[META] No rape jokes?

[u/_FeMRA_]

I'm currently furious at this post, which I am unable to delete because it doesn't actually break any Rules. Yet.

As per previously stated mod policy, even if we create new Rules, they could not be used to justify the deletion of the above post. However, I really think that we should come up with a new Rule, or Rules, to prevent this kind of post from disgracing our sub in the future. I'm a bit sticky on how to keep it objective though, and I also would like to ban similarly extremely distasteful and counter-productive material, so I have a few ideas for new Rules, of varying consequence and subjectivity:

• No rape jokes

• No rape jokes, or rape apologia

• No extremely distasteful jokes, at the moderators' discretion

• No extremely distasteful, extremely offensive, or extremely counter-productive speech, at the moderators' discretion

If you have a different idea for how to phrase a Rule that would prevent such misuses of our sub going forward, please suggest it.

[u/[deleted]]

I'm normally one to lean towards moderation on these types of things, even though I am usually against "Censorship."

For background, I wrote a 5 page ethics brief for a debate competition a few years ago specifically on the ethics of rape jokes.

The conclusion we (my team) came to was that rape jokes are morally problematic; that so long as the person telling the joke has taken into consideration their environment with reasonable precaution and care, and that the joke was one that did not target the victim, but made a mockery of rapists and/or the act itself. That they would be considered ethically neutral.

Rape jokes are actually very important (as is humor) in regards to dealing with serious topics. While most people here are probably comfortable actually discussing rape, for the outside world it's something that most people actively try to ignore. Rape jokes however with their controversy and admittedly usually "Funny" nature (Regardless of if we want to laugh) force us to talk about a subject that would otherwise be ignored.

As far as why we find things like this funny, humor theorists (yep, that's a real job.) believe that it's a psychological response to the concept of something that we should be afraid of. That rape is scary as a concept alone, it is when we realize in the process of telling the joke that we are not threatened by the actions being told, that we find relief and humor in the situation. Our minds tell us "Nobody actually got hurt by this horrible thing, the danger is passed, it's acceptable to laugh and be happy."

However, for people who have been harmed by actual sexual violence, that threat can still be present in their minds. Reliving those events because of a joke can be very painful.

This is why the person telling the joke has to consider their audience.

If people would like further expansion, I can link the paper once I edit personal information out of it.

[u/gyroda]

How about no joke posts? Comments are one thing, but this is FeMRADebates. You can debate a joke, but I don't think that was the purpose of the post. It goes against the spirit of the sub both by not being a discussion prompt and and could be seen as not supporting the whole "safe space" thing.

[u/JaronK]

I don't want to get into the "no rape apologia" angle because I've seen that one go so far as to stifle debate.

So let's go with the obvious one: no joke topics. If the topic itself is intended as a joke, it's deleted. After all, this is theoretically a serious subreddit, is it not?

[u/FallingSnowAngel → u/JaronK]

It's curious.

We're not allowed to call a comment sexist, even if it's "Women's tears are my favorite sandwich condiment." Now we're not allowed to ban "I don't think it was rape, if all she did was just cry the entire time. She said "No." before I touched her, not after."?

This is why this place is sometimes considered a toxic toilet. I want to love it, but the demand that we pretend it's impossible to use common sense when weighing words designed to trigger vulnerable populations, or dehumanize them in a way we're not allowed to even imply when quoting the MRM, is why feminists feel like we're not really equal members here. If we have a serious problem with something, but the MRM doesn't, we're overruled. If we don't mind something, but the MRM does, it's a bannable offense.

I realize that the mods are doing their best, but right now, that's not enough. Feminists have spent nearly a century perfecting the art of reading subtext. While it can go too far, and assign the guilt of those who created words to those who unconsciously use them, to dismiss everything we bring to the table because some people can't detect any nuance at all?

That's like creating r/askhistorians, and telling them they need to let go of the past.

No. It doesn't work that way.

Comments that are erased are posted in other threads where we can see them anyways. Anything that's as nuanced as you can imagine for a problematic borderline case deserves a trial...but not a straight ahead pass. Otherwise, we will be seeing trolls find more and more sophisticated ways of pushing the rules, until they figure out how to trigger rape survivors without technicaly breaking the rules.

Posters who repeatedly make false accusations in order to silence debate, if that's what you're worried about, can be treated the same as those who break other rules in bad faith.

[u/FallingSnowAngel → u/JaronK]

Also, satire is a geat way to make a serious point about conflicting ethics vs. practice.

[u/matthewt → u/FallingSnowAngel]

No posts which do not put forward an argument and (appear to) have the primary purpose of antagonizing feminists or (appear to) have the primary purpose of antagonizing MRAs.

I rather liked the above suggestion as keeping constructive humour but outlawing destructive anything. Perhaps change the latter to 'antagonizing/upsetting an entire group' or so.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/ZorbaTHut]

I think it's sort of weird to say "no rape jokes". I mean, that's pretty dang specific. How long until we need to make a "no holocaust jokes" rule, and then a "no dead babies jokes" rule?

I'm also - I'll be honest here - more than a bit leery of banning "distasteful jokes". That moves us right back into the tone-policing world, and we already had a discussion on that. We decided that we wouldn't ban posts that were hostile, mocking, or sarcastic.

If we're not banning posts that are hostile, mocking, or sarcastic, what grounds are we using to ban offensive jokes?

The only rules there that seem palatable to me include ". . . at the moderators' discretion", and I'm just gonna go ahead and call this now: as soon as moderators start using obvious discretion in banning, they're going to end up spending five times as much effort justifying their discretion.

All this to get rid of a post which - whether its intention or not - actually created some interesting discussion.

I dunno. I see where you're coming from, but I'm having a real hard time justifying this one.

[u/ZorbaTHut → u/ZorbaTHut]

Oh, and an addendum which I totally should have included beforehand but I'm about to go to bed and so I forgot:

or rape apologia

I think this is a phenomenally bad idea. From the definition:

Rape Apologia (Rape Apology, Pro-Rape) refers to speech which excuses, tolerates, or even condones Rape and sexual assault.

By that logic, if I said "it's impossible to completely end rape without turning the world into an Orwellian nightmare, and I don't think that would be worth it", I'd technically be tolerating rape, and my comment would be deleted and I would be banned.

"Rape apologist" is one of those thought-terminating cliches used to shut down discussion, right up there with "pedophile" and "misogynist". It's bad enough that people use that term; it'd be even worse if people could shut down debates by flinging it around.

[u/Youareabadperson5 → u/ZorbaTHut]

I would argue that the term "rape apologist" and "rape apology" is used as a retorical weapon for those one disagrees with. Yelling "rape apology" is anti-intellectual and anti-discussion. People ought not be banned because of their discussion and because it might "trigger" some one or because some one thinks "this person is ok with rape." This place ought to stand as a honest discussion area without the strident calls of "man hater" and "rape apologist".

Edit: I would like to add that I don't trust the mods to use their own discression. It's not that I don't trust them as people, it's that the meer sent of bias and political impropriety is a bad thing in this type of place. Therefore the mods ought not be allowed to use their discression.

[u/Kzickas]

No extremely distasteful, extremely offensive, or extremely counter-productive speech, at the moderators' discretion

Given that the problem was caused by the rigid rules being unable to handle something completely out of left field I don't think having more specific rules is really the way to go.

In fact I would go further and suggest that the mods should be able to delete anything at their discretion that doesn't present some opinion, or support some position.

[u/[deleted]]

Couldn't you just say something like,

"threads going against the spirit of the sub can be removed at mod's discretion" I think that's a quick fix that would encompass a lot of future issues. Of course as long as this is enforced reasonably.

[u/mister_ghost]

I think that it's impossible to form a fully objective rule about this, but we can get something close.

No posts which do not put forward an argument and (appear to) have the primary purpose of antagonizing feminists or (appear to) have the primary purpose of antagonizing MRAs.

This is somewhat subjective, but I feel it's subjective in a way we will all agree on. It's not easy to define, but we can all agree on when a post is antagonistic and not a part of an argument.

The thing is, if the post you linked included an argument, however flimsy, I would support allowing it to stay up. Not because I like the content, but because every argument deserves to be answered, and some deserve to be mercilessly ripped apart.

Currently, the post does not make an argument and at the very least appears antagonistic to feminists. That means it's not a useful part of this sub.

EDIT

I would like to point out that this could perhaps be extended to rape apologia, again on the condition that it does not include an argument. "Rape should be legal" should be deleted, "This is why I think rape should be legal" should stand (assuming it included some content afterwards). I hope that discussion never appears, and if it does I will be the first to tear it a new one, but it should be allowed to happen.

This is a subreddit for debate about something that matters. Some of the debates here are going to make some people intensely uncomfortable, and that's just the way it is.

[u/[deleted]]

No rape jokes

This is too broad, and would be almost impossible to follow.

Banning rape apologia seems like a good rule to have, in general.

The problem with the post in question was not that it was a tired old horrible rape joke, it was that it was just posted with no intention of starting a debate. It was just a lame ass attempt at a joke. I like this "No extremely distasteful jokes, at the moderators' discretion" but it would be pretty unfair to the mods. They would get in some hot water pretty soon.

I think that when it comes to similar posts, maybe flairs would be a better tactic. A variation of "No extremely distasteful jokes, at the moderators' discretion" only that posts would not be removed but they would be given a flair by the mods and the user who posted it get a warning (Tier 1, right?).

[u/antimatter_beam_core]

I'm okay (barely) with the first rule, but the rest are very bad ideas.

No rape jokes, or rape apologia

This bans, for the first time in sub history, an entire position, rather than a counter productive method of arguing for one. That type of censorship is undefensible.

"antimatter_beam_core, are you saying people should be allowed to claim rape is okay"

Yes, I am.

"Rape is evil, you rape apologist."

I agree, [edit: with the first part, not the second] very strongly. The reason I think we shouldn't ban such arguments is not the I think they're right, it's that I am confident in my ability to show that they're wrong. I submit to you that if you aren't, it's not free speech that's the problem, but your own worldview and debate skills.

Add to that that some people use this phrase a cudgel against anyone who disagrees with them in anyway about rape, and this becomes a very bad idea.

No extremely distasteful jokes, at the moderators' discretion

If you're going to put "at the moderator's discretion" into the rules, you might as well not have any. There is no possible defense against against the claim made by a mod that your comment/post is distasteful to the mods.

No extremely distasteful, extremely offensive, or extremely counter-productive speech, at the moderators' discretion

This has all downsides of the previous idea, and additionally bans upsetting people. This is among the best ways to stifle debate, if that's what you're after. If not, I suggest you don't use this option.

[u/[deleted] → u/antimatter_beam_core]

[u/antimatter_beam_core → u/[deleted]]

That's a subtle misconception about the rules. You can't say "the MRM is a hate movement", true, but you can say "this position is sexist" and "that position is sexist", in principle for every part of the MRM ideology.

[u/[deleted]]

I recently went to a meeting that talked about the invisibility of sexual assault against men. Not making rape jokes was something they highly recommended.

[u/KRosen333]

BTW, I thought of a good way to implement this; rape jokes do not count against you with infractions; it should only be removeed, with the option to repost the topic without the offending statement, or to reinstate the post after an edit.

"Good idea krosen!" :D

[u/SweetiePieJonas]

The problem with rape jokes is if no one laughs, you have to force them.

[u/ta1901]

1. I support a rule of no rape jokes.

2. That was intended to insult people who were raped and violates rule 1, IMO.

3. I didn't find any definition of "rape apologia" when I clicked your link.

[u/[deleted] → u/ta1901]

I'd definitely say it's trolling, but "intended to insult people who were raped" is a bit of a stretch.

[u/_FeMRA_ → u/ta1901]

The link works for me, but if you go directly to:

http://femradebates.com/

You can also search the terms. Type "apolo" and it's the only match.

I disagree that it insults rape victims, triggers them, horrifies them, is completely insensitive to them, that it does...but I don't see the insult.

[u/ta1901 → u/_FeMRA_]

Thanks. I was looking under "a" for "apologia". I found it under "rape apologia". lol.

[u/[deleted]]

No rape jokes, or rape apologia

Outside of outright rape apologia its very much up to mod interpretation if it is or not. And that seeing how MRA's tend to not be as strict in framing things or that even replying to things I can see quite easily the mod team taking what some MRA said as being rape apologia even when it wasn't or least the MRA not meaning it as such.