[Serious] PSA: Rape Apologetics

[HappySkeptic]

I can live with that, thanks.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I can live with that, thanks.

Sure; but ask him how my comments marginalized or blamed victims before I was banned from the thread. Or how Belacqua's comments warranted being labeled a rape apologist. There is a disconnect between what the moderators are saying, and the comments they have banned. I personally do not plan to participate elsewhere on the forum until the moderators retract their statements.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's no disconnect beyond rape apologists and their compulsion to rape apology. I assume that some portion of rape apologists are legitimately clueless, and the other portion are trolls.

The whole ting is amusing, because we're asked to consider the pain of rape apologists..and rape victims. Done...considered.

siiiiiiigh

[Ranjr]

Sure; but ask him how my comments marginalized or blamed victims before I was banned from the thread. Or how Belacqua's comments warranted being labeled a rape apologist. There is a disconnect between what the moderators are saying, and the comments they have banned. I personally do not plan to participate elsewhere on the forum until the moderators retract their statements.

As well you should, given your position.  I've left boards for allowing racial slurs and been banned for questioning sysops far less than the level you have.  I keep the attitude:  not my circus; not my monkees.  They can do as they wish.  So can I.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

And, nothing you’ve said has been actioned upon by moderators, has it? So quit whining.

[John 6IX Breezy]

And, nothing you’ve said has been actioned upon by moderators, has it? So quit whining.

See the following thread:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-62751.html

Here is where I was called a rape apologist and banned:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-62746-p...pid2037503

Here is where Belacqua was called a rape apologist:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-62746-p...pid2037537

[vulcanlogician]

Here is where I was called a rape apologist and banned:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-62746-p...pid2037503

Here is where Belacqua was called a rape apologist:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-62746-p...pid2037537

Yeah. I think Breezy has a point here. "Rape isn't always violent." -- with no context could certainly be considered an apologist statement. But the way Breezy said it, it was not. He was talking about non-violent forms of coercion that are deemed rape by certain feminists. He was taken out of context.

Same thing with Belacqua. What Bel basically said was "statutory rape is rape, even when no violence is involved."

[Huggy Bear]

[arewethereyet]

And, nothing you’ve said has been actioned upon by moderators, has it? So quit whining.

See the following thread:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-62751.html

Here is where I was called a rape apologist and banned:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-62746-p...pid2037503

Here is where Belacqua was called a rape apologist:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-62746-p...pid2037537

Went back and read the last couple pages of the thread. I stand behind what I said. Apparently you do not stand behind what you said.

[arewethereyet]

He's gonna need more popcorn.