PZ Myers accuses Michael Shermer of rape.

[Galen]

"Not raped but still -kind of- rape" reminds me of "Piracy is theft. Well not -theft- but still basically theft." people.

There is a prexisting name for that crime. Using the name of a completely different crime to make it sound worse makes you sound like kind of an ass.

[Calin Leafshade]

Using rape in some contexts is offensive to people who have been through it.

Ditto torture, murder (by proxy obviously) and many other heinous things we use flippantly as metaphor.

I believe that by singling it out you give it an almost demonic power over the victims.
Considering feminism comes from a heavily post-structuralist background, feminists do tend to overlook the effect that *they* are having on societal norms
I think this kind of selective pressure upon the word and indeed the act makes it worse for victims, not better.

[Ali]

Wait now, everybody, things are getting a bit confused here.

Myinah, I'm not sure what your post refers to, but "rape" wasn't being used metaphorically (at least not in Selmiak's first post - the second one I have no idea really)

It might have been lost in the second post, but Selmiak said that Assange was a victim of rape in some sense. That's what Myinah was objecting to, and I think quite rightly.

Of course the word 'rape' can be used figuratively. But whatever you think about Assange he wasn't a victim of rape, literally or figuratively.

[Calin Leafshade]

But whatever you think about Assange he wasn't a victim of rape, literally or figuratively.

Yes, I wasn't defending that point at all. Thank for clarifying that.

[Galen]

Using rape in some contexts is offensive to people who have been through it.

Ditto torture, murder (by proxy obviously) and many other heinous things we use flippantly as metaphor.

That's... a little different. Not many victims of murder are likely to read people joking about murdering people. And torture is kind of niche as far as crimes goes.
Rape is also, sadly, a lot more common than all of those crimes. Whether it is, with victims out of the equation, acceptable to use is another dicussion though.

Perhaps add 'and pillage' to the end of it. Somehow Vikings don't get a bad rap. Mass theft and burning down towns somehow make it more palatable.

[Stupot]

Assange was merely 'surprised' by the CIA.

[Yeppoh]

That's... a little different. Not many victims of murder are likely to read people joking about murdering people. And torture is kind of niche as far as crimes goes.

For now, yes. Just give it some time. Eventually there will be a set of strong events and proper (read: sensational) news coverage that will give an equally strong effect on people and collective mindset enough to reconsider the connotation behind those words, and the way how to use them.

It's been less that eight-nine years since we could even carelessly mention stuff about Muhammad.

[selmiak]

It might have been lost in the second post, but Selmiak said that Assange was a victim of rape in some sense. That's what Myinah was objecting to, and I think quite rightly.

Of course the word 'rape' can be used figuratively. But whatever you think about Assange he wasn't a victim of rape, literally or figuratively.

may i rephrase my wording, for assange i meant the word rape methaphorical, probably not a fitting contrasting choice, I mean he was framed there, not set up, but then, maybe the whole meeting was set up, I'd totally fall for 2 swedisch fembots, uhm, or fangirls.

[Andail]

I probably read a few posts a bit sloppily - I definitely agree that Assange hasn't been raped, even figuratively.

When it comes to whether "rape" should even be used figuratively, that's probably another debate.

[Myinah]

Im going to put it another way

Sheltering recent victims of sexual assault from triggering words and images is not wrong. Some people need space to heal. We are talking in generalizations because of course everyone has their own coping mechanisms, but honestly Calin, once you have experienced rape it is very hard to disassociate the attack you experienced from the word itself. When that word pops up it can trigger serious flashbacks, Many victims suffer for PTSD and so it can take some time to get to a place where that word does not have the same impact.

I speak not only from personal experience but from time spent volunteering at a crisis centre when I was training as a counsellor. 10 years since I was attacked and I have no symptoms of PTSD and I am comfortable hearing and saying the word. When I was 16? No. Not at all. I wasn't playing a victim, I was recovering from being raped. Speaking with victims of rape and assault on the crisis line and at the centre assures me I am not incorrect. It is not about feminism, at least for me, it is about respecting people who have recently been through a traumatic event.

The thing about rape is that it is so common. You wouldnt compare something trivial to a school shooting in front of people who had experienced that, but the chances are you wont know anyone who has been though that. So maybe one day you do and then a parent who has lost a child is listening, or someone who survived one. They probably wont appreciate it. As I said before, 1 in 3 women are sexually abused in some form, and some might not have had much time to process it. They might be sensitive. They might not tell you what you said hurt them, but they might go away and feel trivialised further. It's just something to think about. Rape survivors can overcome their attacks, absolutely. I'm a survivor, your words have not affected me. However you must appreciate people take varying amounts of time to overcome things and that you may be hurting people with your words without realising.

I remember a gay guy at my work who wasn't really out to us, people threw around "That's so gay!" or "Quit being such a f**" all the time. It hurt him. They didn't know he was gay, and definitely wouldn't have said it if they had known, but people take for granted that everyone is just cool with stuff being a certain way.

I always think of tazers being an excellent comparison of why we should be careful with words. Used correctly tazers can be an excellent way to stop criminals, and 99% of time they wont leave lasting damage. But you only need to hit that one innocent person with a heart condition and it's a deadly weapon. I'm not the word police. I honestly don't care what language you use in relation to its affect on me personally, but I have different life experiences to you and so I appreciate there can be a deeper impact that you might realise.

Anyway, I'm not going to say any more really, and I appreciate everyone has an opinion Also please don't take the disclosure of my own experience with sexual violence to portray me as a delicate flower or that I've now tried to make it impossible to disagree with me because that was not the intention. I have been hesitant to bring it up partly because it is private but also because I like people to give impartial and real opinions even if they disagree with my own. You all raise interesting and insightful points even if I disagree.

[Calin Leafshade]

Is the commonness of rape the only issue?

For instance, let's assume I told a joke in which one of the players was murdered or I showed a friend a cartoon in which someone was killed and he turned around to me and said: "Oh, actually my father was murdered just like that..". How would we be expected to handle that in wider society?

Don't get me wrong, I am not the type to throw rape around casually because I appreciate that it can cause distress and I'd simply rather not but the very knowledge that something can cause distress or offence is categorically *not* enough to stop one from doing it especially when talking about freedom of expression. If the only reason you can put forward for this kind of pseudo-censorship is "because it might upset or offend someone" then you really have no case.

[Stupot]

It's just about mindfulness and tact.

The word 'rape' is interesting because on the one hand it is becoming more taboo than it was even a few years ago, especially in the wake of the 'everydaysexism' and 'sexism in games' debates doing the rounds at the moment.  But on the other hand, the word is also enjoying a slang meaning for 'to beat someone (at a game)'* or 'get one over' on someone.  I'm hearing it more and more, I'm even using it sometimes, and in this sense at least it is losing it's tabooness and even possibly even becoming separated from the literal nasty sense of the word.  So separated in fact, that even my mum says 'frape' and my girlfriend says 'yawn rape', and they are not ones to usually talk about rape so flippantly.

*I put an asterisk next to 'beat' because this has a similar double meaning, you can beat someone (brutally, illegally, with a lead piping in the study) or you can beat them (at a game of chess or football).  The fact that some children are severely beaten isn't going to stop me using the word 'beat', however deplorable.  Obviously 'beat' is nowhere near as strong a word as 'rape', but what I'm suggesting is that we could be seeing a divergence of meaning, and maybe 30-40 years down the line, 'rape' will be both a common word to describe getting one over on an opponent AND a serious and detestable sex crime.

For the time being, I'll stick to mindfulness and tact.  Use the word but don't abuse it.
And I guess that depends what you define as 'abuse' :-/

[Myinah]

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I am not saying you can't say anything. I'm saying people should consider what they are saying and if it is really necessary to use the term. Its a recommendation. And its based partly on the prevalence of sexual crimes.

Racist jokes aren't considered okay by most people, of my group of friends, rape jokes aren't either. I dont think jokes that make fun of victims or an oppressed people are funny myself but I will defend anyones right to spout whatever pops into their head under freedom of speech. I have not at any point said people should be censored have I? I'm making a suggestion that maybe rape is a word people should think about before throwing around. Just a suggestion. Not sure why you keep thinking I am trying to stop people, when I'm just asking them to consider something they may not have thought much about.

That being said I might exert my right to speak freely and tell you that when you use the word rape out of context I think it can be offensive and upsetting to people who have actually experienced it (1 in 3 women I again reiterate). And you are totally free to ignore it. I'm still not trying to censor everyone, just expressing an opinion in case it had not been considered before. Is that clearer? Genuinely confused as to why censorship keeps coming up when I repeatedly state that isn't what I'm wanting. 

[Khris]

Genuinely confused as to why censorship keeps coming up when I repeatedly state that isn't what I'm wanting. 

Because it's the favorite excuse of people who want to maintain the status quo.
At this point in time, were it slowly dawns on all the dudebros how severe a problem rape and sexism actually are, they just love to complain about how evil feminists want to oppress them. It's really disgusting but not too surprising.

[Calin Leafshade]

Didn't realise I was a dudebro.

[Yeppoh]

Because it's the favorite excuse of people who want to maintain the status quo.
At this point in time, were it slowly dawns on all the dudebros how severe a problem rape and sexism actually are, they just love to complain about how evil feminists want to oppress them. It's really disgusting but not too surprising.

I get your point, and in many cases it is sad.
I have to add though, I don't think that is as black and white to that much extent. Censorship is only an easy and cheap solution to 'solve' a problem, to make it virtually nonexistent, and has a strong dependence to morality which doesn't have an universal definition of what could be bad or good. It is after all something a lot of philosophers are trying to define.

The dilemma is this... Asking for someone to be more careful to how they speak is a polite way to say to censor themselves and their emotion so they don't hurt someone else. And asking anybody for not asking for others to be careful with their words is also censorship. And telling people who went through an hurtful/traumatic event that they have to keep it to themselves and not to share their pain/concern/etc... is also censorship. The moment someone says to another to shut up, keep it low or to be careful of the words they have use is technically censorship.
So actually both sides are genuinely concerned about their rights on free speech, and they're both resilient to auto-censor themselves for the sake of each other's side. Which in the end puts a shadow on the real issue at hand.

Censorship's a fascinating mind gnawing topic. Also the thematic of a webcomic I'm doing right now. It's kinda à  propos. =D

[kaput]

ignorance is no excuse for the law

I'd suggest the same goes for 'laws' of human decency, 'laws' for morality etc.

Freedom of speech is great. But if someone says something pretty stupid/ignorant/racist etc, it still makes them a bit of asshole.

I'm in no way suggesting anyone here is an asshole, I'm just throwing it out there. Cue moral dilemma debate.

[Khris]

Didn't realise I was a dudebro.

My comment wasn't necessarily directed at you personally.
You do seem to take Shermer's side though, and disagree with "all feminist angles you've read". So I guess the fact that you probably aren't wearing pink A&E shirts with popped collars is kinda negligible then.
Seriously though, are you opposed to feminism, or the caricature you apparently were exposed to (and I'd include Sarkeesian in that category)?

[Calin Leafshade]

I do believe that gender is a social construct and I do believe that society is still very sexist and I actually agree with sarkesian almost all the time. I am, mostly, a feminist.
I agree with sarkesian on almost everything she says. Society *sucks* for women and I wish it didn't. I also hope feminism continues to grow and prosper because I think they are, on the whole, making a positive difference.

However, I do side with Shermer and I think he should sue for defamation. One of the pillars of our justice system is that the accused can face their accuser and publishing anonymous accusations of a very serious crime with a high degree of social stigma is irresponsible and dangerous. If you accuse someone of a crime then you'd better be willing to prove it or *at least* attempt to prove it in court. You do not have carte blanche to throw around shit like that. It's illegal and for good reason.

If Shermer is guilty then he can go and fuck himself but until that's shown in a court of law he is, as far as I'm concerned, innocent.

Now, it's true that rape is difficult to prove and it also sucks for the alleged victim and I really hate that. I wish we had a better system but accusing people and letting the mob decide is not a better system.

The "feminist angles" I've read mostly put forward this argument:
"If by speaking out PZ has saved some women from being raped then he has done a good thing"
To which I reply "horse shit". Innocent until proven guilty is sacrosanct and saving women from being raped is not the paramount priority. Preserving the rule of law is.
*That* is the problem I have with 3rd wave feminism. They would burn civilization to the ground if it meant no more women were raped and that's not something I can fully support.

Incidentally, the notion that I am a "dudebro" (short hand for a simpleton idiot i imagine in your mind) simply because I have intellectual differences with your ideology is beneath you. It's childish and dogmatic and, frankly, the recourse of a simpleton idiot.

[Khris]

If you don't want to be called a simpleton, why are you saying that feminists "would burn civilization to the ground if it meant no more women were raped"
I also never actually called you a dudebro in the first post, and only jokingly in the next. And I'd never insult people over a mere difference of opinion. I only do it when they say something really stupid- err, I mean, don't agree with my "ideology".

Re Shermer: rape is a very unique crime. And the circumstances matter in this case. When it comes to how likely it is that the accusations are true, he does have acquired a reputation for being a cheating sleazebag.
By saying that he's innocent until proven guilty, you're also saying that the woman accusing him is an evil liar, and you're dismissing her account and the accounts of the other women who came forward as not being evidence.

It's easy to say "I wish things were different". Yes, the system isn't perfect. Does that mean we have to let people like Shermer get away with it (assuming for the sake of argument, that he is in fact guilty)? I don't think so.
There's always the risk of wronging someone, and sure, the US for instance has executed a lot of innocent people by now. But we can't keep letting rapists get away with it just because there wasn't a HD camera around.
And the main thing that irks me is that whenever it comes to rape, some (most?) men seem to pretty much assume from the start that the allegation is false. Yes, there are some women who falsely accuse men of rape on a whim. But when absolutely nothing at all suggests that this is the case, why should we err on his side?

Also, let's look at the bigger picture: what if, by supporting the women who come forward, rapists start to think twice about doing it? What if we actually managed to overcome rape culture? I'm willing to step over a few "bodies" to get there faster.