank you and the rest of the moderators from the bottom of my heart.

[Rev. Rye]

I'm not sure why I waited this long, but given that he's been banned for doing reprehensible shit and there's precedent for it being allowed in response to an actual banning, I feel I should ask: Jesse Custer, help a brother out, will ya?



Also, I can't help but wonder if he's trying frantically to log back in and wondering why he can't post, just like his hero did when he was banned from Twitter.