The late Audrie Pott, in a photo she didn’t mind others seeing, in a way she wouldn’t mind being seen
Before we consider the tragic story of Audie Pott, let’s return to an earlier, certainly less tragic tale, that of the annoyed Applebee’s waitress who posted on Reddit an ungenerous female pastor’s obnoxious scrawl on her meal receipt, apparently refusing to tip the pastor’s server. Imagine that instead of demanding that the waitress be fired, the publicly humiliated pastor slit her own throat in despair and shame, but not before pinning a sad note to clerical robe reading, “I am so, so sorry! I didn’t mean to hurt anyone. I am disgraced forever before my Church and my God, and my life is worthless.”
Presumably this result would have splashed a little cold water on the enthusiastic supporters of the vigilante web-shaming waitress, but it should not have. Either taking someone’s conduct, words or appearance that was not intended for public consumption and publishing it to the world, knowing they will be embarrassed, is ethical, or it is not. The fact that the victim of this treatment takes it unexpectedly hard, even irrationally hard, is irrelevant to judging its ethical nature. If you really think that the pastor deserved to have her stupid and mean note, intended,for only the eyes one or two individuals, used to make her a nationwide pariah, then the fact that she killed herself over it shouldn’t change your view at all. “Too bad, but she had it coming,” should be your response.
Now let’s consider Audrie Pott, the victim in an ugly variation on the Steubenville rape. She was a 15-year-old Northern California girl who killed herself a week after three teenage boys allegedly assaulted her at a party while she was passed out, drunk. They violated her (though there may have been no actual rape), wrote crude things on her naked body and breasts, and took photographs. After the party, when Pott realized that the photographs, text-messages and e-mails describing her assault were circulating among her friends and others, she took to her Facebook page to write, “worst day ever….The whole school knows…My life is like ruined now.” A week later, she committed suicide. Three 16-year-olds have now been arrested on suspicion of sexual battery against Audrie, and the fact that their callous treatment of her culminated in her death has greatly intensified the public outcry against what they did. But it should not, in fairness and logic. If Audrie had been a hardier young woman, vowed the see the boys punished and resolved to learn from the incident and go on to a happy and productive life…indeed, even if her criminal mistreatment at the hands of these heartless young men proved to be a catalyst that propelled her to such a life, it wouldn’t make what they did any less miserable and heinous.
By no stretch of the imagination was the pastor’s web-shaming on the same scale of unethical mistreatment of another as what was done to Audrie Pott, but an unethical element of the two incidents is essentially the same. In both cases, individuals rationalized violating another individual’s expectation of privacy to humiliate her in a moment of vulnerability, without her consent, without sufficient justification, in utter disregard for the Golden Rule. In the Pott incident, it was the results of the drunken incapacity of a young woman who should not have been drunk or incapacitated that was revealed to others to her embarrassment. At Applebee’s, it was an isolated incident of arrogance and lack of generosity by a pastor who is supposed to embody better values as part of her calling. You may argue that the pastor “deserved” her humiliation more than Potts, but in fact neither deserved public humiliation. Using an individual’s bad judgment, mistakes, impulsive acts or vulnerability before a limited group of people to denigrate that individual’s character and dignity to others, perhaps thousands of others, is unethical—cruel, unfair, vicious, and irresponsible…and sometimes, it may get someone killed.
In an earlier age, the preferred method of personal destruction was rumors and whispering campaigns; now it can be done, faster, with wider range and harm, using electronic means. The misconduct is the same, however, though there may be other misconduct as well. It is using information, true or distorted, to damage, perhaps beyond repair, someone’s public image and reputation as the result of a private and limited offense or mistake. The motive is unethical, the conduct is unjustifiable, and the consequences are unpredictable, making the behavior reckless and irresponsible as well as cruel. Seeing it trigger a young woman’s unnecessary death helps, perhaps, make that evident to the potential vigilantes among us, if they are paying attention. Her death does not, however, make the conduct worse.
It was terribly wrong already.
____________________________________
Sources: Los Angeles Times, Ottawa Citizen, Mercury News
Graphic: Examiner
Ethics Alarms 
Even beyond the use of the Web to spread information and photos…
Those people stripped and sexually assaulted an unconscious girl.
The “web-shaming” bits, the spread of things… they’re almost unimportant by comparison.
And then there’s the kiddie porn factor. I’m not even going to bother going there.
True, the initial act is horrifying enough. But the “web shaming” is what drove her to take her own life, in her own words. Graphic photographs that can be viewed by millions within a few seconds elevates a situation like this to the point of being unbearable. If this had only been a “rumor” I have no doubt that we would not even know this girl’s name.
Alexander, that’s a trap—the larger and obvious misconduct blots out the lesson of the larger one.
If webshaming and similar conduct become culturally approved, we will all live like Winston in 1984, or the citizens of Soviet Russia, in perpetual terror of expressing ourselves in n unpopular way, or making an error of judgment. On an ethics blog, I shouldn’t have to explain why sexually assaulting a drunk girl while she’s incapable of consent is wrong, but a disturbing number of people think its fine to use electronic means to humiliate people—as long as they don’t kill themselves, of course.
No, that attitude is the trap here.
I’m not suggesting that the more minor misconduct should be ignored. I’m stating — flat-out — that an ethics commentator has an obligation to acknowledge the larger misconduct, as the alternative (which you took) risks condoning it… or at least implying that it’s not the most egregious misconduct involved.
In fact, the same goes for when you’re focusing on a single issue *period* — even if it *is* the most egregious. Failing to do so implies that the other issues don’t exist or don’t matter… and they pretty much always do.
With all due respect, that’s ridiculous.
I don’t have to comment on every example of unethical conduct, which about a hundred pass by my browser every day, and I certainly am not condoning what I choose not to write about. Anyone who needs to be told, by me or anyone, that violating the body of helpless drunk girl is unethical is reading the wrong website—I’m trying for something a bit more sophisticated here. The obvious unethical conduct is often not the most insidious–quite the contrary.
…in addition to the fact that the major offense here is referred to as “an assault,’ which is per se unethical, as well as being described in other unequivocally condemning terms. It was hardly “ignored” in any way. You can find the references in the post yourself—the question is, why did you ignore them?
Umm… no, you can’t take it for granted that people will understand that assault is unethical. Not only can assault be justified under certain circumstances (*not these*, and I can’t even begin to conceive of a situation where sexual assault would be justified), but your readership is highly variable. People come and go, are referred to from various sources, occasionally read only one article when it’s on a case they’re interested in…
And this means that you *can’t* assume they already know your basic moral matrix and the fact that you regard assault as unethical.
And as for assuming that *they* regard it as a problem… well, Steubenville. If nothing else, that clusterfuck should indicate that a lot of people *don’t*.
I don’t want to keep quibbling on this issue, because we’re essentially on the same page, but I really can’t do a thing for someone whose ethics alarms aren’t set off by a Steubenville situation. That’s why it took me so long to post on it. I shouldn’t have to waste my time, which is limited, believe it or not,explaining why felonies are unethical to people who can’t figure it out by themselves. When a commenter shows himself to be that dense, I have generally banned him.
No, you don’t have to comment on every ethical violation. You simply have to _acknowledge_ them. Here’s an example of simple, boilerplate language that’d do it:
“While this isn’t the only — or even the worst — example of unethical conduct here, I want to focus on…”
Yes, I could do that…I could also, while writing about the conduct that is the topic of the post, e.g. shaming people by publicizing their words , appearance or conduct without their permission in order to humiliate them, and that too many of the public excuse when they happen to agree with the motivation for it despite the fact that it is a strict Golden Rule violation, and often only focus on the conduct’s wrongness when moral luck turns against the conduct and results in tragedy, describe the underlying misconduct that led to the topic of discussion by writing that the victim was…“assaulted her at a party while she was passed out, drunk,” that her assailants “violated her (though there may have been no actual rape), wrote crude things on her naked body and breasts, and took photographs,” and that they “have now been arrested on suspicion of sexual battery,” and assume that my readers are at least ethically coherent enough to know that this kind of conduct is outrageously unethical without any clarification from me, and not to muddy the discussion of vigilante shaming by stating the obvious.
Which is exactly what I did.
I understand that you feel that criminal abuse like what occurred in this case is so horrific as to warrant obligatory condemnation whether doing so is superfluous and stating the obvious or not. I agree that it’s horrific, but I don’t have to salute the flag to be presumed a loyal citizen, and given my product here, I don’t have to prove to anyone that I think assaulting an unconscious drunk girl is unethical, or insult the intelligence of any of the target audience for this blog by writing as though I have to explain to them that it’s wrong.
Christ.
You also said this: “In the Potts incident, it was the results of the drunken incapacity of a young woman who should not have been drunk or incapacitated that was revealed to others to her embarrassment” suggesting she was to blame for what occurred. Celebrating someone’s sexual assault is a completely different thing than shaming an unethical person.
I think I’m glad I stayed away from the the pastor post. It would just make me angry.
The common ground is shaming. The relative motives and justification are details. The method itself is the issue, and it is wrong., whether the person was unethical stupid or just vulnerable.
I did not suggest the girl was to blame for what occurred. Does she share responsibility for what happened? Are you denying that an underage drinker who passes out at a party hasn’t placed herself in an embarrassing situation as well as peril? Are you saying she has no responsibility for passing out? Ridiculous.
And you somehow think that shaming someone for committing a bad act is comparable to shaming someone for being assaulted. That’s insane.
Heck, you’re for shaming of bad actions generally. That’s one of the main points of your blog. I understand that you’ve carved out an exception for private communications, but that only applies to communications where there is an actual expectation of privacy and good faith. It also only deals with situations of communication. A dickish communication attempting to explain a bad action a customer is doing does not qualify. The action was bad. The explanation for it was worse, and deserved to be called out. It was a rationalization for unethical conduct. That the actual unethical conduct was relatively commonplace does not mean that it was inappropriate to highlight.
No, that’s a misinterpretation. By definition, any conduct I discuss and criticize is public, or I wouldn’t know about it. I have scrupulously avoided ever “shaming” anyone by name on this blog for even outrageous conduct known only to me. If I have written about it, I have changed genders, ages and circumstances.
The conduct I was discussing is magnifying a limited instance of unethical conduct far beyond its intended and reasonable scope. I don’t care how big a jerk someone was to their boyfriend, employee, customer or waiter, that one instance of bad conduct should not poison their reputations with the entire world, pre-bias people they have never met against them, and defining them forever. Doing this to anyone is a terrible thing, and we, as a culture, have to make hard declarations against it even when the target is, as you say, a dick. And that is exactly why I used the drunken girl’s shaming, because while her assailants were worse, and she was was only “guilty” of typical, teen-style bad judgment, her shaming was comparable to the others because neither should have occurred, both should have set off ethics alarms, and the societal taboo against using photos, rumors and the internet this way should be unequivocal and strong, and not diluted at all because victim #1 is mistreated and drunken teen, and victim #2 is an arrogant, cheapskate, hypocritical pastor. If someone shot both of them, tgt, you wouldn’t say, I assume, that shooting the pastor was different because she was unethical where the girl was only foolish.
If you want to argue that webshaming individuals for single instances of bad judgment or jerkish conduct can be justified, go ahead—I strenuously disagree with that, hence the post. The pastor wrote one obnoxious comment on a bill to nobody in particular, and either did or didn’t (it’s still murky) stiff a waiter a lousy 7 bucks, and if you want to argue that she should be held up to millions as the scum of the earth, be my guest.
This is pure Golden Rule issue, and the Golden Rule doesn’t change.
Jack,
No, that’s a misinterpretation. By definition, any conduct I discuss and criticize is public, or I wouldn’t know about it. I have scrupulously avoided ever “shaming” anyone by name on this blog for even outrageous conduct known only to me. If I have written about it, I have changed genders, ages and circumstances.
I see a distinction without a difference. You write about conduct that was originally private all the time. For instance, the lesbian who faked dying to woo someone. Completely private conduct that was exposed, and rightly shamed.
For things that you are directly involved in where there are actions, the reasons to change details and names are likely for other concerns. Protecting your relationships with people and possible blowback against your company seem like the main two. I don’t really think it’s to protect the guilty, and if it is, I’d say that that’s a horrible policy.
The conduct I was discussing is magnifying a limited instance of unethical conduct far beyond its intended and reasonable scope. I don’t care how big a jerk someone was to their boyfriend, employee, customer or waiter, that one instance of bad conduct should not poison their reputations with the entire world, pre-bias people they have never met against them, and defining them forever.
And I think this is completely unworkable. You can’t ask society to enforce social norms while also saying that individuals in society should not disseminate instances where social norms were broken.
f someone shot both of them, tgt, you wouldn’t say, I assume, that shooting the pastor was different because she was unethical where the girl was only foolish.
No, not at all, but I also wouldn’t compare shooting the pastor to shaming the pastor. Of course shooting either the pastor or the girl would be wrong, but neither reason would have anything to do with shaming.
Shooting someone in response to them being a dick is not an appropriate response. Calling them a dick is an appropriate response. Spreading around that they did this dickish thing is an appropriate response.
If you want to argue that webshaming individuals for single instances of bad judgment or jerkish conduct can be justified, go ahead—I strenuously disagree with that, hence the post. The pastor wrote one obnoxious comment on a bill to nobody in particular, and either did or didn’t (it’s still murky) stiff a waiter a lousy 7 bucks, and if you want to argue that she should be held up to millions as the scum of the earth, be my guest.
First, she isn’t held by millions as the scum of the earth. You’re exaggerating greatly. Second, she’s a bit of a special case because she is not a random person. She’s a religious leader, and our society (rightly or wrongly) holds religious leaders up as something special. Just by be being a pastor, someone is considered ethical by much of society…even a considerable portion of atheists give undue deference to religious leaders. Heck, she even invoked that authority in her signature. She was a community leader, not an individual. Say a local politician had written “I give the government 30%. Get your handout from them. Rep chickenscratch“. That wouldn’t be cause for detective work and shaming to you, right?
This is pure Golden Rule issue, and the Golden Rule doesn’t change.
The golden rule doesn’t apply to responses to bad conduct. The golden rule is for dealing with first instance conduct. I’m not going to lie to you about X, because I wouldn’t want you to lie to me about X. It’s not, I’m not going to stop trusting you after you lied to me, because I don’t want people to stop trusting me after I lie to them.
How is this argument any different from livvy’s no criticism insanity?
Where did you get that limitation on the Golden Rule? The Golden Rule seeks fairness and empathy by having a potential actor imagining what he plans on doing to another being done to him. This conduct is unfair in the extreme. People are introduced to you by your worst single moment or comment, or one of them, and are pre-biased against anything you say or do, potentially forever. It is per se unfair.
“You can’t ask society to enforce social norms while also saying that individuals in society should not disseminate instances where social norms were broken.” You can ask that society not use nuclear weapons to kill termites. The model who tweeted a drunken actor’s silly flirtations on a plane subjecting him to humiliation—that’s not reasonable. It would have done society’s work to just call him a jerk. The ethical objective should be to do what society needs for standard maintenance while also doing as little personal harm to the wrongdoer as possible.
The threshold is crossed when something is so bad that the law takes over, as in the case of the lesbian scam, or so awful that it becomes legitimate news. A note on a meal receipt isn’t legitimate news, and a 7 buck stiffed tip isn’t a crime. Widespread shaming for such things, however, is crime-level punishment, and that means it’s unfair and unethical.
You can’t control this properly, tgt. People won’t draw the distinction between shaming a boyfriend who dumps a women with an arrogant e-mail, and forwarding a private e-mail in which a law student muses about whether racial variations in intelligence are possible. Or perhaps a prudish, future ethicist says, I’m going to post this picture of the girl passed out with obscenities written all over her to shame her and make the point that young women shouldn’t be drinking until they pass out. You don’t think that message can–and must— be sent without humiliating the girl? It’s a valid message.
The pastor was the head of a two-bit church of her own making, about the equivalent of the leader of a book club. She wasn’t a community leader, or any kind of a public figure. (I fear you are especially unsympathetic toward her because she’s a pastor. Unfair?) If she were a role model, a leader or any kind of a public figure at all, including a politician, she would deserve the shaming (though not by a waitress working under conditions that forbade it.) None of this is about crimes or public figures. The whole point is that private figures deserve to be able to make mistakes privately and have them forgotten and forgiven without being shared with everyone, or even hundreds.
Golden rule
Therefore, murder convictions should be private. People are introduced to murders by their worst single moment, and are pre-biased against anything they say or do, potentially forever. It is per se unfair.
Your logic doesn’t track. I know their are other considerations with murder, but you wouldn’t say it’s unfair that murderers are often introduced as being murderers would you? Either it can’t be per se unfair or unfairness isn’t a trump card. It seems to me that you can’t defend this case on its own, so you’re trying to shoehorn it into a general rule.
The golden rule does seek fairness, but the situation you’re talking about here isn’t governed by the golden rule. I explained how the golden rule breaks down on dealing with responses to bad behavior. Unless you can find a flaw in my logic, I think my qualification of the rule has to stand.
(To be clear, there’s pretty much always some reference to the golden rule in any ethics situation. It just isn’t the most important input or controlling here.)
societal norm both ways
You can ask that society not use nuclear weapons to kill termites.
This isn’t nuclear weapons to kill termites. That…I can’t even see how you think that would compare. There is no secondary harm to the surrounding environment. The criticism (and it’s just criticism) is laser focused. Their is no overkill, as there is no definitive simple kill response.
The model who tweeted a drunken actor’s silly flirtations on a plane subjecting him to humiliation—that’s not reasonable. It would have done society’s work to just call him a jerk.
Calling him a jerk doesn’t impute any knowledge to society. How does that actually help? It might just be because I’m primed with our other threads, but I see some of your unintentional callousness around inappropriate behavior of men towards women here. I’d willingly back off that if someone like Barry thinks I’m off base.
The ethical objective should be to do what society needs for standard maintenance while also doing as little personal harm to the wrongdoer as possible.
Your phrasing seems to suggest that individual wrongdoers should be ignored, as they don’t make a dent in society. It also suggests we shouldn’t strive to be a better society. That seems like an about face for you.
Jack Loses Logic
(I didn’t have a good title. Sorry.)
The threshold is crossed when something is so bad that the law takes over, as in the case of the lesbian scam,
Law is not ethics.
or so awful that it becomes legitimate news. A note on a meal receipt isn’t legitimate news,
Begging the question.
Widespread shaming for such things, however, is crime-level punishment, and that means it’s unfair and unethical.
Begging the question again. Why is widespread shaming only a crime-level punishment? And again, talking about ethics on a crime scale is inappropriate. It’s also weird as it’s done here. Crime levels go from loitering through torture. Crime-level is meaningless.
limitations
You can’t control this properly, tgt. People won’t draw the distinction between shaming a boyfriend who dumps a women with an arrogant e-mail, and forwarding a private e-mail in which a law student muses about whether racial variations in intelligence are possible.
Why not? How is your line any more likely to be held to? Are you suggesting that the masses aren’t allowed to shame or decide what to shame?
Or perhaps a prudish, future ethicist says, I’m going to post this picture of the girl passed out with obscenities written all over her to shame her and make the point that young women shouldn’t be drinking until they pass out. You don’t think that message can–and must— be sent without humiliating the girl? It’s a valid message.
I don’t think we need a general rule that shaming is bad to say it’s bad to argue against a behavior by using the abuse photos of an unwilling girl who killed herself over what was done to her. I think there’s a much easier ethical rule we can apply, pretty much any of them will work. Also, did you forget that the girl was sexually assaulted? You keep dropping that out of your comments.
post-hoc arguing
The waitress didn’t know the person wasn’t what she claimed on the receipt. She claimed to be a pastor, and clearly invoked that authority in her note. That she turned out to be small time shouldn’t matter in judging the waitress’s (and reddit’s) behavior. Moral luck.
The whole point is that private figures deserve to be able to make mistakes privately and have them forgotten and forgiven without being shared with everyone, or even hundreds.
I’d say that invoking the title of Pastor made it clearly public. Like if someone signs their name as Representative Jones, or Officer Smith, or Doctor Johnson, they’re invoking a supposed position in the community. Suggesting that this should have been private seems to be in direct opposition to the use of the title.
(I fear you are especially unsympathetic toward her because she’s a pastor. Unfair?)
I’d say unfair. Religious leaders are given a special place in our society and are generally considered ethical by position. Heck, if I personally run into anyone wearing a clerical collar, I still treat them with deference, and I’m a fire breathing, anti-accomodationist, political, baby-eating, new atheist. When the average person sees “Pastor” or “Father” or “Reverend”, I’m pretty sure they see more prestige than I do. The more power you have (or suggest you have), the more responsibility you have, and the more your bad behavior matters.
[Great Comment, by the way. Loved it. Good work, and thanks.]
1. “Therefore, murder convictions should be private. People are introduced to murders by their worst single moment, and are pre-biased against anything they say or do, potentially forever. It is per se unfair.”
I already said that criminal conduct breaks the wall—that is where society has made the decision for us. Break the law, you’re a criminal. It’s public. Ordinary unethical but legal conduct is usually—not always—not of the magnitude that the world needs to know about it and the perpetrator needs to be defined by it for life.
2. “The golden rule does seek fairness, but the situation you’re talking about here isn’t governed by the golden rule. I explained how the golden rule breaks down on dealing with responses to bad behavior. Unless you can find a flaw in my logic, I think my qualification of the rule has to stand.”
I guess I just don’t see your point or theory. To me its a pure Golden Rule question, and the Golden Rule’s answer is pretty unequivocal.
3. “This isn’t nuclear weapons to kill termites. That…I can’t even see how you think that would compare. There is no secondary harm to the surrounding environment. The criticism (and it’s just criticism) is laser focused. Their is no overkill, as there is no definitive simple kill response.”
I couldn’t disagree more. This practice creates a nightmare society where nobody can ever outrun or get beyond his or her most embarrassing gaffe, most ill-considered statement, rudest act or most jerkish impulse. It’s a bad method of behavior control, because it does not distinguish between truly terrible conduct and conduct that is innocent but maliciously punished anyway.
4. “Calling him a jerk doesn’t impute any knowledge to society. How does that actually help?”
Every bad impulse doesn’t require a global remedy. What’s the matter with case by case response? That’s how we properly handle incivility, racist jokes, bad manners. You really think internet broadcast should be the remedy of first resort?
5. “It might just be because I’m primed with our other threads, but I see some of your unintentional callousness around inappropriate behavior of men towards women here. I’d willingly back off that if someone like Barry thinks I’m off base.”
This is just wrong factually. There are dozens of posts here condemning inappropriate behavior by men toward women. The fact that I don’t reflexively presume that a woman never misbehaves herself in such scenarios means that I’m objective, not “callous”…
6. “‘The ethical objective should be to do what society needs for standard maintenance while also doing as little personal harm to the wrongdoer as possible.’ Your phrasing seems to suggest that individual wrongdoers should be ignored, as they don’t make a dent in society. It also suggests we shouldn’t strive to be a better society. That seems like an about face for you.”
Huh? We should accomplish the desired societal objective of an ethical society while needlessly harming as many people as possible in the process. That’s the epitome of an ethical formula!
RATS…I have to catch a plane. Please remind me to pick this up if I don’t get to do it while I’m in Chicago, OK?
[Great Comment, by the way. Loved it. Good work, and thanks.]
Appreciate it. I try.
1.
(a) The separate rule for law breaking was silly, as I noted elsewhere. We can keep that thread in its place, because there’s:
(b) It’s irrelevant. I attacked your per se unfairness comment. That there’s another rule that modifies the issue for murder means that it is not per se unfair. It’s only sometimes unfair, and you have to explain why it’s unfair here. I stand by my statement that it appears you are trying to create a general rule because the individual merits are a loser for a position you want to hold.
2. I’ll try another explanation. If we use the golden rule to determine responses to bad behavior, then we are left never responding to bad behavior. Livvy was the epitome of this. She honestly believed things that society thought was wrong. She didn’t think people should criticize her for her different thoughts, so she said that nobody’s beliefs should be criticized. We wrote a couple hundred posts in like 48 hours going back and forth on this topic. Livvy was using the logic of the golden rule, but applying it leads to madness.
That is the same situation. This “shaming” is just public criticism of someone’s beliefs and actions.
3a (validity of the nuclear weapon metaphor)Is a squashed ant able to get past his behavior? No. You didn’t set up an equal scenario.
3b.
It’s a bad method of behavior control, because it does not distinguish between truly terrible conduct and conduct that is innocent but maliciously punished anyway.
I see two possible meanings. I like neither.
Are you saying it’s bad because good behavior will be improperly punished by bad actors? If that’s the case, then why is it okay for public actions? There’s still the possibility of bad actors. You might as well be against any criticism. Bad actors can use it, too.
If you’re making a distinction between the state of mind of the actor, I don’t see the point. Someone who kills for innocent reasons still should be punished.
4a.
The problem with case by case response is that it puts the onus on the wronged to call it out. It hides the issue. We need example cases to improve society.
4b.
I did not suggest that internet broadcast should be the first remedy for all bad behavior. I denied your statement that it’s never a valid response. In this case, there was no controlled scale method of response that wouldn’t be incredibly time consuming for the wronged party. Sharing the information with a social community that one is a part of seems okay to me. (Remember also that the waitress didn’t think the signature was legible.)
5.
That you have said plenty of good things on a topic in no way contradicts that you have been unintentionally callous when discussing that topic. Here’s more evidence for the callousness: “The fact that I don’t reflexively presume that a woman never misbehaves herself in such scenarios means that I’m objective, not ‘callous’…”
When we’re talking about sexual assault of a passed out girl, thinking it’s possible that she was misbehaving IS callous. Thinking that any prior misbehavior has any bearing on the situation IS callous.
The definition of a blindspot is something that you don’t see.
6.
You missed my point. Your phrasing suggested standard maintenance is all we should strive for. That we can’t do any harm to a wrongdoer to improve society.
To be continued
I’m horrible at this, but I’ll try.
Does she share responsibility for what happened? Are you denying that an underage drinker who passes out at a party hasn’t placed herself in an embarrassing situation as well as peril? Are you saying she has no responsibility for passing out? Ridiculous.
She’s responsible for passing out, but she’s not in the least bit responsible for being sexually assaulted. Are we supposed to think that our friends and acquaintances are all rapists and rape enablers? I’ve been at more than a few parties where people passed out. Do you know what happens? Other people at the party take care of them. At worst, someone draws a penis on their face, or a handlebar mustache. That’s what a girl can expect from passing out at a party. Not sexual assault. Not being called a slut for being assaulted.
Say you let your 8 year old hang out at a block party with the neighbors you’ve known for years. You head back home for an hour. During that time, he’s repeatedly beat by multiple neighbors in front of everyone None of them do anything. Are you responsible for this occurrence? Hell no. You had no reason to suspect that your neighbors were all violent sickos. You have some basic belief that there’s at least a smidge of human decency present.
This “we’re responsible if anyone else does something bad” is how we get to all the bad stories at free-range kids. It leads to the coddling that creates the slackoise. It leads to no tolerance policies. It’s shit.
The people at this party were horrible and did horrible things to this girl. She’s not responsible for that, and unless they’d been displaying their tendency toward sexual assault, she wasn’t wrong to trust that she would be okay. Yes, she gave them the opportunity to do horrible things, but we are constantly giving people the opportunity to do horrible things to us. If your wife stabs you in your sleep one day, are you partially responsible? Hell no. I drive a mini cooper. If a tractor trailor runs a red light kills me, am I responsible for my death (because I wasn’t driving a bigger car)? Hell no.
There’s nothing you wrote that I disagree with in any way. Nothing.
We are still responsible, and must regard ourselves as responsible, when we put ourselves in the sights of bad people. That is one reason 15 year-olds are not allowed to drink, and why drinking until you are helpless is not a good life practice. Are women who keep re-uniting with abusive boy-friends in any way responsible for the harm that comes to them as a result? What about the harm that comes to their children? It is not blaming the victim to note that the causation included irresponsible choices, but it is willful misrepresentation to pretend to pretend otherwise.
I think the issue is that you suggest that someone can be responsible for a result without getting some of the blame for the result. And that’s incoherent. If you’re actually responsible for what happened, then you also take the blame for what happened. You’re clear on this when talking about company’s whose marketing departments do bad. I don’t see how you don’t understand saying Potts was partially responsible for what happened would be a problem.
Because she IS partially responsible by any honest assessment. I don’t equate responsibility with blame in such cases. Her abusers took the crucial step that led to the significant harm. The blame is theirs. Is a homeowner who leaves all her doors unlocked when she is away, or wide open, to blame for the robbery that follows? No. Does she share responsibility for the fact that it happened? Of course. In tort law, this is contributory negligence.
Jack,
You’re redefining the words ‘responsible’ and ‘blame’ to create a distinction that’s not there.
In tort law, this is contributory negligence.
I suspect there’s a tort for sexual assault. Are you saying that a court would lessen a payout because the assaultee had drank too much? I sure as hell hope not.
It’s the distinction between “responsible” and “accountable,’ as far as I can see.
Jack,
Accountable is the secondary meaning of responsible that nobody is discussing…like how a manager is responsible for bad behavior of their employees. A position of responsibility vs direct action responsibility.
I think my comment referring to contributory negligence also demands a response.
I’m going to have to start enforcing some kind of a statute of limitations on these posts. After a few days and over ten other threads, I just can’t leap back into them without a lot of backtracking, and it isn’t conducive to the best responses.
But regarding the “contributory negligence”—that was a bad leap. In contributory negligence, the damaged party is judged responsible in part for the harm, and it lessens what the tortfeasor is required to pay for. That’s not appropriate in a criminal setting, which is what this is. Pott was negligent to get drunk and pass out, but that should not have caused her to be sexually assaulted, nor could she have anticipated that it would. Her negligence doesn’t mitigate what they did in any way, and I was not trying to suggest it did—but that term WOULD suggest that. It was a mistake.
(But no “dogwhistle”!)
Jack,
That this is criminal does not mean it’s not also civil. Torts overlap the criminal world all the time.
I do agree this one wasn’t a dog whistle, as the words you used aren’t common with rape apologists.
—-
The delay here was that I needed to cool down before responding. This thread makes me very, very angry.
1. Well sure. But contributory negligence is never applied to intentional torts. It, surprise, applies when the tort is negligence. In this case the tort was intentional, so the “plaintiff’s” negligence provides no defense.
2. None of them were dog whistles, in the post or in the comments. That confirmation bias on the part of someone determined to hear them took over is not my problem.
3. I see no reason for that. The post was not critical of the Potts beyond the obvious. I made every attempt to clarify confusion in the subsequent post. Potts was never referred to or treated as anything but an innocent victim. This whole discussion was tangential to the posts topic.
1. So your defense that the argument was bad (it only applied to civil and this was criminal) was wrong. The proper reason the argument was bad was this involves intent not neglect. I can agree to that.
2. Claiming that the apparent dog whistles are just confirmation bias is ridiculous. We know you don’t mean them! The comments aren’t confirming our pre-existing belief that you don’t like women or blame them for their rapes. They’re contrary to what we know you mean and expect you to say. I’ve been clear on that. Calling it confirmation bias is a bad rationalization.
3. You’re improperly denying premises to get here. I know, you don’t think you’re doing anything wrong, but I think you are, and I’ve been clear about that. Pretend for a second that you actually were accidentally speaking with dog whistles, denying it, attacking the character of the people who point it out, making circular arguments, misrepresenting your opponents’ arguments, etc. That would sure make me angry, right? That you don’t agree that I’m right about the underlying issue shouldn’t mean you can’t see why this discussion would get me riled up.
You seem to have forgotten that “dog-whistles” is a metaphor meaning “code words that are used so only an intended audience will understand their true, socially unacceptable meaning” so that the speaker has plausible deniability. What you are describing is “imaginary offensive language that exists solely in the mind of the offended.” If those are dog whistles, the dog is you.
My rhetoric is not going to be inhibited because somebody other than me uses it as code words and phrases. Your favorite banned commenter said, in essence, “Watch it, Bub, I’m on to you…those are code word!.” To which I say, “the hell they are. Any one who reads them as you “code” isn’t reading me right, and it’s their own fault, not mine.”
Ugh. Person A says X, to mean coded thing Q to mass M. X is a dog whistle for Q.
When person B says X, mass M is going to still hear Q.
M is hearing things that B doesn’t intend, but person B should know that.
To which I say, “the hell they are. Any one who reads them as you “code” isn’t reading me right, and it’s their own fault, not mine.”
When you make use of words that are usually used as code, you’re the one who’s not communicating properly. If I say “Good hardworking Americans can’t find jobs, and we need to do something about it”, then that’s going to sound like I’m being xenophobic. It doesn’t matter that I’m talking about people who lie on their resume and blame others for their failings. To mix dog metaphors, once something has become a dog whistle, you can’t unring the bell, the dog’s still going to salivate, even if the bell is the end of quarter basketball buzzer.
Person A says X, to mean coded thing Q to mass M. X is a dog whistle for Q.
When person B says X, mass M is going to still hear Q.
M is hearing things that B doesn’t intend, but person B should know that.
Utter nonsense! Chris Matthews has claimed all sorts of words and phrases are “dog whistles” for racists, so he can tar non racists as racists. The fact that some jerks use “urban” as a euphemism for “black’ does not mean that I have to be wary of using “urban” properly, nor is my expression going to be controlled or limited by the misuse by others that I don’t subscribe to, or the false implications placed on such words to trap either the unwary or the intimidated.
Example: The fact that “a chink in the armor” has been absurdly claimed as a racist phrase, or “niggardly” is offensive to people who don’t know English, does not mean I can legitimately held to be a racist for using “a chink in the armor” or niggardly. That’s all the “dog whistle’ accusation amounted to, as I see it, and I resent it.
Jack,
False implications placed on words to trap people is not relevant to this discussion. There aren’t false implications being placed, and nobody is trying to trap you. What’s worse is that you know the implications are there and should know that I’m not trying to discredit your general opinions by playing gotcha games. Your attacks on Chris Matthews fall into this category. Irrelevant to the discussion.
Nobody uses “niggardly” and “a chink in the armor” as dog whistles, so they aren’t parallel examples. Your idea in them, expressed elsewhere as that you’re not going to let other’s misuse of words limit your language, shows that you have a pretty serious issue.
You’re demanding original meanings, when original meanings don’t exist. You’re demanding your readers follow your take on language, instead of trying to communicate to them.
You also seem to not care if your words are going to be misused by others, and I see that as a large sin. It’s not reasonable to expect everyone to police everything they say, but once a problem is pointed out, the reader is responsible for at least acknowledging the issue. You refuse to.
Discussion of the facts and ethics of the case are very different things. Every example you give is of the former — they carry no moral condemnation, no weight regarding your interpretation of the events (except perhaps for connotation in your choice of words, and that is by no means clear for someone with a differing sense of right and wrong).
You are also incorrect in thinking that my position is based on how heinous I view the crime as. While it’s true that I regard sexual assault and rape as absurdly wrong… that’s not my reason here.
That honor goes to two factors. The first of these is more general, and relates to the discussion of ethical issues surrounding factual cases in general: you don’t dismiss or trivialize unethical conduct for *any* reason… including choosing to focus on another aspect of a situation. Doing so risks encouraging that sort of unethical conduct.
And while you may think that people reading this blog have enough of a grounding in ethics to understand… as I’ve said, you can’t take that for granted, *especially* if you’re tainting the pool of people whose reactions you’re getting an active read on by banning commenters who are dense in such matters.
In any case, that’s just _one_ reason.
The other is the collection of assorted factors that are collectively referred to as “rape culture”. Simply put, we live in a culture where various forms of rape, sexual coercion, and sexual abuse are commonly trivialized, ignored, excused, tolerated, or even condoned. It’s not exactly stretching to think that such a situation requires one take care not to accidentally contribute to it.
Simply put, I wouldn’t have bothered spoken up about the matter had the crime been something else (such as theft or murder). The first set of issues would have sort of flown barely over the radar and not really hit my “needs comment” threshold.
That’s why I brought up Steubenville. All of these factors were on pretty prominent display there.
And no, it wasn’t an isolated case. None of the factors on display in the Steubenville affair were extraordinary except in the degree of outrage and outcry they produced (although, perhaps, the way in which they were *all* on display was a bit unusual).
So yes, I do think you should take steps to avoid accidentally stepping in that mine field. You’re almost lucky that I was the one to call you on it, rather than some of the rape survivors I’ve dealt with (and I say “almost” because you’d probably wind up banning many of them, which has both its up-sides and down-sides).
You do know that there was no rape in this case, right? Reports have gotten that point wrong, as far as I can determine The girl was abused—they stripped her and wrote obscenities on her body, then took photos and circulated them. That is terrible, and plenty for a criminal sexual assault charge—but it’s not rape.
At the very least, there was sexual assault involved… as you note. Her not being actually raped really doesn’t change much. Note what I wrote about rape culture:
“Simply put, we live in a culture where various forms of rape, _sexual coercion_, and _sexual abuse_ are commonly trivialized, ignored, excused, tolerated, or even condoned.”
Then, _after_ all of this, the perps engaged in a disgusting campaign of victim-shaming.
(And, incidentally, there’s a distinction I haven’t seen drawn in the comments I’ve read so far — there’s a fundamental difference between shaming the _perpetrator_ of unethical or criminal behavior and shaming the _victim_ of it. The latter case, especially when you make a dog-and-pony humiliation show of it, is *never* ethical.)
My point, and the point of the article, was that it’s never ethical anyway, either way. And I am influenced by the disgraceful pre-crime campaigns of vigilantes who set out to shame every registered sex offender who has paid his debt to society right into the wilderness. Tgt and I have been arguing about the proper way for society to enforce its standards, but most “shaming” has unethical goals—-vengeance, punishment, or gratuitous cruelty. Enforcing ethical standards has little or nothing to do with it.
Jack,
Tgt and I have been arguing about the proper way for society to enforce its standards, but most “shaming” has unethical goals—-vengeance, punishment, or gratuitous cruelty. Enforcing ethical standards has little or nothing to do with it.
Really? You’ve been a proponent of social shaming as a proper check on society and one of the reason we don’t need morality laws. Now, shaming is not really based on ethics? I thought your complaint had been that the scale of the shaming is why it’s inappropriate, not that there was shaming.
I’d also say that punishment is not unethical. Punishment is a great deterrence.
Jack,
I missed something in your comment:
. And I am influenced by the disgraceful pre-crime campaigns of vigilantes who set out to shame every registered sex offender who has paid his debt to society right into the wilderness.
Their not being “shamed” into the wilderness. People are creating laws that limit their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You conflated actions with speech here.
It’s just a sorry situation all over, Jack. For myself, I can’t help but mourn for this poor girl and despise those three boys who ultimately drove her to suicide. It’s a sick culture that can put the idea into young people’s heads that this sort of thing is a cool prank without consequence.
The boys didn’t drive her to suicide. You can only say that it 1) that was their intent and 2) the average person would kill herself in a like situation. Neither is true. The choice to kill herself was not forced on her.
Again, they should be condemned for what they did. You’re giving others an out and a rationalization when they do essentially the same thing and their victim doesn’t commit suicide.
SMP’s right, and you’re wrong.
**Checks to make sure the world didn’t end**
Their harassment drove her to suicide. There’s moral luck that she was a person that would commit suicide in this situation, but she was still driven to it. We went over this in a prior thread:
https://ethicsalarms.com/2012/12/08/the-shock-jocks-and-the-suicide-a-moral-luck-cautionary-tale/
There’s no out for harassers who picked on stronger people. If I punch some guy, and he falls over, hits his head, and dies, it’s appropriate to say that I killed him. It’s moral luck that he hit his head on the way down, and it’s moral luck that he was someone who would die from that blow to the head, but I still killed him. We don’t need to pretend I didn’t kill him to avoid the “at least he didn’t die” rationalization from assaulters whose victims didn’t die.
No. You are confounding consequences, accountability, responsibility and wrongfulness. The wrongfulness of the act doesn’t change according to the unexpected consequences. (If they knew the girl as emotionally fragile, then the unethical conduct would become “humiliating someone you know might not be able to handle it. That is materially different.) In court, the boys would be liable for the damages resulting from their actions. That means their punishment may be greater, and that’s just. However, the wrongfulness of their conduct is NOT changed–someone who does what they did is not more evil because their victim turned out to be especially fragile. That they are regarded as such—many, many teens have passed out and had jerks write on their body—is an illusion. If the poor girl hadn’t killed herself, the story wouldn’t have even been news…but what the boys did would have been exactly as wrong.
I know you understand this, and I don’t see why you are arguing about it.
Uh…looks to me like you’re arguing with a strawman here. I didn’t suggest that the wrongfulness of the action changed because of the result. Quite the contrary.
What I was commenting on was your complete denial of the standard English language idiom “X drove Y to do Z”. There’s no need for intent for Z on the part of X or that Y be at least of average strength in the particular situation. Yes, that is one meaning, but it’s not the only one, or even the most common one.
Secondly, I argued against your thought that we should ignore accurate language if people will use it to make “not as bad” rationalizations.
X drove Y to do Z is only an accurate description when 1) that was x’s intent 2) y had a known weakness or proclivity that X knew would cause Z if X did W. 3) A reasonable person, being subjected to W, would do Z as a response to W.
None of this applies to the situation we are discussing, hence she was not driven to kill herself by any fair use of the phrase.
As I said, that’s one definition. The idiom doesn’t require 1, 2, or 3.
The most obvious example is crazy behavior that drives someone to drink.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/drive+to+drink
See also: drive to distraction, drive to despair, drive crazy.
Holy rape apologism batman.
A pastor wrote something arrogant and terrible after her large demanding party FINALLY left a restaraunt and may have refused to pay a tip–you know, something waitstaff need to live.
A girl was bullied to suicide. By sexual criminals. And we live in a society where /she/ is the one who is ashamed? She isn’t the felon here. They should be ashamed. Why are you not questioning that? At all? Instead giving a pretty intense vibe of “well what did she expect” and agreeing that she should be ashamed?
These things are not equivalent. And you are engaging in victim blaming & NOT critically thinking about who should *actually* be ashamed here.
I’m not accepting this nonsense. You either didn’t read the post, didn’t understand it, or are intentionally misrepresenting it. 1) As a technical matter, she wasn’t raped. Get your facts straight. 2) I did not say she deserved it or imply it. 3) Anyone who is exhibited in an undignified, unconscious and naked state is going to be embarrassed and ashamed, unless they are nuts. She was in fact, ashamed, hence her comments and suicide. These are facts. 4)The post was condemning what they did after they sexually assaulted her, which was using her image to embarrass her. That’s what I was writing about, because a) that’s what is misunderstood and b) I was intentionally pointing out that the conduct, embarrassing someone maliciously, was essentially the same, whether it was done by the despicable jerks or by the waitress.
Nothing in the post excused the criminal assailants—I presume everyone understands that what they did was wrong. It was not MORE wrong, however, because she happened to kill herself. Now, go back, read the post, and try to figure out what it says rather than what your reflex outrage at what wasn’t in the post seems to have you complaining about.
Finally, yes, she behaved irresponsibly by getting drunk and passing out at a party, when she wasn’t supposed to be drinking at all. No, she in no way “deserved” what happened to her, but her bad judgment did lead to what happened, and it was irresponsible. If you can explain in clear terms why getting drunk and passing out in anyplace not your home ISN’T irresponsible, or that any normal person shouldn’t be embarrassed to have done it, I’d love to hear it. That would be fascinating. Otherwise, go grandstand someplace else.
1) As a technical matter, she wasn’t raped. Get your facts straight.
Kassiane didn’t suggest she was.
2) I did not say she deserved it or imply it.
You did suggest she was partially at fault for what happened. You keep denying reality.
3) Anyone who is exhibited in an undignified, unconscious and naked state is going to be embarrassed and ashamed, unless they are nuts. She was in fact, ashamed, hence her comments and suicide. These are facts.
Embarrassment that people have seen her naked, yes. Feeling ashamed, hell no. What does she have to feel guilty and embarrassed about in her actions or self? Being ashamed requires innateness or locus of control over what occurred.
I was intentionally pointing out that the conduct, embarrassing someone maliciously, was essentially the same, whether it was done by the despicable jerks or by the waitress.
But it’s not at all the same. It’s the difference between me calling aaronpaschell a bigot for his comments about gays, and aaron calling me a bigot for my comments about him.
Sneaking the “malicious” in there is unfair.
I wasn’t going to jump in on this, but I did want to say this; if you’re claiming that people never feel ashamed and guilty about something they shouldn’t feel bad about, that’s bullshit. Just look at the cliche of the gay fundamentalist Christian. If anything, Steubenville seems to be the sort of town that socializes its women to feel that way when whenever they get caught in compromising sexual situations.
Here’s a second question for Jack; are you using the definition of “responsible” in the sense of “being the cause or explanation” (Merriam-Webster) and extending that to the point where we’re responsible for everything to happens to us almost by virtue of our very existence, and use the word “blame” more for situations where our (ir)responsibility is due to unethical behavior or incompetence? To use a goofy hypothetical; ninjas kill your family because you told the one with the Kevin Smith shirt that you didn’t think “Clerks” was a good movie. Would I be right in saying you bear the responsibility, but not the blame, for it? Or in another sense, you’re responsible for some of the stupid commentators we’ve gotten on this site, but not to blame for it? If so, that’s not a distinction most seem to make, which might be responsible (but maybe not to blame) for some of the arguments here.
Goddamn it, I accidentally said it was “Steubenville.” Sorry about that.
if you’re claiming that people never feel ashamed and guilty about something they shouldn’t feel bad about, that’s bullshit.
I didn’t intend to claim this, but I clearly did. Oops. I meant to be saying that any shame she felt was tied to the abuse. The actions she actually did didn’t lead to shame; it was what others did to her that caused shame.
Your question for Jack is excellent.
1) As a technical matter, she wasn’t raped. Get your facts straight.
I just wrote a longer reply to all this on your subsequent post, but for the record…
1) As a technical matter, she wasn’t raped. Get your facts straight.
Kassiane didn’t suggest she was.
She sure as hell did. She did by referencing rape in both comments, repeatedly.
2) I did not say she deserved it or imply it.
You did suggest she was partially at fault for what happened. You keep denying reality.
No, you do. A woman who gets drunk to the extent she passed out among men she doesn’t know or shouldn’t trust has made herself helpless and vulnerable, and that is stupid and irresponsible, as I’m sure Potts would have quickly concluded if she had allowed herself to live long enough. Why are you so obtuse on this obvious point. Question: is drinking until you pass out responsible behavior? No, it’s not. It is irresponsible behavior. In this case, such behavior led to Potts’ victimization. That doesn’t change the culpability of her abusers, but if what she did was irresponsible if nobody abused her, it was irresponsible when she was abused too. Obviously. Why is that hard?
Embarrassment that people have seen her naked, yes. Feeling ashamed, hell no. What does she have to feel guilty and embarrassed about in her actions or self? Being ashamed requires innateness or locus of control over what occurred.
You are objecting to “ashamed” but not “embarrassed”? Please. I would be ashamed that I was drunk and passed out in a photo. The bar would say I was ashamed, and the bar would be ashamed to be associated with me. People are ashamed to be pictured drunk and naked, and how those conditions came to be photographed are irrelevant to the feelings.
‘I was intentionally pointing out that the conduct, embarrassing someone maliciously, was essentially the same, whether it was done by the despicable jerks or by the waitress.” But it’s not at all the same. It’s the difference between me calling aaronpaschell a bigot for his comments about gays, and aaron calling me a bigot for my comments about him.
Bad analogy. Resorting to violence is wrong. Slapping someone who verbally insults you is wrong, and just as wrong as slapping someone whose face you don’t like. Provocation is irrelevant in an absolute setting, and I was and am proposing that that all forms of “shaming” via publication when they involve non-illegal conduct and non-public figures are wrong.
[Kassiane] sure as hell did [suggest Potts was raped]. She did by referencing rape in both comments, repeatedly.
You’re wrong.
Here are her references to rape:
Holy rape apologism batman
“Legitimate rape” is the slippery edge you are on, sir.
Your post is full of rape apologism dogwistles (those are things that you don’t hear unless you’re primed for them. Like, by being a woman. Or by being a rape survivor. or both
None of those suggest that Potts was raped, and the latter 2 occurred AFTER your statement that she suggested Potts was raped, so they’re irrelevant.
Your language does use rape apologist language. So it was an accurate criticism. What did Kassiane actually say about what happened? “A girl was bullied to suicide. By sexual criminals.” Not by rapists, but by sexual criminals.
No, you do. A woman who gets drunk to the extent she passed out among men she doesn’t know or shouldn’t trust has made herself helpless and vulnerable, and that is stupid and irresponsible, as I’m sure Potts would have quickly concluded if she had allowed herself to live long enough. Why are you so obtuse on this obvious point. Question: is drinking until you pass out responsible behavior? No, it’s not. It is irresponsible behavior. In this case, such behavior led to Potts’ victimization. That doesn’t change the culpability of her abusers, but if what she did was irresponsible if nobody abused her, it was irresponsible when she was abused too. Obviously. Why is that hard?
The difficulty is going from “Person A’s action X was irresponsible” to “Person A was partially responsible for person B’s bad behavior.” That’s what you’ve been saying. You claim you’re not saying it…and then you say it again. It’s horrible.
Ashamed comment
I noted above in reply to Julian that I screwed up here. My bad.
Bad analogy. Resorting to violence is wrong. Slapping someone who verbally insults you is wrong, and just as wrong as slapping someone whose face you don’t like. Provocation is irrelevant in an absolute setting, and I was and am proposing that that all forms of “shaming” via publication when they involve non-illegal conduct and non-public figures are wrong.
Your analogy is what fails, as it requires web shaming to be an absolute wrong, when you agree that it’s appropriate for public figures, newsworthy stories (which is still wonderful begging the question), and people who committed crimes. Your can’t claim an absolute setting, and then set up limitations like you did. My analogy was spot on, and you didn’t find a problem with it.
1. [Kassiane] sure as hell did [suggest Potts was raped]. She did by referencing rape in both comments, repeatedly.
I stand by that. If she wasn’t suggesting I was writing about rape, then why was she referencing rape? What was rape even brought up?
“Holy rape apologism batman” suggests, DUH, that I was apologizing for rapists. Not only was I not doing THAT, I wasn’t apologizing for teh assailants in any way shape or form…and I continue to resent the inference.
2. “Legitimate rape” is the slippery edge you are on, sir. I was on no such slope, and again, if she wasn’t referencing rape, it didn’t belong in the comment, and was a below the belt smear. That phrase suggests that certain kinds of unconsensual sex are not rape. I don’t believe that, I have never written that, I have never suggested that, i didn’t in that post, and again, to Hell with her for impugning mu values with that slur.
3. “Your post is full of rape apologism dogwistles (those are things that you don’t hear unless you’re primed for them. Like, by being a woman. Or by being a rape survivor. or both)” A. I know what they are. B. They have to be intentional. C. They were in her mind only. There are no such dogwhistles, because I don’t talk in code, and I don’t believe in apologizing for rapists.
“None of those suggest that Potts was raped, and the latter 2 occurred AFTER your statement that she suggested Potts was raped, so they’re irrelevant.” Baloney. They all suggest that I was writing about a rape situation, and if not, why were they there?
4. “Your language does use rape apologist language. So it was an accurate criticism.” No, it wasn’t. That’s a lie, tgt. She saw what her militant feminist construct wanted to see.
5.“What did Kassiane actually say about what happened? “A girl was bullied to suicide. By sexual criminals.” Not by rapists, but by sexual criminals.” Oh, please! Rapists ARE sexual criminals. That continued the rape theme.
6. “The difficulty is going from “Person A’s action X was irresponsible” to “Person A was partially responsible for person B’s bad behavior.” That’s what you’ve been saying. You claim you’re not saying it…and then you say it again. It’s horrible.” You are the one being dense. She was not responsible for what they did to her. She was responsible for putting herself in peril. Of course she was, You and Kassiane are just denying fact to be politically correct, or something—I don’t get it. I’ve laid out several analogies, all valid. If I make myself vuilnerable to muggers, that doesn’t excuse the mugging, but I was a fool. She was a fool, That doesn’t mitigate what the molesters did to her in any way, I never said or implied it did, yet she, and now you, keep repeating that falsehood.
7. Shaming public figures and figures whose conduct has been publicized is NOT a retreat from my absolute, because I made it clear that the fair expectation of limited exposure and privacy was what made the shaming a Golden Rule violation. Public figures have no such expectation of privacy when they misbehave, and when a story is news, there is no more privacy.
You have essentially eliminated what was once a growing doubt that I was unfair to Kassiane. Your defense convinces me that she was rude, insulting, unreasonable and distorted my meaning maliciously.
1. The comments you made are comments that are used by rape apologists to support their positions. This isn’t difficult.
2. I’m dropping it here and only responding where I explained what this term actually meant. Suffice it to say that not every use of word X in a post implies that X occurred in the topic under discussion.
3. b. You’re wrong. dog whistles exist even when they aren’t intentional. She’s not accusing you of whistling. She’s accusing you of saying things unintentionally that dog’s respond to.
c. I saw them, too. They are there.
4. Another rehash of your denial
5. You can’t continue a theme you didn’t have.
6. Your boilerplate still doesn’t change your implications. There are multiple examples, but I’m just going with this one: “Does she share responsibility for what happened [being stripped, sexually assaulted, and photographed]? Are you denying that an underage drinker who passes out at a party hasn’t placed herself in an embarrassing situation as well as peril? Are you saying she has no responsibility for passing out? Ridiculous.”
You clearly imply she’s partially responsible for her rape. I know you don’t intend to mean that, but that’s what your words say. That’s what the dog whistles are. They aren’t intentional, but they’re there.
7. That’s special pleading. If you get exceptions to your rule, then It’s NOT an absolute anymore. You have to allow for exceptions in hitting and exceptions in criticism, and then your comparison breaks down.
7b.
and when a story is news, there is no more privacy.
And this is till begging the question. If it’s news, shaming can be done, but how do we determine if its news?
closing
You have essentially eliminated what was once a growing doubt that I was unfair to Kassiane. Your defense convinces me that she was rude, insulting, unreasonable and distorted my meaning maliciously.
Ugh.
1. The comments you made are comments that are used by rape apologists to support their positions. This isn’t difficult.
No, it’s nonsense. Name one. Especially since the topic wasn’t rape. So in a context that wasn’t rape, not talking about rape and not apologizing for the attackers, I supposedly made “comments that are used by rape apologists to support their positions,” though I hold none of their positions. What spectacular crap.
2. I’m dropping it here and only responding where I explained what this term actually meant. Suffice it to say that not every use of word X in a post implies that X occurred in the topic under discussion.
No, but repeated use of a word suggesting a specific act regarding a post not about such an act creates the rebuttable presumption that the writer believes the post concerns the act, and it didn’t.
3. b. You’re wrong. dog whistles exist even when they aren’t intentional. She’s not accusing you of whistling. She’s accusing you of saying things unintentionally that dog’s respond to.
She is lumping me with people who defend rapists and deny the reality of rape. That’s what she was doing.
c. I saw them, too.
Well, nobody’s perfect. You have your delusions too.
4. Your boilerplate still doesn’t change your implications. There are multiple examples, but I’m just going with this one: “Does she share responsibility for what happened [being stripped, sexually assaulted, and photographed]? Are you denying that an underage drinker who passes out at a party hasn’t placed herself in an embarrassing situation as well as peril? Are you saying she has no responsibility for passing out? Ridiculous.”
You clearly imply she’s partially responsible for her rape. I know you don’t intend to mean that, but that’s what your words say. That’s what the dog whistles are. They aren’t intentional, but they’re there.
I’ve explained what I meant (and now YOU’RE saying she was raped! Jesus Christ!) and you really have no rebuttal–you just ignore fact. Is or is someone not responsible for the extra risk they accept when they place themselves in a vulnerable position via reckless actions or poor judgment? If so (and the answer is “obviously”), they are not responsible for the wrongful acts of others that harm them–they are responsible for their own mistakes. How you can keep denying this is beyond me.
7. That’s special pleading. If you get exceptions to your rule, then It’s NOT an absolute anymore. You have to allow for exceptions in hitting and exceptions in criticism, and then your comparison breaks down.
No, no, no. The rule doesn’t apply to all victims, and those who it does apply to are easily determined. That is neither illogical nor unfair.
8…and when a story is news, there is no more privacy. And this is till begging the question. If it’s news, shaming can be done, but how do we determine if its news?
Huh? If it is published and broadcast, it is no longer private. It is in the public records. Journalists are supposed to make these calls and take such privacy matters into account. I don’t blog about events and people that a single blogger has related about private individuals. It’s news when it is published in sufficient media locales that there is no more privacy. Who determines it? Well, I don’t. When it rises to the level of legitimate news, then it is no longer vigilante shaming. This isn’t as hard as you pretend.
How in God’s name has this thread gone on this long over what’s really a very simple question. I know how TGT can talk a subject to death, but this time he’s embalmed the body and built a pyramid over it. Enough, already! Nobody’s blaming the girl for getting raped. Those boys completely bear the blame. No one denies this. Her judgement in getting herself drunk and then, tragically, taking her own life in despair can be questioned- while allowing for her youth. The story needs to be told to help prevent this sort of tragedy from unfolding again.
The discussion we’ve having isn’t about if Potts was responsible. It’s about Jack’s unintentional language that is used by people to claim Potts is responsible. It’s like if Jack was writing about a hispanic Fick and said he wasn’t a “real american,” not realizing that it’s code used by racists and xenophobes. Should be quick to clear up. Jack’s double down on the language is what’s bad.
The language was intentional, and the fact that it may be misappropriated by others for illicit intent doesn’t change my obligations at all. That’s political correctness exemplified.
Once it has been misappropriated to mean something, you can’t force that meaning out of English. Try as I might, “I could care less” now means that someone doesn’t care at all. If I say “I could care less” about something now, while I know it means I care about the thing, it’s going to be interpreted as me not caring at all.
1. I’ve named multiple already, but here’s an example: “Because she IS partially responsible by any honest assessment. … Does she share responsibility for the fact that it happened? Of course”
I know, you “don’t equate responsibility with blame in such cases,” but misogynists use that responsibility language to imply blame. You use it all over, and insist there could be no implication of blame. My example in (6) also works here.
2. Absolutely not. Context matters, and the word was used in specific contexts that should have been clear. I’ve seen you make this kind of error on other posts as well, so at least it’s consistent.
3b. Technically yes. The point is that your language is sometimes indistinguishable from theirs. She pointed it out, and you could have disowned the language. Instead you doubled down on it.
3c. When multiple people see the error in your language, say that it has meanings you don’t intend, isn’t it more likely that you just don’t understand that context than that we’re delusional? We’re not arguing with your general positions here – we’re arguing with your language.
4/5. Properly gone
[6](You typoed 4) I know you’ve explained what you meant! I’ve repeated over and over that I know that you intended good things. Despite that, the words you chose say bad things. Your language that I quoted said she shares responsibility for being stripped, sexually assaulted, and photographed. That you had good intentions and didn’t mean to say that doesn’t mean that your language didn’t say that.
4/6rape. Yea. That one was an error on my part. It should have sexual assault.
7. What I claimed was illogical was saying web shaming is an absolute rule like hitting. It’s not an absolute rule that applies in all situations. You apply your rule on the particular situation of private people who don’t do horrendous things. I think you lost the context:
Jack::I was intentionally pointing out that the conduct, embarrassing someone maliciously, was essentially the same, whether it was done by the despicable jerks or by the waitress.
TGT: But it’s not at all the same. It’s the difference between me calling aaronpaschell a bigot for his comments about gays, and aaron calling me a bigot for my comments about him.
Jack:Bad analogy. Resorting to violence is wrong. Slapping someone who verbally insults you is wrong, and just as wrong as slapping someone whose face you don’t like. Provocation is irrelevant in an absolute setting, and I was and am proposing that that all forms of “shaming” via publication when they involve non-illegal conduct and non-public figures are wrong.
The provocation does matter to you in web shaming. If there’s illegal behavior, then you’re fine with web shaming. It doesn’t parallel the absolute of slapping.
8. If it is published and broadcast, it is no longer private.
Once the Pastor was put in reddit, it was published and broadcast. The redditers and internet are in the clear
Journalists are supposed to make these calls and take such privacy matters into account.
How???? You ignored the question. What makes something news vs non-news?
It’s news when it is published in sufficient media locales that there is no more privacy.
So… the first publishers are always publishing nonnews. This doesn’t make any sense.
When it rises to the level of legitimate news, then it is no longer vigilante shaming.
Again, what makes something rise to the level of legitimate news? Claiming that it’s published in multiple places as news is pretty silly.
This isn’t as hard as you pretend.
Really? You don’t seem to have an explanation of it yourself.
1. I’ve named multiple already, but here’s an example: “Because she IS partially responsible by any honest assessment. … Does she share responsibility for the fact that it happened? Of course”
That’s not an example. It is clear, logical and correct, except to someone determined to misconstrue it.
2. Absolutely not. Context matters, and the word was used in specific contexts that should have been clear. I’ve seen you make this kind of error on other posts as well, so at least it’s consistent.
It was not clear, and to the contrary, I am still not convinced she didn’t write both posts insisting that the episode was rape. She could have easily said, “I recognize this wasn’t rape.” Why didn’t she? She wanted to tar me as a rape-enabler, that’s why. As to your second slur, I have no idea what you are referring to. I read pretty well.
3b. Technically yes. The point is that your language is sometimes indistinguishable from theirs. She pointed it out, and you could have disowned the language. Instead you doubled down on it.
You’re the one who just said context matters. In the context of that post, in this blog, with me as the author, there was no fair way to equate my meaning with theirs.
3c. When multiple people see the error in your language, say that it has meanings you don’t intend, isn’t it more likely that you just don’t understand that context than that we’re delusional? We’re not arguing with your general positions here – we’re arguing with your language.
And you are outliers. Two readers out of a couple thousand at this point doesn’t have me scrambling for political correctness reeducation.
7. What I claimed was illogical was saying web shaming is an absolute rule like hitting. It’s not an absolute rule that applies in all situations. You apply your rule on the particular situation of private people who don’t do horrendous things. I think you lost the context:
Jack::I was intentionally pointing out that the conduct, embarrassing someone maliciously, was essentially the same, whether it was done by the despicable jerks or by the waitress.
TGT: But it’s not at all the same. It’s the difference between me calling aaronpaschell a bigot for his comments about gays, and aaron calling me a bigot for my comments about him.
Jack:Bad analogy. Resorting to violence is wrong. Slapping someone who verbally insults you is wrong, and just as wrong as slapping someone whose face you don’t like. Provocation is irrelevant in an absolute setting, and I was and am proposing that that all forms of “shaming” via publication when they involve non-illegal conduct and non-public figures are wrong.
That definition is still clear, fair, Golden Rule-compliant and correct.
8.
“Once the Pastor was put in reddit, it was published and broadcast. The redditers and internet are in the clear”
Sure they are, because you can’t unring the bell. The waitress, however, is not in the clear.
Journalists are supposed to make these calls and take such privacy matters into account. How???? You ignored the question. What makes something news vs non-news?
Huh? Read any publication’s code of ethics. Read Poynter. There are standards for what is legitimate news, but once a news organzatation publihses or broadcasts “news,’ it’s news. And there is no more privacy to observe. Surely you get this?
“So… the first publishers are always publishing nonnews. This doesn’t make any sense.”
Determining news is the job of professionals. WWIII is news before it is published—it is published because it is news. Lindsay Lohan’s fart only becomes “news”if a new organization decides it is, rightly or not.
1. The comment listed IS used by rape apologists to support their positions. That you think it’s clear is irrelevant.
2a. If you’ve admitted it’s unclear to you, then your allegation was improper. I still think it’s clear, and I don’t see a need for that boilerplate you want.
2b. I thought about googling for specifics, but I don’t remember where they occurred, and I don’t know what language I would have used to call it out other than “That’s not what [x] meant”, which I use for a million things. If it comes up again, I’ll be sure to point it out.
3b. Kassiane’s statements aren’t dog whistles. It’s a different kind of context.
3c. Alexander, Kassiane, and I makes 3. I’d suggest that some readers have given up this battle with you, and that it’s messy to jump in when other people are already making your points. I almost didn’t jump into this one, as I suspected it was going to be a mess. The Black Cat post has Bill, deery, Barry, and Edward Carney making similar arguments to no avail.
6. Dropped. I assume this because we’re arguing that position all over the place.
7. You improperly said your rule was an absolute. It’s not. That it’s a clear rule is irrelevant. Your attack on my comparison failed.
8 I thought you attacked reddit. I can’t find that now. I cede this sub-line of argument.
You still haven’t said what the standards and rules are, just that there are standards and rules. Journalism isn’t exactly swimming in integrity right now, so I don’t think referencing their codes is very helpful. How often are they followed?
Your argument that once something is published, it’s fair game, still seems question begging to me. If a news organization makes a bad decision in making something news, that means you can cover it? The first person to make it public is wrong, but any subsequent people are right? I can’t abide by that. That’s a rationalization: “He did it first!”
The only part of this necessitating a response is “If a news organization makes a bad decision in making something news, that means you can cover it?” Are you kidding? It’s public, published and circulated, it is available to all, and commenting on it and writing about it does no further harm. It’s not private any more, legally and by definition. This is treh standards we accept from the media, even when it publishes proprietary documents—I may think that the Pentagon Papers were stolen and shouldn’t be published, but once they are, I am violating no standards by using what was published.
The only part of this necessitating a response is “If a news organization makes a bad decision in making something news, that means you can cover it?”
Things you saw not necessitating a response:
1) Where I called you out for moving the goalposts after I met one of your demands.
3b) Where I pointed out your argument was a false: “You’re doing the same thing”
3c) Where I showed your excuse that only 2 commenters disagree with your is wrong.
7) Where I had to point out, again, that you used a false example, and refuse to own up to it.
Are you trying to avoid accountability by pretending they don’t matter?
—
As for the one thing you actually respond to, you seem to miss the point. You claimed that something being published means it’s available to all. That’s technically true, but not true in practice (example: my high school newspaper). It’s also irrelevant. That something is available, doesn’t mean that it’s known to all. If it was inappropriate to disseminate originally, how is it not inappropriate for you to disseminate it further? You claim that there’s no harm done by further dissemination, but if that were true, then there couldn’t have been harm in the information originally being made public.
You attempt to hide behind the legality and definition of the term “public”, but this screams rationalization. A note left on a table is by both legal terms and definition “public.” Moreover, you agreed that a locally scoped response would have been appropriate, but a locally scoped response is also public. It was the scale of response that you had an issue with, and that can’t be squared with your idea that once something is public, further dissemination is no problem.
Your response is internally inconsistent and inconsistent with prior statements. Do you have another try?
Those items don’t warrant a response because we’ve gone over them, I consider them settled, and I don’t buy your rebuttals. How much do we have to go around and round? But out of sincere respect…
1. The comment listed IS used by rape apologists to support their positions. That you think it’s clear is irrelevant.
It’s not irrelevant, because that’s what I think, and that governs what I wrote, and intended to say.
2a. If you’ve admitted it’s unclear to you, then your allegation was improper. I still think it’s clear, and I don’t see a need for that boilerplate you want.
I honestly can no longer follow this. I no longer know whether I said its clear or unclear, and apparently you can’t either
2b. I thought about googling for specifics, but I don’t remember where they occurred, and I don’t know what language I would have used to call it out other than “That’s not what [x] meant”, which I use for a million things. If it comes up again, I’ll be sure to point it out.
Please do.
3b. Kassiane’s statements aren’t dog whistles. It’s a different kind of context.
What? Of course they are, in fact they are dog whistles intended to sic people on me for what I neither said, meant to say, or was construed as saying.
3c. Alexander, Kassiane, and I makes 3. I’d suggest that some readers have given up this battle with you, and that it’s messy to jump in when other people are already making your points. I almost didn’t jump into this one, as I suspected it was going to be a mess. The Black Cat post has Bill, deery, Barry, and Edward Carney making similar arguments to no avail.
And I acknowledge their position. I expected it. It may be a majority position, a minority one, or just a common one. The fact that people disagree proves nothing. I thought you explicity hated that kind of appeal to authority? OK, several admittedly smart commenters disagree with me.
7. You improperly said your rule was an absolute. It’s not. That it’s a clear rule is irrelevant. Your attack on my comparison failed.
UGH. It’s absolute, understanding that there is no such thing as completely absolute. How often I have I written about this? Godel? Incompleteness?
Your argument regarding the news is sophistry. At some point, information is no longer private and need not be treated as such. As a commentator, I have to make a reasoned call about when that is. Wide public distribution is the point I am using. I would not consider a school newspaper automatically qualifying. That’s not rationalization, that’s life. The alternative is to argue that each individual re-publisher of the Pentagon papers is equally culpable after it has been made public by the Times. By then, it’s no longer a secret. When the Times published it, it was.
A note left on a table for a specific reader is certainly NOT public,nor ethical to treat as such, any more than a tip left on a table can be picked up by anyone.
dropped items
If you don’t agree with my rebuttals, show where they’re wrong. None of them have gone round. If you think they have, then you aren’t tracing the subpoints and my actual complaints.
1. Ugh. THe point at issue was you claimed the MRAs don’t use these statements when they do.
Me: 1. The comments you made are comments that are used by rape apologists to support their positions. This isn’t difficult.
You: No, it’s nonsense. Name one.
Me: [H]ere’s an example[.]
You:That’s not an example. It is clear, logical and correct, except to someone determined to misconstrue it.
Being clear, logical, and correct in your mind doesn’t mean it’s not example of what they do. As I said, that’s irrelevant to the subpoint that was at issue. I made a claim of things in set X. You demanded an example from the set. I showed you element Y. You said it didn’t meet the criteria, but for a reason completely unrelated to being in the set.
2a*. I still know what occurred. You said that Kassiane said that rape occurred. I said she didn’t, and the context of her usages of the word rape was clear. Your follow up said her language was unclear. I responded that if her language was unclear, then it was improper for you to assume she was saying rape occurred when it didn’t.
2a**. The second part was about your requirement to say “I’m not saying X occurred here” everytime you use a word describing something that didn’t occur here but is related to what occurred. The way I wrote this part didn’t really require a response. It was a you see it, I don’t kind of comment.
2b. no response needed
3b.
What? Of course [Kassiane’s statements are dog whistles], in fact they are dog whistles intended to sic people on me for what I neither said, meant to say, or was construed as saying.
Uh, what were her so-called whistles? What were they representing? Are you seriously claiming she was trying to hide her meaning from you? Her words were blunt and to the point. She was directly antagonistic to you in complaining to you about your language and trying to tell you the problems with it.
3c.
First, the sub issue that you dropped was your claim that there weren’t enough dissenters for you to consider changing your mind: “And you are outliers. Two readers out of a couple thousand at this point doesn’t have me scrambling for political correctness reeducation.” There appear to be more than just a couple.
Second, this wasn’t an appeal to popularity or an appeal to authority. It was Occam’s razor. My comment: “When multiple people see the error in your language, say that it has meanings you don’t intend, isn’t it more likely that you just don’t understand that context than that we’re delusional?” In language, the context that is understood by people is what the words end up meaning to people. Majority does rule.
7. Your absolute argument was saying that provocation doesn’t matter in your example, but matters in my example. I pointed out that your example had the same provocation issue as mine. You had just tired to define it away. That there are no absolutes doesn’t touch my complaint with your attempt refutation of my example.
News argument
Prior comment: “It’s news when it is published in sufficient media locales that there is no more privacy. Who determines it? Well, I don’t. When it rises to the level of legitimate news, then it is no longer vigilante shaming. This isn’t as hard as you pretend.”
Now: “As a commentator, I have to make a reasoned call about when that is. [Actual explanation of how you make the call.]”
Bold emphasis mine.
Do you see why I had a problem with your previous comments? I wanted to know how you determined something was news. You passed the buck to news agencies completely. You specifically declaimed your involvement. I beat you up about it. That you are now answering my question, doesn’t mean my previous comments were sophistry. You misrepresented what you said and my complaints about what you said.
—
So I finally have the answer to an earlier question: you just kind of decide how public something is. It’s a play it by ear that’s subject to biases (like the circles you are in. There are things that I’ll hear about 10 different times without you knowing about them. To me, they’re very public, but you might consider them private). I don’t like having such a large jump in what’s allowed based on such a subjective line. If X is just below the publicity line, then you can’t comment at all, but when it meets the publicity line, any amount of commenting is okay. That’s part of why I suggested it should be a continuous spectrum of shaming based on part about how much the issue is news.
As a commentator, I have to make a reasoned call about when that is. Wide public distribution is the point I am using. […] The alternative is to argue that each individual re-publisher of the Pentagon papers is equally culpable after it has been made public by the Times. By then, it’s no longer a secret. When the Times published it, it was.
That’s AN alternative. A better alternative would be different levels of culpability based on how much someone expanded the publicity. If X is not intrinsically news, then even if it’s popular, you should avoid talking about it. Now, if the people who are publicly talking about X are getting the ethics wrong, then stepping in to talk about this wrong ethics would be appropriate. The news is the mistaken judgments, not the original action.
“If X is not intrinsically news, then even if it’s popular, you should avoid talking about it.”
That’s crazy. The fact that its being talked about is then the news. If it’s popular, it is prima facie of public interest, ergo, news.
As to the rest, I’m content to let you have the last word, since you obviously feel strongly about your objections to the post. I feel strongly, but its just not worth the time to argue over what was, ultimately, a tangential issue and a quibble about tone and word choice. I’ll keep an eye out to avoid similar perceived slurs in the future. That’s the best I can give you.
That’s crazy. The fact that its being talked about is then the news. If it’s popular, it is prima facie of public interest, ergo, news.
While I generally agree, I don’t think that logic works for you. If being popular means news, then anything that you’d expect to be popular is also news. The pastor’s note is definitely news.
I’ll keep an eye out to avoid similar perceived slurs in the future. That’s the best I can give you.
I think that’s 98% of my goal. I can’t make you see things differently, but if you don’t repeat what I see as mistakes, I’m good.
The obnoxious commenter known as Kasiane has been banned.
Here was her last comment: “Legitimate rape” is the slippery edge you are on, sir. You are still standing by the implication that she should be embarrassed for being the victim of a sexual assault (no quibbling over whether or not it was enough to count, it was a felony) rather than that the fine upstanding young men whose lives she ruined by daring to say something should be embarrassed for being sexual assaulters.Check your male, never been assaulted privilege. HARD. Your post is full of rape apologism dogwistles (those are things that you don’t hear unless you’re primed for them. Like, by being a woman. Or by being a rape survivor. or both). If you don’t like how your post is read, write better.
I respond: “You, whatever you are, are revealed as an idiot, and a vicious one at that. There is nothing in the post or my comment that remotely justifies rape, OR what happened here—but it wasn’t rape. There was no evidence of rape. I can’t control how fools, the intellectually dishonest, “gotcha!” fans and professional victims distort my posts.
I did not imply that she should be embarrassed by being a victim of sexual assault..I stated that she was embarrassed by the photos of her in the process of being victimized, which is natural and factual. You are despicable for suggesting otherwise, and there are no “dog whistles” here.
My writing is clear, and you are either dishonest or deluded to misconstrue it…or both. In any event, your arrogant posturing and unwarranted accusations are rude and uncalled for, and you are a guest here that has breached the rules of engagement. This is why male commentators are reluctant to discuss these issues in a public forum: agenda-driven individuals who feel they benefit by distorting legitimate into “dog-whistles” and bogus claims of sexism.
So get lost. You’re banned. I don’t tolerate accusations that are contrary to my life, my work, my writing and my beliefs, to prop up a paranoid grievance collector like you. Bye. And seek psychiatric help.”
Jack,
Kassiane said the same things Barry and I have been saying. I see a few differences:
1) A claim that you’re writing about something different than what she wants you to write about. You have a legitimate gripe there.
2) An accurate comment about how your language (once you get past the boilerplate) is pretty identical to rape apologists.
3) A specific possible reason for why you’re off instead of hints.
My writing is clear, and you are either dishonest or deluded to misconstrue it
Am I dishonest or deluded? I’m tempted to post your comments (sans boilerplate) on an MRA board, and show you all the positive responses it would engender.
This is why male commentators are reluctant to discuss these issues in a public forum: agenda-driven individuals who feel they benefit by distorting legitimate into “dog-whistles” and bogus claims of sexism.
This is why women don’t speak out. Their legitimate complaints are treated as playing the victim card.
I don’t tolerate accusations that are contrary to my life, my work, my writing and my beliefs, to prop up a paranoid grievance collector like you”
Nobody is saying you’re intentionally doing these things, but you are doing them. That they are contrary to your life, your work, your writing, and your beliefs suggests that you need to change.
I actually like her first sentence. Your inability to see the error you’re making is a first step to making more errors in this area. I think your inherent belief that women are equal to men should limit your errors, but if I was introduced to you with this post, I wouldn’t believe that you actually held that belief.
I know you don’t feel like you’re doing anything wrong, but you are. The inherent bias does not reflect badly on you, but the refusal to deal with it does.
Essentially, yes. Actually, Kassiane is a friend of mine, and came here after I showed her (and a few others) the discussion.
She’s also considerably more reasonable and polite on these issues than most of the people I’d thought to bring this to the attention of. If I’d shown this to most of the rape survivors I know… yeah.
I even referenced that above — before Kassiane got here: “You’re almost lucky that I was the one to call you on it, rather than some of the rape survivors I’ve dealt with (and I say “almost” because you’d probably wind up banning many of them, which has both its up-sides and down-sides).”
Well, the proof is pretty much in the pudding on that.
I am truly sorry that I banned a friend of yours, and as I just wrote tgt, it might have been a little precipitous, but not much. As I wrote him, and you should know if you don’t already, new commenters who come out of the box making accusations, attacking my integrity and making ideological stands are not going to get a good reception from me, and risk getting tossed. I ask for some baseline respect and the assumption of good will as a minimal requirement for posting here. In my opinion, her two comments, taken together, did not meet that standard. Reviewing her last post:
“Legitimate rape” is the slippery edge you are on, sir.
Untrue, unfair, a cheap shot, and a dire insult. And the Olbermannesque “sir” pushes the wrong button with me.
You are still standing by the implication that she should be embarrassed for being the victim of a sexual assault..
This is, quite simply, a lie. I don’t tolerate this kind of debating technique. I never, NEVER suggested this. I suggested that anyone whose photograph is publicize showing them naked and drunk will be embarrassed, and that it is predictable and natural to be so.That is not the same thing, or even close.
Check your male, never been assaulted privilege.
You know, my knee jerk response is “Fuck you!” She doesn’t know me. I’ve had to interview rape victims as a prosecutor. I’ve had close, close friends sexually assaulted. I have championed women’s rights before Ms published its first issue. Don’t play that card with me. Nobody, especially a stranger and guest on my blog, has any right to address me like that.
“Your post is full of rape apologism dogwistle.”
Since I don’t apologize for rape, this is a base accusation, and baseless as well. She’s blowing her won whistles, and balming them on me. Foul.
(those are things that you don’t hear unless you’re primed for them. Like, by being a woman. Or by being a rape survivor. or both).
I object to this lousy debate-truncating tactic, always have, always will, Don’t tell me I have no standing to discuss these issues as a man A cowardly, obnoxious tactic.
“If you don’t like how your post is read, write better.”
And you can start your own, insufferable, politically correct, slanted and doctrinaire paranoid feminist blog.
Next time you point a friend here, Alexander, please tell them to read the rules, about me, and some posts on the topic at hand before they start throwing bombs and defecating on the site. Again, I’m sorry she was your friend, but I am not her soapbox or punching bag. If she wants to apologize and maintain a little respect, I’d be happy to give her another chance—she wouldn’t be the first.
No. I’m not. I don’t object to you or anyone arguing otherwise, and I don’t take it personally. Still, the suggestion that I am sending “dog whistles” for rape apologists is an accusation of intentional misogynist, and I DO take that accusation personally, and it’s out of line…especially by a new commenter. I don’t know how I could have made it more clear: commmenters are guests here. Like any guests, the build up trust and respect as they go. Both Barry and you have written harsh comments that might have gotten you dinged if they were the first comments you wrote. But I know you both now, and you have leave, as do I to be blunt, because your motives are pure, and I don’t feel as if isolated attacks are intended to denigrate or abuse.
There are other aspects of Kassiane that crossed the line.
1. I object to the “I’m a rape victim so I have the moral authority to call you out” crap. It’s a below the belt argument tactic (literally and figuratively), and I won’t tolerate it. Explain what your personal experiences or tragedies have taught you that we can benefit from, don’t hit me over the head with it
2. The “Legitimate Rape” comment was the equivalent of libel, a lie, a despicable insult, and I had made up my mind to ban her after reading that first line. You are arguing, for some reason, that acknowledging that a victim of sexual abuse who irresponsibly made her self vulnerable and a target of such abuse is tantamount to excusing her abusers. I never said that and don’t believe it, but I’m willing to hear you out on it. The Legitimate Rape issue, which I have written about (not that Kassiane bothered to check that before throwing it in my face) involves suggesting that a woman’s conduct can make what is called rape something less heinous, AND that this will result in pregnancy where real rapes were not. Nothing in anything I have ever written thought or said is consistent with that accusation, and to Hell with her for making, it on my blog, in response to a post that wasn’t about rape anyway. To Hell with her. I don’t trust someone who would do that, I don’t respect their debate tactics, I don’t respect their logic, and I don’t want to have to deal with them.
3. One thing that will get commenters banned, I have concluded, is being corrected on a misrepresentation and coming back again and again and using that misrepresentation in subsequent comments. Audrey Potts wasn’t raped. She has never claimed she was raped. The news accounts don’t say she was raped. She was treated horribly, and criminally, but she wasn’t raped. Because of the similarities between her situation and the Steubenville rape, which DID involve rape, lots of people lump them together. But this story was about 1) sexual abuse, which I chose not to comment on, as it is hardly a controversial ethical issue 2) moral luck, on the point that Potts’ suicide didn’t make the abuse and her public embarrassment worse conduct than it was and 3) the inherent wrongness of using devices and methods to make isolated, private, limited audience instances of an individual’s wrongful or otherwise embarrassing conduct far more harmful to the individual that it needs to be. Noen of these involve the topic of rape, or approval of rape, mitigation of rape, or justification for rape, because there was no rape. I pointed that out after the first post, and she came right back with it, ignoring the fact. Might I have given her one more chance? Yes, I might have. Maybe I should have. I was ticked off, and still am. I knew I was going to be off the blog all day, and couldn’t stand the thought of being lumped with Todd Akin and assorted idiots in her next comment without being able to respond, so I banned her. I’m not sorry. I do agree that I was quick on the trigger.
4. Despite what you just wrote, you certainly don’t believe and have never asserted, that writing that a young woman who passes out at a party and and is sexually abused would naturally and legitimately be embarrassed by having photos of her in that state and in the process of being abused publicized by anyone (not just her abusers) is the equivalent of writing that a woman should be embarrassed for being abused. She did. That’s outrageous, dishonest, and another automatic ban, because it is intellectually dishonest, and presumed bad intent on my part. ANYONE is embarrassed to have their naked body shown in a photo. ANYONE should be embarrassed to have a photo of themselves passed out drunk publicized. NOBODY should ever be ashamed to be a victim of violence or sexual abuse. Nothing I wrote blurred any of that.
Just so this comment doesn’t pollute ours—we are arguing whether someone can and should accept some responsibility (and perhaps be embarrassed in the sense of “What a careless, reckless idiot I was. I won’t do THAT again…) for making oneself vulnerable to a crime, and whether acknowledging that somehow minimizes the culpability of the criminals.
Sure, and it doesn’t.
Still, the suggestion that I am sending “dog whistles” for rape apologists is an accusation of intentional misogynist
What she actually said was: “Check your male, never been assaulted privilege. HARD. Your post is full of rape apologism dogwistles(those are things that you don’t hear unless you’re primed for them. Like, by being a woman. Or by being a rape survivor. or both)”. That does not suggest that you intended them. Quite the opposite, really.
and I DO take that accusation personally, and it’s out of line…
Just like the boss thought it was out of line when you accused him of looking at the attractive women more often.
I hope you also have the ability to review your conduct and apologize.
Earn the right to call you on your bad comments.
Noted, and a fair argument generally. I think this thread is a special case though. There were already multiple comments of the same affect with no bannings. A new commenter thinking such comments are allowed seems reasonable. She followed the social cues available to her.
1
1. I object to the “I’m a rape victim so I have the moral authority to call you out” crap. It’s a below the belt argument tactic (literally and figuratively), and I won’t tolerate it. Explain what your personal experiences or tragedies have taught you that we can benefit from, don’t hit me over the head with it
I don’t see where that logic was used. Can you point it out to me? The one spot Kasiane implied she was a rape victim was to explain why you don’t see your dog whistles. I don’t see how you get from that to her using her rape as moral authority to call you out.
2
2. The “Legitimate Rape” comment was the equivalent of libel, a lie, a despicable insult, and I had made up my mind to ban her after reading that first line.
Ooo… I want to see this logic.
The Legitimate Rape issue, which I have written about (not that Kasiane bothered to check that before throwing it in my face) involves suggesting that a woman’s conduct can make what is called rape something less heinous, AND that this will result in pregnancy where real rapes were not. Nothing in anything I have ever written thought or said is consistent with that accusation, and to Hell with her for making, it on my blog, in response to a post that wasn’t about rape anyway.
What is a non sequitur? Oh, this isn’t Jeopardy?
You missed the point completely. Kasiane didn’t suggest you agreed with the horrible legitimate rape comments. That was an example of something that you would think was bad. Kassiane was saying that the unconscious attitude toward women and sexual assault that you put forth is a step on the road to making ridiculous comments about women and sexual assault.
I know you don’t think that you made horrible comments, but pretend for a second they were. The logic becomes pretty clear.
3
3. One thing that will get commenters banned, I have concluded, is being corrected on a misrepresentation and coming back again and again and using that misrepresentation in subsequent comments.
I’ve already noted in a previous comment how she didn’t claim there was rape originally. In this comment, I’ve explained what her two later statements that use the word “rape” meant. Neither suggest that Potts was raped.
This is a mythical offense.
4
4. Despite what you just wrote, you certainly don’t believe and have never asserted, that writing that a young woman who passes out at a party and and is sexually abused would naturally and legitimately be embarrassed by having photos of her in that state and in the process of being abused publicized by anyone (not just her abusers) is the equivalent of writing that a woman should be embarrassed for being abused.
Kasiane’s comment: “You are still standing by the implication that she should be embarrassed for being the victim of a sexual assault”
You have made that implication. Repeatedly. I have said so. Repeatedly. When you claim she’s partially responsible for what occurred, you make that implication.
She did. That’s outrageous, dishonest, and another automatic ban, because it is intellectually dishonest, and presumed bad intent on my part.
I don’t think you had any bad intent. You don’t like the implication and you don’t understand that you made the implication. Kasiane’s comment about you not seeing the dog whistles is evidence that she thought it was unintentional as well.
back on point
Just so this comment doesn’t pollute ours—we are arguing whether someone can and should accept some responsibility (and perhaps be embarrassed in the sense of “What a careless, reckless idiot I was. I won’t do THAT again…) for making oneself vulnerable to a crime, and whether acknowledging that somehow minimizes the culpability of the criminals.
Sure, and it doesn’t.
Responsibility and blame are still entangled. You want to redefine “responsible” to not include blame, but that’s not possible.
I sent the following to Jack via e-mail several days ago. I’m duplicating it here in part due to the revived discussion. Leaving out a brief prelude which had nothing to do with the discussion _here_ (but did have to do with the e-mail I was replying to before segueing into a discussion of this thread) and correcting a point where I accidentally deleted part of a paragraph:
“A few related points:
“1) She didn’t say that you were advancing the legitimate rape argument. She said that “legitimate rape” was the slippery edge you were on. Knowing her, more politely (and precisely) phrased, this would be: “You, sir, are on a slippery slope leading to ‘legitimate rape’.”
“2) Yes, you have privilege in this. Being the prosecutor in rape cases and having friends be sexually assaulted is nowhere near the same thing as having been there. You are also white, male, and a lawyer, all of which are sources of privilege. Two of those (male, lawyer) are particularly relevant in this case.
“The phrase “check your privilege” is used to call out people who (a) possess privilege and (b) are acting in a manner inconsistent with an understanding of the effects of said privilege. She was correct to call you out on this, although she didn’t go about doing so in anywhere near the best or most appropriate way.
“3) “Rape apology”, as a term, includes apologetics directed towards any form of sexual violence towards women, notably including sexual assault.
“4) Dog whistles are audible and extraordinarily loud to some some beings in the vicinity (dogs) but others (humans) cannot hear them at all. When used metaphorically, as Kassiane did, the term refers to things which scream out to some people (i.e. those who’ve been primed or conditioned to notice them) but are innocuous or invisible to others.
“She even explicitly stated this, defining them: “those are things that you don’t hear unless you’re primed for them. Like, by being a woman. Or by being a rape survivor. or both.”
“This isn’t an accusation of rape apologism. It’s saying that your writing contains a number of things that sound like rape apologism to people who are sensitized to them.
“5) Telling you that you don’t hear things unless primed for them isn’t the same as telling you that you have no standing to discuss the topic. It’s not (necessarily) a debate-truncating tactic, and Kassiane didn’t use it as such. Her point there was essentially the same as one that I attempted to make several times: that your article would read as rape apologism to a rape survivor.
“6) Prior to this, I had not read your commentary on the “legitimate rape” affair. I’m almost regretting going back and looking it up.
“Simply put, you show tremendous unfamiliarity with and naivete regarding rape apology and rape apologists. In particular, you show a great deal of unfamiliarity with the assorted rationalizations, myths, and paradigms they use.
“Read these:
“http://feminspire.com/the-dangers-of-rape-apologism-to-a-survivor/ .
“http://www.shakesville.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html
“(And follow some of the links if you really want to be sickened.)
“This was the context of the Akin affair. These sorts of things provide you with an idea of why women’s rights groups find the idea of “fake” rape offensive in and of itself (fraudulent claims of rape, by contrast, aren’t considered fake rape — they’re considered simply not rape at all).
“Of course Akin meant “legitimate” in the sense of “real”.
“The “fake rape” which contrasts with Akin’s “legitimate rape,” however, is not “situations where a woman has consented or otherwise given a green light to intercourse, and later claims it’s rape.” Hopefully you’ve read enough by now to get some idea.
“Or I could just quote Kassianne.
“When I explained your post on that ( https://ethicsalarms.com/2012/08/21/the-akin-affair-a-brief-note-on-being-fair-to-idiots/ ) to her, this was her reply:
“”…yeah uh so that’s not how anyone I know interpreted the Legitimate Rape comment. Instead it was interpreted as “real real rape. Rape rape. Stranger rape.” As opposed to all that fake rape out there where someone gets someone too drunk to say no, or keeps demanding, or it’s your fault they forced you bc you
“”a) went out with them
“”b) were wearing that skirt
“”c) smiled at them, ever
“”d) smiled, ever
“”or whatever. No one thinks that he meant “legal, allowed” rape. They are objecting to the whole concept of “less serious” rape or “not really rape-rape”.
“”Which I am sure you know. But. Wow. Intentional density or even more privilege poisoning than I’d assumed.”
“Obviously, rape apologism exists in multiple variations and on multiple continua. I won’t get into that. I’m also not going to cite further examples — for brevity, as well as for my own sanity. I’ve spent more than enough time and effort explaining this as is and am having nausea issues.
“7) You refer to my friendship with Kassiane in the past tense. I can assure you that this is not accurate.”
—
I suppose that, e-mail aside, I should add an additional point (which I forgot to include in that message):
8) ” I agree that it’s horrific, but I don’t have to salute the flag to be presumed a loyal citizen, and given my product here, I don’t have to prove to anyone that I think assaulting an unconscious drunk girl is unethical, or insult the intelligence of any of the target audience for this blog by writing as though I have to explain to them that it’s wrong.”
This is only partially correct. The reason you don’t have to salute the flag to be presumed a loyal citizen is a matter of context — simply put, most people here in America are (or pretend to be, but let’s not go there for now) loyal citizens. There are relatively few groups fermenting active rebellion, and those that _do_ do so generally fail to have substantive impact on the general dialogue and culture of our nation.
And, of those that _do_ ferment active rebellion, many have patriotic justifications for their fringe belief.
The end result of this is that the presumption that you’re a loyal citizen is a fair (and reasonably safe) one to make.
Whenever there’s a public discussion of a rape or sexual assault, however, rape apologists come out of the woodwork in a way that’s both difficult and extremely disgusting to so much as contemplate, let alone actively describe. Anyone who’s following this case in detail will have seen countless comments saying that the assault was the victim’s fault, that Ms. Pott deserved what happened to her, etc.
And this atmosphere is the context of the post.
The appropriate comparison is not the fact that you shouldn’t need to be seen saluting the flag to be presumed to be a loyal citizen.
The appropriate comparison is needing to be seen making *some sort of patriotic gesture or token statement of what side you’re on* to be presumed a loyal citizen while publicly discussing issues of states’ rights during the American Civil War.