Facebook rape page still up: mainstream press uninterested

Post Reply New Topic

ummm tell me if I missed something but rape is a horrible criminal act, punishable by prison. Yet you are worried about the perv's right to retraumitize any rape victim who visits the site.
It is more than just being offended, sexual assault is horribly traumatic. Rape jokes read by someone who was recently victimized is liable to end that person in a crisis center or a psychratic unit without a doubt.
But WAIT!! ! the perv's freedom of speech is more important than the person he/she re-victimizes!
As a person who has been sexually traumatized in such a way, I find it disgusting that facebook wont take down this site.

As far as sickpedia goes, the perv can express their freedom of speech there, no rape victim is about to check out what is going on there, however facebook is used by the general public...and when an estimated 1 out of every 2 women are sexually abused in their lifetime in the good ol US of A, a large number of women would be re-traumitized by that page.
You underestimate the damage rape does to someone. It is not something you just get over and joke about.

If someone was making pro-terrorism jokes...they would be tracked down and sent to guatanimo bay for "questioning"
yet some of you would not have a problem with that response, but making jokes about rape is A-okay

I think I am going to go puke now.

Jojo

It is. But unless someone can justify rape as a joke when rape is a horrendous crime comparable with grievous bodily harm then I would quickly section them for having no sense of sympathy or a psychotic lack of shame. Anyone who abets such execrable content by saying that it is subjective is worthy of being called a coward with their head stuck in the stand.


Yes? And? So? Argumentum ad verecundiam and the Better than nothing fallacy. Fantastic. Whether facebook decides to do something or not doiesn't make it right or not, which is what I was arguing. Furthermore unless you start doing something about it of course you'll have offensive content on the internet. But it isn't nexessarily so. Welcome to reality. Leave your fatalism at the door.


Why should he not say piss? He didn't know your hamster drowned in a septic tank. And piss isn't explicit enough.

Good luck in your heroic moral crusade banishing all that is foul and amiss from the internet. I was going to type a long-winded response but since you took the last sentence of my post seriously, I have a feeling it would be wasted on you so I really can't be arsed.

*facepalms* I know. You still don't realize do you? Saying that something is supposed to be humourous doesn't exonerate it of any sort of moral or logical fallacy. And I can't believe that you were so amazingly dense to let that pass over your head.

I am jabbing you up the backside for making a false analogy, which even if what you said was a joke it doesn't matter. You're irrelevantly talking about social cues whilst I actually make points. That's exactly the sort of thing that allows a rape joke page to be on facebook, and also explains why you fail to understand my point.

This isn't about a heroic bashing crusade, this is about dealing with twisted idiots by way of making sure everyone is fine and dandy enough that my life isn't negatively affected.

I don't call it progress. I call it not actually dealing with the problem.



A lot of women have rape fantasies. There are boards where they can go to fantasies about being ravished and being used and abused by one or more men. Some women are even known to spend considerable time indulging their fantasies. Quite a few - but not all - of these women were raped and some were tortured in real life and use the sites as a way to either deal with the abuse or as a way to achieve erotic fulfilment. There are more than enough men - most of whom are caring, compassionate souls in real life - that have the same fantasies of utterly dominating a terrified, helpless woman. Some have committed mock abductions, imprisoned women in their homes and all the rest of it. In their fantasy sections, they describe the pain of their victims in some detail, relishing the effect that their terror is having on them.

Or haven't you thought of that? Would you like me to provide links?

I don't spend much time there as this kind of extreme BDSM isn't my thing, but I don't think it should be illegal to do or talk about or be considered 'hate speech' any more than rape jokes should. Offence is a very difficult to find thing. Some people - i.e. extremist groups and certain sections of the population - seem to spend their entire lives finding something to be offended about. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

As for Facespace, they'll do what they will. You can't stop free speech. Even with the combined efforts of governments worldwide, they still haven't managed to stop the flow of real child pornography so your little authoritarian bugbear will go nowhere.



It is, and sometimes people make bad taste jokes about it. I wouldn't, but some people like that sort of humour, whether for the shock value or for another reason.

The thing about Frankie Boyle's usage of this kind of humour is that it has ceased to be effective in this case and just comes across as really rather distasteful. I wouldn't ban him any more than I'd ban that idiot Chubby Brown, though, and I probably dislike Chubby Brown more than I do Boyle.



Censoring 'evil' words (i.e. words you don't like) is still censorship. Just because you put a gloss on it doesn't change what it is.

Are you pro-free speech or pro-censorship? Which one?



I never said rape jokes were good or funny, so don't you put words in my mouth either. I'm saying that, while rape jokes are tasteless, I don't think it should be against the law to tell them. However, doing it publicly on your Facespace account - where your employers can read them! - probably isn't the smartest idea. If you must tell them, tell them to a receptive audience (your braindead mates down the pub after seven pints of lager) and not under your real name on the web. Common sense.



So you're still asking for what is essentially censorship. Heard of the 'chilling effect'? People simply won't say things if they fear it will get them into legal trouble that they might otherwise say.

Personally, I think people can easily be condemned out of their own mouths. Let's have a free-market in speech. If no-one is listening to them or what they are saying is treated with revulsion, people will make their rage known. People are surprisingly effective at doing that. Some people won't care though so they'll be pariahs amongst a lot of people but they'll have their supporters. Like Frankie Boyle and others.

Don't try to ban things unless you want people to seek them out to see what all the fuss is about.

See: Video Nasties and the Video Recordings Act 1984.



Well, it would be pointless with those kinds of people. All you're doing is feeding into their victimhood and sense of righteousness. The socialist/communist left and the nationalist/racist left are as bad as each other on that score.

Would you do the same with a Muslim supremacist group that advocated honour killings, the stoning of gays, the murdering of people who refuse to convert to Islam, making the niqab mandatory for women and all the rest of it?

Who cares if a Facebook page about rape is up? I'm not saying rape isn't a terrible thing, but I am saying that, if you feel the need to get so worked up about a Facebook page, you should put that energy into helping a charity supporting rape victims or something. This is the internet, it's a free space, and as such, there are bad things on it. Just don't go on them if they irritate you so much.

Progress is movement towards a goal. If them being more careful means they hurt less then that's progress, or did you not think of that?



Whilst I know all of this already exists, that doesn't mean that people should have to ever deal with rape jokes. I don't care much for people on those boards. They are suffering some major psychiatric issues sometimes. What I do care about are rape jokes, which are singularly disgusting.


My argument is invalid because people try to find things to be offended at. I am not trying to find anything to be offended at. I am simply disgusting with rape humour, and I expect people to be hammered publicly for it.
The law isn't my concern. I am not talking about the law. What is it with equating law and morality with you people? Furthermore whilst you may find it hard to believe whilst these may be rape fantasies, that is all they are, fantasies. Most of them consent to be involved with these fantasies, So by definition in sensu stricto it isn't rape. They resist but it's a game to get off on.


I am not calling on authority at all, which shows that you haven't followed my point. I said pressure them. Pressure them with the public. That is better than any government censorship.


Yes, and just because of that it isn't justified.


I wouldn't call to ban him either. I'd call for people to point out how he's an asshat. I bet it would make him shut up with enough pressure.


I never talked about censorship, I talked about public pressure. Really? Can you not see that distinction?


Free speech. I am anti-bigotry though and anti-bullying, furthermore I am anti-slander.


Exactly how many times will you ignore the fact that I never talked about censoring anyone or the law? And how many times did I talk about hammering people with the public? And using the public to shame or force people to retract their statements is not censorship. This is a pie chart with one field and it's stacked against you.



Chilling effect is a legal argument not a publically caused effect. Getting the public to force people to take off their own content and to take down offensive content is far more effective than legally-imposed censorship.


Not really. In my experience of dealing with political extremists logically explaining why people are wrong and objectively grinding such maniacs down always makes them go in to hilarious arguments aimed at me, including myself being self-righteous and so forth. It destroys them and marginalizes them. My debut on this site was dealing with such a person in advocacy and about how others see us. Ask Cornflake. He was involved.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot. Of course I would:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&sa ... a=N&tab=lw
And it seems a lot of the sane word agrees.

If you don't like rape jokes, don't read/watch/listen to them. You can't stop something from existing just because you dislike it.

So by that reasoning one can say:
I can't stop racism occuring just because I don't like it.
I can't stop ethnic cleansing just because I don't like it.
I can't stop murder just because I don't like it.
I can't stop wars just because I don't like it.

You see how facetious and irrelevant this line of argument is? My liking of anything hasn't got anything to do with this.

Rape is wrong. Amazingly rape is wrong all the time, like murder because it has a qualifier which means that it always is wrong. I can't decide what is moral or not, and rape jokes aren't. I just find out whether something is wrong or not. I dislike it when people do the wrong thing, not only because I don't like pain but because pain brings bad things on me. If rape jokes are wrong then I dislike them. That's objectivity in morality. Bloody foolishness to think otherwise.

And if people power can't do anything I'd like to ask exactly what your democracy runs on: Prune juice?

No, of course you can't, you don't have the power to. And while those things are all horrible, people should certainly be allowed to make jokes about every single one of them if they so wish.



No I don't, and since we're talking about making jokes, yes it does.



Rape and murder are wrong. Jokes are not. They're jokes. If you don't like them, then, again, don't look at them. No one's shoving them in your face 24/7 are they?

You speak like everyone should agree with what you're saying, too. What arrogance. Morality is an objective concept. You're entitled to be offended by things, but that offense shouldn't mean anything other than you not consuming the thing that offends you.

"If you get offended by mere words... you are a f*****g moron." -Stephen Fry



Politics is run by thieves and liars, not people power, no matter what system you use. Irrelevant.

I am not just saying to not like it. Your points were irrelevant. I was saying publically pressure, not just dislike. Jeez.

]
Erm no it hasn't. A just so fallacy is your answer for the second point and you are facetiously claiming that my not liking something means nothing will happen about it, especially when my not liking of something has got nothing to do with how I intended to stop anything bad. :> Thus facetious. Why facetious exactly? Because you are being flippant about rape jokes.


False analogy. Rape and murder are always wrong because they have a qualifier that makes them always wrong. I was heading off the fact that jokes can be right or wrong depending on what was said. Black and white thinking. Jokes can be wrong. And rape jokes are. Why? Because it's insensitive to rape victims. Can you dispute this rather than prattle about how all jokes are right? Jokes can be used to bully. Are bullying jokes wrong? Are you that foolish to think that they are?


I think most people would imagine that whatever their position most people should agree with what they are saying if they think they are right, otherwise they would be psychotics who don't care about other people at all. Arrogance is saying that all jokes are fine because they are jokes.


Freudian slip? I am sure you meant to say subjective concept, which would be wrong. You said objective though, which is right. Anyone who has heard of Socrates knows that there is always a moral way of doing something given the circumstances and no amount of thinking otherwise will change that.


So black people shouldn't be offended by the word N*****? And Hispanics the word s**c? Argumentum ad verecundiam. Just because Stephen Fry says something doesn't make it correct. Can you actually explain why bullying with words is somehow justified? Or are you going to keep making the gross assertion that people shouldn't be offended by rape jokes? A lot of people disagree and say that rape jokes are gross, yet they jump to this argument when they need to and jump back when they need to. Inconsistency.

[/quote]
Of course. All politics is thievery and lying. I have no time for your bold assertions and big lies. Amazingly enough politicians are chosen by people and those people can choose whether they want this or that politician. Public power is very strong, if it wants to be of course.

I am saying that, simply because you dislike something, that does not mean anything should happen about it. Again I'll refer to Fry (isn't he just brilliant?), and this really is relevant to this argument as a whole...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7gP1xgRDJ4[/youtube]



I'm not arguing against that.



So if you think something is wrong, it should be banned? Is that it?

If rape victims don't like the jokes, they don't have to consume them.

I don't like Android phones, but I have no problem with people who do.



Not really, saying jokes are fine because they're just jokes is logic. A joke, by nature, is not intended to be taken seriously, after all. Why get worked up about someone using clever linguistic devices when talking about certain subjects?



Autocorrect more like, but yes, of course I meant subjective.



Political systems are irrelevant to the discussion, but watch the news if you're in any doubt that I'm correct.

Yup.

I don't watch EastEnders for the same reason - it deeply offends me. I'm not about to call for its banning, though.

Or is it only different when it's something you (perhaps with the force of a few bigoted Tory MPs) want banned, Gedrene? Ah, thought so.

I can't be bothered responding to the rest of your post because I'd rather talk to a brick wall.

Exactly, thank you.

Just because Stephen Fry says something doesn't mean it's right. Furthermore I am not making a minor complaint. I am talking about rape jokes. Rape is a crime that can cause psychiatric problems and deep emotional scars. Why should a woman who has been raped accidentally confront jokes that makes short shrift of a crime that scars her? This is an opinion built on reason. Your idea seems to be that just because someone has an opinion doesn't mean they are correct. This isn't Anne Widdecombe being insulted by swear words, this is important.


Good, thankyou. Now why did you then try and say that Jokes can be alright no matter the content? Are Racist jokes alright? Is dead baby comedy funny? Yes or no?


Putting words in my mouth again. I said they are wrong, and that as soon as people pressure these kinds of people constantly with logical retorts the sooner those gutless wretches will take them off.


Your insensitivity disgusts me.


False analogies again and attempting to redraw the boundaries. There's a difference between I don't like something because it's bad and this is a disgusting and immoral thing because it makes light of a horrible and disgusting act.


Again, more false black and white thinking. Are racists jokes fine? Just because something is a joke doesn't make it fine.


Wrong. A joke is supposed to be humourous. Whether it's to be taken seriously depends on its purpose. Jokes about Rape amount to nothing more than flippant bullying.


Guess what? The public is not some holy being that's automatically morally much better than any politician. They can be a mixture of people who do not have the will or otherwise believe the evil things that politicians do are correct. You're living in a fantasy if you cannot think that a public cannot be as bad as politicians. It's just politicians are in the public spotlight.

Blasphemy!



As I've stated numerous times, I am not at all arguing that rape isn't horrible or evil or terrible or whatever. I'm simply saying that those qualities can't be said of jokes about the subject.

And if you think people shouldn't have the chance that they may accidentally come across something they don't like, then why don't we just censor everything?



Yes, all of that stuff is fine, as long as it's just a joke and not a serious opinion or view. Here's a tip: don't go on Sickipedia, it's great site, but you won't like it...



You think they're wrong.



Thank you.



I happen to believe that the UI inconsistency on Android is an immoral and disgusting act.



Black and white thinking, racist jokes... Is that a racist joke of your own?

I answered this already.



Yes, a joke isn't meant to be serious, it's instead meant to be humorous. Quite right you are on that one.

If you say hurtful things to a certain person, that is bullying, yes. But if you simply tell a joke, that isn't. By your logic, I've bullied owners of Android phones by generically stating that I dislike them.



Well who the f**k decides morality then? Is there an International Morality Organisation I have to send a form to whenever I make a statement, just to make sure it's all politically correct?

Of course morality is personal. If it wasn't, me and you wouldn't be disagreeing right now.



What you did was write BS on the internet. Bravo.



Yes, my personal idea of morality, and you're more than welcome to disagree with the fact that context matters when you're talking about the use of a potentially offense word, but I doubt you'll get too far with that one either.



Yes, perhaps it is true that I am, in fact... Stephen Fry.



Already addressed this earlier, won't repeat myself as you've done.



Addressed this, too. A lot of your big post is repetitive, you know.



Oh I am so offended by the reason that makes sense. BOW DOWN TO THE REASON THAT MAKES SENSE. LOOK AT ALL THIS SENSE. I CANNOT EVEN QUANTIFY IT.



Nah, you're just a coward who prefers censorship to seeing things s/he doesn't like. And, again, I never said being offended by such jokes is bad, I just said that, if you are offended by them, don't look at them.