Are you freakin' kidding me?

[JazzJack2]

Yet there is no scientific evidence that rape jokes lead to a warped view of rape, rapists, and rape victims.

I was about to start digging up studies and articles when a suspicious thought occurred to me: This argument sounds very similar to the ones that decry global warming and/or evolution, which makes me wonder if this isn't perhaps a waste of my time. Would you mind telling me what form of evidence you would accept as compelling here, so I can look for it specifically without having to worry that I'm banging my head against a wall?

I want what I asked for, scientific evidence.

I'll more than imply it, I'll outright state it. The definition of "offensive" is "something that offends." If a thing has offended, then it is offensive. That is how words work.

A)Then surely asking people to choose their words carefully is pointless if anything is offensive so long as I am offended.

B)Under this definition the word is rendered meaningless since everything becomes offensive (because someone can take offense to anything).

I think this question is changing the topic. I haven't been discussing fault, and I'm not interested in laying blame. I am discussing effects I have to deal with.

But we have been discussing who is at fault, this whole argument is about whether a lack of intent mitigates blame.

No, in this metaphor, the judge is the court of public opinion condemning or defending the Microsoft representative in this discussion. The offense is the issue being settled by the court, and the issue being settled by the court is the bullet; the effects of his speech.

But the effect of his speech is the SAME thing as public opinion, because the only effect it has is based on how people choose to react. The actual point of interest is merely the speech itself.

I don't, but I do think they have standardized meanings which people need to adhere to in order to maximize the chances that we'll be able to make ourselves understood, and that people who disregard the standardized meanings invite response of anger and outrage through their carelessness.

But that isn't meaning, meaning can only exist in the intention of the speaker and while words do carry certain connotations and associations which people may infer things from it does not change what the speaker meant and only implies what he said was poorly articulated. The most baffling thing about this is that the phrase "just let it happen it will be over soon" wasn't very ambiguous to begin with, and implying that in this phrase 'it' meant rape seems a long stretch.

Thank you. I was unable to even guess that.

Hmm I guess they don't use that term outside the UK.

 

[ShiningAmber]

I'm a survivor of sexual assault and I found it offensive. Let alone on E3.

Bring on the 'You should get over the fact you were viciously assaulted so I can have my rape humor. Because, rape is funny.'

 

[Wyvern65]

I'm a survivor of sexual assault and I found it offensive. Let alone on E3.

Bring on the 'You should get over the fact you were viciously assaulted so I can have my rape humor. Because, rape is funny.'

I'm sorry that you had to live through that, truly. I wish no one had to.

But because you lived through that, you are more likely to view ambiguous statements as referring to rape, whether they do or not. This is a tendency every human being has. You had the same tendency in regards to other emotional topics before your experience.

I'm trying really hard here (because it's important) to make you understand that this tendency isn't a /result/ of what happened to you, but a result of you being human. I have this same tendency, every human who ever lived has it. We can't escape Confirmation Bias without a lot of really complex circumlocutions, which is what a lot of science is about.

We see and hear what we expect to in a lot of cases. When we've experienced horrible pain, it doesn't take much to remind of us of it.

But none of the above means what was said was /actually/ about rape or not. I respect that you experienced it as such, and it caused you pain, but that doesn't mean it was a rape joke.

If the woman that it was made to, and the person who made it, both say it wasn't intended as such and have apologized if it was taken that way, can we at least agree that it was a simple mistake and no harm was intended?

 

[JimB]

I don't see any problem with it.

Then you suggest that we accept your vision as the only accurate one?

Like someone said previously in the thread, if it was directed at another male no one would give a shit.

And like I said to that person when he said it, that would be a damned shame.

Hell, I've said things along those lines; "Just let it happen, it'll be over soon" when thrashing a friend at Starcraft 2; but I never thought of it as a rape joke.

What of it? You have said those words and deny that they were a rape joke when you said them; therefore, if we accept that they are not a rape joke (not that I believe it matters, but I'm trying to understand your argument here), the Microsoft representative must not have meant them as a rape joke?

I want what I asked for, scientific evidence.

You perceive that this answer is a long way from helpful.

Then surely asking people to choose their words carefully is pointless if anything is offensive so long as I am offended.

If someone chooses to run out into the road just as you're driving around a blind corner, you will hit him and it will be unavoidable. That the collision was unavoidable does not mean there's no point to keeping your eyes on the road and minimizing the risks.

Under this definition the word is rendered meaningless since everything becomes offensive (because someone can take offense to anything).

It seems to me that you are now the one arguing that the word has an objective meaning, since subjectivity invalidates it.

This whole argument is about whether a lack of intent mitigates blame.

No, that is what your argument is about. Mine is about whether it mitigates the effects. If we are not having the same conversation, then excuse me for dropping this, because I am extremely tired of people telling me I am required to forgive someone who has done harm to me out of his own ignorance, laziness, and lack of skill, as if the harm done is irrelevant in the face of his lack of active malice.

But the effect of his speech is the same thing as public opinion, because the only effect it has is based on how people choose to react.

I think you are confusing reactions and effects.

I don't, but I do think they have standardized meanings which people need to adhere to in order to maximize the chances that we'll be able to make ourselves understood, and that people who disregard the standardized meanings invite response of anger and outrage through their carelessness.

But that isn't meaning; meaning can only exist in the intention of the speaker, and while words do carry certain connotations and associations which people may infer things from, it does not change what the speaker meant and only implies what he said was poorly articulated.

I used the word "meaning" in this instance as a synonym for "definition." You seem to use it as a synonym for "intent." Perhaps I chose my words poorly; if so, please forgive me, and pretend I said "standardized definitions" if it alleviates the confusion.

"Just let it happen, it will be over soon" wasn't very ambiguous to begin with, and implying that in this phrase 'it' meant rape seems a long stretch.

"It" does not mean rape. It refers to rape, sort of like how someone telling you not to look a gift horse in the mouth is not giving you equestrian-specific advice.

I guess they don't use that term outside the UK.

No, the word "grievous" doesn't really come up on our side of the pond. Shame. It's a good word.

I'm a survivor of sexual assault and I found it offensive.

Please accept my sympathies for the hardship you've endured, as well as my compliments on overcoming it to whatever degree you have.

Bring on the 'You should get over the fact you were viciously assaulted so I can have my rape humor. Because, rape is funny.'

I'm not sure how fair a characterization that is. Oh, certainly, some people make arguments that can best be summarized like that, but the primary argument I understand here is that it is more fair that you be required to alter your thinking to interpret these jokes more charitably rather than anyone having to alter his speech to avoid offending you with rape jokes.

 

[Wyvern65]

I'm not sure how fair a characterization that is. Oh, certainly, some people make arguments that can best be summarized like that, but the primary argument I understand here is that it is more fair that you be required to alter your thinking to interpret these jokes more charitably rather than anyone having to alter his speech to avoid offending you with rape jokes.

Meh. Not sure you're making any fairer a characterization, tbh. This thread has been all over the place. Some people are concerned with combating rape culture, some people are concerned with stifling free speech, some people are wondering why this is a being discussed, some people can see it might be taken that way but don't see it that way themselves, some people have been trying to diffuse some of the hostility with humor, some people are offended about people being offended about being offended (which becomes almost meta.)

Typical internet thread.

All the same I think you need to make some concessions to reality. There are some 7 billion people on this planet. Every one of them has things that others can say to them which will cause offense. None of us can read minds or past experiences or know what will be hurtful to others at a glance.

While attempting not to purposefully harm others with our words is laudable, and apologizing if we do so likewise, if intent /doesn't/ matter then we're kind of screwed. The standard of harm cannot simply be 'my feelings were hurt.' It's too subjective.

A car accident is a physical thing that takes place in reality. Your emotional state is an invisible internal state which is known only to yourself. Using that analogy doesn't really make much sense.

 

[ShiningAmber]

I'm a survivor of sexual assault and I found it offensive.

Please accept my sympathies for the hardship you've endured, as well as my compliments on overcoming it to whatever degree you have.

Bring on the 'You should get over the fact you were viciously assaulted so I can have my rape humor. Because, rape is funny.'

I'm not sure how fair a characterization that is. Oh, certainly, some people make arguments that can best be summarized like that, but the primary argument I understand here is that it is more fair that you be required to alter your thinking to interpret these jokes more charitably rather than anyone having to alter his speech to avoid offending you with rape jokes.

I'm not saying you can't have rape jokes. And I'm not asking anyone to alter themselves. I just don't think E3 was the place to say something like that considering the age range of people who are watching it.

R rated movie? Yeah, sure. Say whatever the hell you want. I won't be watching it. Adult rated games, yeah, whatever. I won't lose sleep over it. So and so book has rape and rape jokes in it? Fine, with me. I won't read it.

But, I don't expect to watch E3 and hear rape jokes. (I am saying it is a rape joke based on my past experiences. It was the first thing that came to my mind.) I don't think it was necessary or needed in that setting.

And thanks for your sympathies. I really do appreciate them. It means a lot to me. It's a hard fight.

 

[JimB]

Not sure you're making any fairer a characterization, to be honest.

I really do want to be fair here, so let's examine that.

This thread has been all over the place.

True enough, but I think the general undercurrent has been, "He didn't mean it as a rape joke, therefore anyone who thinks it was it wrong." Perhaps my estimation of the general conversation has been skewed by how much JazzJack2 has dominated the responses to me, but I think my understanding is fairly accurate in broad terms.

All the same I think you need to make some concessions to reality. There are some 7 billion people on this planet. Every one of them has things that others can say to them which will cause offense. None of us can read minds or past experiences or know what will be hurtful to others at a glance.

I'm not entirely certain how this advice relates to me. Have I given the impression that I think it's possible or even desirable to completely eliminate one's possibility of offending others? Have I been unclear that all I want is for people to feel safe discussing this topic, and to have a justified faith that those who disagree with them will do so civilly and gently without trying to shame, silence, or ridicule them?

While attempting not to purposefully harm others with our words is laudable, and apologizing if we do so likewise, if intent doesn't matter then we're kind of screwed.

I'm sure it matters to others. It doesn't to me, but I have never said my responses are or ought to be universal.

The standard of harm cannot simply be 'my feelings were hurt.' It's too subjective.

Harm is subjective, though. It's why, when you go to the doctor or visit a hospital, they tell you, "Rate your pain on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the worst pain you can imagine," rather than, "Hold still while I scan you with this device that measures your pain with a margin of error of three pain units."

Your emotional state is an invisible internal state which is known only to yourself.

Until I speak up about it, at any rate.

I'm not saying you can't have rape jokes. And I'm not asking anyone to alter themselves.

No, but nevertheless, that is the opposing position as best I understand it. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they take your feeling of offense as an attack, and therefore you as an aggressor?

I don't expect to watch E3 and hear rape jokes.

I agree, you oughtn't have to.

And thanks for your sympathies. I really do appreciate them. It means a lot to me. It's a hard fight.

You're entirely welcome. I don't know you, your internal strength, or how badly your attack taxed your resources, but I do know a little something about how defining such an event can be, and I can only cheer to see you defying it.

 

[Hagi]

Wait... I'm confused... That's a rape joke?

You know what my father told me and my brothers when we had a nasty splinter and he had to pull it out?

To let it happen, it'd be over soon.

You know what he told us when we got stung by a bee and he'd do his best to treat it?

To let it happen, it'd be over soon.

Maybe something is getting lost in translation but how does letting telling someone to let it happen, it'll be over soon imply rape?

Wouldn't rape be more along the lines of 'shut the fuck up, if you tell anyone I will fucking kill you?'

 

[JimB]

Wouldn't rape be more along the lines of 'shut the fuck up, if you tell anyone I will fucking kill you?'

No, it really wouldn't. Many rapists do not understand that they are rapists; they think they're just having sex with someone they know, a friend or acquaintance or even a lover. Why would they threaten to kill someone they know and like over what they think is just sex?

 

[Reeve]

He wasn't joking about rape. He was talking about her losing the game. I can't see how anyone could misunderstand that...

 

[Hagi]

Wouldn't rape be more along the lines of 'shut the fuck up, if you tell anyone I will fucking kill you?'

No, it really wouldn't. Many rapists do not understand that they are rapists; they think they're just having sex with someone they know, a friend or acquaintance or even a lover. Why would they threaten to kill someone they know and like over what they think is just sex?

Well... why would you say 'just let it happen, it'll be over soon' during what you consider to be just sex?

That makes even less sense...

 

[JimB]

Why would you say 'just let it happen, it'll be over soon' during what you consider to be just sex?

I'm not sure I can explain this fully without getting into a level of explicit and obscene detail that would be irresponsible and inconsiderate of those who have suffered such attacks. We will both have to be be content with "Just let it happen, it will be over soon" sounds, on the surface, like a much more appropriate thing to say, kind of like saying, "Just hang on, I'm almost done" when someone wants you to turn off a video game to free up the TV, for instance. It makes it sound like you're totally willing to respect the other person's wishes but you just need to finish up one quick thing first, as long as you ignore that the statement is clearly intended to indicate that you will not respect the other person's wishes until you get what you want.

 

[GladiatorUA]

"Just let it happen, it'll be over soon" by itself can be ignored. The follow-up "You like this" and an uncomfortable response "No, I don't like this", makes the meaning clear.
It's not so much offensive, as it is inappropriate. There are things you don't joke about with certain groups of people. Like rape with women. It was stupid. Expect less unscripted banter during such events in the future.

 

[wulf3n]

I said I want people to feel safe when they discuss rape.

You want people to feel safe discussing rape, yet you are perpetuating an environment where it is not safe to discuss anything. How can that not by hypocrisy.

I am not sure "duress" means what you think it means. It means force or compulsion. You seem to think that you cannot have free will not only when you're being forced or compelled to behave in a certain way, but also when you're not being forced or compelled to behave in a certain way but are afraid you might be. If that's the case, then any sort of consequence imposed for any action is a violation of free will, and under that paradigm I still can't quite bring myself to feel much pity because all human agency is negated by the fact that other humans exist who might react negatively to to anything we do, so screw it, this is just a drop in the ocean.

You don't think persecution is a form of duress?

I do not think it is in good taste to compare the victim of rape to someone having to weather bad publicity for making a televised rape joke.

I wasn't once again you inferred something that didn't exist.

which leads me to:

Not in the least. I am responsible for exactly what I said I am responsible for: the accuracy of my word choice as it relates to reflecting the ideas I wish to communicate. Inferences are formed entirely in the minds of the audience, and if, for instance, you think that the statement "I want to be able to discuss rape in a safe environment" has an exactly equal meaning to the statement "I want to speak my mind freely," then that is a result of you not understanding that different words have different meanings, and I do not accept responsibility for your failure to take the language seriously enough to comprehend that.

If you're not responsible for the inference of others, then why is the guy at E3?

 

[wulf3n]

say something like that

And that's the real issue at hand "Something like that"

If the scenario was guy said "You just got Raped!" after beating the host, there wouldn't be a discussion, there'd be a forum of people saying "That was an incredibly stupid thing to say at E3, and has no place in gaming culture".

But that's not what happened.

What was said was not so clear cut. It was an obscure statement with many different meanings.

Is my inference of it being a benign statement referring to the unpleasantness of being defeated on stage any more valid than your inference of it being a rape joke. No, but your inference has consequences.

What I'm seeing here is a lot of people say me, me, me. I'm offended, I find that offensive, I shouldn't have to hear that, but very few people saying, did HE intend it as a rape joke, did HE intend to be offensive, is it rational to think what HE said constitutes a rape joke?

As many have said before a person is not responsible for the Inference of others, yet here we are, blaming someone for our inferences.

 

[iRevanchist]

It was just a poor choice of words. he didn't mean to contribute to rape culture, he was just misinterpreted.
^not sarcasm. as a feminist, i wish he'd used other words, but i don't think he did anything wrong. just a little mishap. unlike the rest of microsoft's presentation--now that was a disaster.

 

[JimB]

You want people to feel safe discussing rape, yet you are perpetuating an environment where it is not safe to discuss anything. How can that not be hypocrisy?

I suppose because I don't accept your premise that voicing my displeasure when someone says something that displeases me constitutes an environment in which nothing can ever be discussed.

You don't think persecution is a form of duress?

It does, and if I agreed that the Microsoft representative was being persecuted, that would alter my voice in the conversation.

I wasn't; once again, you inferred something that didn't exist.

Yes, you did. You directly and explicitly mentioned the victims of sexual assault as a means of bolstering your position that I ought to never criticize the Microsoft representative. Your post is still there for anyone to see.

If you're not responsible for the inferences of others, then why is the guy at E3?

Because I do not believe that it is solely a matter of inference. I think his word choice, consciously or otherwise, is based on the idea that rape is a punchline, and I don't mind seeing him taken to task for it.

What I'm seeing here is a lot of people saying me, me, me. I'm offended, I find that offensive, I shouldn't have to hear that, but very few people saying, did he intend it as a rape joke, did he intend to be offensive, is it rational to think what he said constitutes a rape joke?

wulf3n, I'm kind of horrified that you're bringing this up because you are asking me to treat the perpetrator as a victim and prioritize him over those who found his statement troublesome. This bothers me because it's such a common occurrence to the victims of rape, that they're told they mustn't complain about the attacks in order to spare the rapists from having their feelings hurt. Here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_High_School_rape_case#Public_reaction] are links [http://www.salon.com/2013/04/10/teen_commits_suicide_after_photos_of_her_alleged_gang_rape_go_viral/] to three [http://jezebel.com/5686407/teen-rape-victim-commits-suicide-after-bullying] incidents in which the victims of rape were blamed for ruining the lives of their attackers and committed suicide because of the bullying. If you insist on treating the Microsoft representative as a victim here, then I wish you would defend him with tactics less likely to be employed by the kind of people who can watch video footage of multiple young men sexually assaulting an incapacitated, teenaged girl and still conclude that she is the person to blame for the attack.

 

[wulf3n]

I suppose because I don't accept your premise that voicing my displeasure when someone says something that displeases me constitutes an environment in which nothing can ever be discussed.

Normally I would agree with you. Unfortunately in this day and age we have to be careful as enough "outrage" causes people to lose their jobs.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/right-click/dongle-joke-turns-ugly-situation-two-tech-workers-194401020.html

No I'm not saying people can't have opposite opinions, it would just be nice if people thought about how their actions may affect others. Isn't this what you're asking of the one who made the "joke"?

It does, and if I agreed that the Microsoft representative was being persecuted, that would alter my voice in the conversation.

I think it's a case of "yet". Whether or not he will be is yet to be seen, however these things have a tendency to blow up rather quickly.

Yes, you did. You directly and explicitly mentioned the victims of sexual assault as a means of bolstering your position that I ought to never criticize the Microsoft representative. Your post is still there for anyone to see.

Please show me the direct and explicit comparison to the Microsoft representative. the actual comparison was to those who have been punished due to a misrepresentation of their words. You know like during the McCarthy trials.

Because I do not believe that it is solely a matter of inference. I think his word choice, consciously or otherwise, is based on the idea that rape is a punchline, and I don't mind seeing him taken to task for it.

That the "meaning" is so divided would indicate otherwise.

I'm kind of horrified that you're bringing this up because you are asking me to treat the perpetrator as a victim and prioritize him over those who found his statement troublesome

No I'm asking you to take a step back and ensure the perpetrator is actually a perpetrator.

You're still treating as a clear cut issue. If it were I'd be right there with you, but it's not. Treating as such is disrespectful to all, and only serves to punish those who might not deserve to be punished.

 

[Wyvern65]

I'm kind of horrified that you're bringing this up because you are asking me to treat the perpetrator as a victim and prioritize him over those who found his statement troublesome. This bothers me because it's such a common occurrence to the victims of rape, that they're told they mustn't complain about the attacks in order to spare the rapists from having their feelings hurt.

Okay, I've been patient and reasonable until now, but this is pure, unfettered bullshit you're trying to peddle. Which wouldn't even pass on Jezebel. [A place I enjoy now and again, btw.]

There was no 'perpetrator' here. There was no 'victim.' The /only/ person who could legitimately claim to be a victim of his comments was the one to whom they were directed.

She had no problem with them. So no one ELSE can claim to be a victim.

You have NO RIGHT to be a victim here. No one was /raped/ and your /direct/ comparison of his thoughtless comment to real life rape has crossed a line. YOU are the one trivializing rape victims here. Stop it.

Can I ask a serious question. Why are you trying to make this such a big deal? I 'get' rape culture and dismantling it, I do NOT get why you are focusing like a laser on this particular instance of human stupidity.

 

[JimB]

Unfortunately in this day and age we have to be careful as enough "outrage" causes people to lose their jobs.

If the Microsoft representative genuinely did have innocent intent, and if he does lose his job and future job prospects over his sloppy word choice, then that will be very sad, but he made a mistake and sometimes people pay dearly for them. It's the way of the world, and I am not interested in advocating for him.

It would just be nice if people thought about how their actions may affect others. Isn't this what you're asking of the one who made the "joke?"

No. I'm asking nothing of him. I have never seen nor spoken to the man, and I have no method of affecting his behavior. Forgive the emphasis, but I feel it's necessary, since I keep having to repeat this point: I do not care about the Microsoft representative. He is not the change I am attempting to effect. I am attempting to cultivate an environment in which it is possible to express displeasure at rape culture without being shouted down or being convinced that the rapist is a victim with a greater need of protection than the victims.

I think it's a case of "yet."

I will worry about whatever imaginary punishment he suffers once he has suffered it.

Please show me the direct and explicit comparison to the Microsoft representative.

Here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.410308-Are-you-freakin-kidding-me?page=5#19730644] is the comparison. You said that sympathy for the victims of rape ought to translate directly into sympathy for people who endure bad publicity for making offensive statements.

That the "meaning" is so divided would indicate otherwise.

The meaning of the theory of evolution is divided as well. I do not mind saying that this division is less of an indication of a fallacy in the theory than it is of willful self-deception on the parts of its detractors.

I'm asking you to take a step back and ensure the perpetrator is actually a perpetrator.

Fair enough.

You're still treating as a clear cut issue.

I believe that it is. I am personally satisfied within my own mind that, willfully or otherwise, the Microsoft representative made statements contributory to rape culture, and that this needs to be argued against.

I've been patient and reasonable until now.

I see. Well, thank you for waiting until now to choose to abandon patience and reason.

The only person who could legitimately claim to be a victim of his comments was the one to whom they were directed.

I am not arguing on behalf of his victims. I have never even said he has victimized anyone, except in the most general, impersonal sort of way, by contributing to the inertia of rape culture, sort of like how anyone who has bought an iPod has contributed to the culture of enslavement and suicide that drives Apple factories in China to install safety netting outside the employee dormitories so no one can commit suicide by leaping. I said I am arguing on behalf of those who find his statement troublesome.

No one else can claim to be a victim.

I know people who suffer PTSD over this topic who would disagree with you.

You have no right to be a victim here.

That's true. Fortunately for me, I never said I am.

No one was raped and your direct comparison of his thoughtless comment to real life rape has crossed a line.

I never said anyone was raped, either. In fact, I have said at least twice in this very thread that no one has been raped, and I invite you to go through my posts to find and count the number of times I've said so for yourself. What I said is that wulf3n is using a tactic in a conversation about rape that is common among those who blame the victims of rape for having been attacked, and that I wish he would avoid such tactics.

Can I ask a serious question?

If you'd like to.

Why are you trying to make this such a big deal?

The funny thing is, I don't think I am. I think I'm being extremely clear about my goals and my complaints, and that I am advocating for moderate and reasoned behavior in order to combat a pervasive social ill. Then I come along and find people insisting that, by saying a joke references rape, I am arguing that a man has committed rape on television. It's kind of baffling to me.

I 'get' rape culture and dismantling it; I do not get why you are focusing like a laser on this particular instance of human stupidity.

I'm focusing on it because it's the conversation at hand, and because this particular fandom genuinely dismays me with its cavalier hatred of women and sexual equality. I am, of course, speaking in generalities, since any attempt to attribute a single belief to every member of a group is automatically inaccurate, and I'm sure there's some amount of "vocal minority" distortion going on, but nevertheless, I want to like it here but cannot because I find that atmosphere to be morally unacceptable; therefore, I wish to change it, and I am using the only tools I have available to do so.