Cable?
Pay for View?
Streaming Video?
A challenge wank, though.
Dick Cheney getting raped by a crying Dubyuh wearing that harness from the movie Se7en?
What, no dissenting opinions? OK …
Perhaps someone can explain in a rational manner why it is that being “raped to death” is uniquely verboten to be used in this manner. People routinely use all sorts of other forms of torture in the exactly parallel manner, as hyperbolic quasi-humor aimed at unpopular politicians and celebrities, in these very forums, and rarely if ever attract this sort of reaction.
Or perhaps it’s not being raped to death that’s different here but the context of an allegation that Ms. Trump was actually raped gives it a more realistic flavor, and differentiates it from other uses of this sort. (I don’t think so.)
What gives?
Yes, let’s be rational.
Now, then, to clarify. The question is: what is really wrong, now that we’re being rational, with wondering why anyone would care whether or not this person was raped, because we should all in fact want her to be raped to death?
Well that’s certainly being rational, so that’s something. Only problem is that it doesn’t at all address the question I asked.
The question was “what gives?”
By “what gives,” do you or do you not mean what is offensive about what he said? Because if you’re ignoring the first part of what he said in favor of believing that everyone’s up in arms because of the phrase “raped to death” in the abstract, then I’m so hurt by your irrationality that I will literally die.
Social opprobrium, in response to an over the top remark. IMHO, it’s appropriate here because the remark was made casually in a setting where some fellowship of feeling seems to have been assumed by BrainGlutton among his fellow lefties.
For my part, as a left-leaning doper inclined to “somewhat agree” with most of BG’s oft-expressed concerns, I want to make it clear that casual encouragement of violence against ideological opponents is not OK, however rhetorically or facetiously it’s meant. (Particularly coming from a poster who has railed against the ‘eliminationism’ of crosshair imagery and calls for 2nd amendment solutions. But the poster’s hypocrisy isn’t really the issue.)
I don’t see the difference between the first part and the second part. He meant them both in the same spirit.
That’s a valid response. (Personally I’m not a fan of this type of thing either.)
That does not seem to be the sentiment of most of the people posting here, but if that’s your personal position that’s legit as to your reaction.
Can you expand on how you believe both parts were “meant” by BrainGlutton?
Like Jimmy Chitwood, I’m not getting why you think it’s unusual for people to be disgusted enough by the sentiment that we’ve expressed that? People are pitted for far less, with great regularity.
The rational explanation of why people are offended by that statement is that expressing indifference and/or enthusiasm about a terrible thing happening to someone is distasteful. The worse the thing, and the more… intense… the enthusiasm, the more distasteful it is.
Because bad things are bad, so thinking they’re good is bad, because it suggests you want them to happen, whereas most people think it would be bad. If the bad things happened.
My belief is that you are aware of this general phenomenon, which is why I was hoping to clarify what it is that we’re investigating, exactly.
Why do bad things happen to bad people?
Seriously, BG does this sort of thing all the time. There’s a good chance he’s never had a relationship with someone of the opposite sex.
BTW, FWIW, here’s my theory as to the reaction (in aggregate, that is, not that of any specific person).
I think it’s at least in part a sort of what one might term “political correctness”. Specifically, it’s a reaction to the notion that there is a “rape culture” in which rape is tolerated to an extent to the point where people find actual rape to be less serious than other crimes. And people’s reaction to this is to effectively declare rape to be off-limits as the subject of humor - even where other horrible fates are acceptable - since any such humor is associated with the notion that actual rape is humorous.
I thought I clarified this already. Over-the-top quasi-humorous hyperbole, of the type you frequently see directed at celebrities and politicians that people find odious.
Your theory seems overly dependent on liberals reacting in lockstep to the “rape” part as a political hot button issue, instead of reacting as individuals to the “raped to death” thing as something that’s not actually a desirable punishment, in or out of progressive circles, for someone being rich and shallow.
Jimmy’s theory seems more plausible, depending only on, y’know, basic shared social norms.
Do you see his rape to death on national tv joke as a cause of never having had a relationship with a woman, or never having a relationship as the cause of making a rape to death on national tv joke?
But the problem is that it depends on these basic social norms actually being shared.
The premise of my initial question is that these social norms are not shared, as evidenced by people “wishing” other horrible fates on politicians and celebrities without attracting this type of reaction.
“…without attracting this type of reaction.”
I think you’re just not looking for that type of reaction. It’s usually there. Even in the threads where people are figuratively pissing on recently dead public figures’ graves, there are other people saying how distasteful it is to say so. But, as the guy with the better theory said, the worse the thing is that’s wished on these people, and the more intense the enthusiasm expressed for that thing to happen, the stronger the reaction. Raping someone to death is pretty “worse”, and BG’s assertion that “good and decent Americans” would like to see that is pretty fucking extreme enthusiasm.
And I think you 'd have to be pretty jaded not to see qualitative differences between various horrible fates wished on celebrities.
It may be Fotheringay-Phipps that doesn’t share these social norms. If you recall, he jumped to the defense in the Sandusky/Paterno thread, clearly not grasping why his fellow posters were so outraged at the raping of young boys.
He stayed in the thread much longer than Starving Artist did, accusing us of ‘piling on’ SA and his “Sandusky was clearly just hugging boys naked from behind, and could never have raped a boy in the Penn State showers, no really, try it with 100 naked boys and then with paper towel tubes and … there’s your proof!”
I remember at the time thinking “Doesn’t Fotheringay-Phipps understand that outrage is justified in the case of rape?” And here we are again. Although here his is overshadowed by the Pitee, needless to say.
We all have blind spots, where we have to take others’ wisdom on what’s correct, and adjust our thinking. I’ve had to, as regards what disabilities are open season for humor. I hope B-G and F-P do so here.
Not sure it’s so easy to demark which is cause and which is effect, but it’s not just that one post. There is a whole history of that sort of stuff.
Just want to say thanks for the Pit thread. I never would have read the post otherwise.
Has it been mentioned he also claimed most Americans would also enjoy watching Don Trump be raped to death on TV? That makes it seem like the comment is a bit of rhetoric, something quite common online.