Disputing my warning/suspension

[DemonTree]

@Max_S

I don’t know how you dealt with these subjects during the formative years of your moral/political/adult life. Did you just not talk about race or rape with anyone and hope you would turn out okay? Let curiosity die with the cat and have none of it? Seek out an authority figure such as a pastor or parent? Work it out with close friends?

It was far more acceptable to discuss things like this when @iiandyiiii was your age (I think he’s a similar age to me).

[QuickSilver]

@Max_S

I do treat Great Debates as more of an academic, university-esque environment. I do not see it as casual conversation. Perhaps I am wrong to do so, but that is where I was coming from.

The reason I titled the topic that way was because I didn’t want any confusion as to what it would be about. With a sensitive subject like this I don’t want someone who may be a survivor to be intrigued by a vague title and be surprised/triggered that it’s a debate about the morality of rape. I was thinking, it’s possible they might open the topic just as the last post is someone arguing that the woman’s consent doesn’t matter because X, and then maybe the survivor gets that sick feeling that everything is wrong with the world.

Given a more robust understanding of your intent with that thread, I have a better appreciation for where you were heading with the subject. While, like you and everybody here, I find the act (crime!) of rape completely reprehensible, I do not believe that the hypothetical as presented (though highly distasteful to contemplate) to be a subject that ought to be restricted or forbidden from discussion on these boards. Discussing the hypothetical is not to give permission or morally condone the act itself. This often gets lost by those in too great a rush to shut down conversation by claiming offense.

We should be able to engage in discussion of subjects that make us deeply uncomfortable and even offend us to our moral core. As always, those who do not wish to engage in such discussion are free to opt out.

To that end, I think the suspension was unwarranted.

[Gyrate]

@Max_S

MrDibble and I were having a debate about whether aesthetic preferences were bigoted or not. A point came up in that debate: it is never wrong to decline sex. Not even solely because you don’t like the person’s skin color.

So, being ever skeptical, I asked myself, is it ever wrong to decline sex? That lead to the related question, is it ever right to rape someone ? Of course not! My own mother told a younger me, in no certain terms, that rape is always wrong. Well, what if the fate of the human race depended on it?

I answered it, as you know, in the negative. But then I looked at the other side, if I was a woman faced with raping the last man. To be honest I’m not so sure if rape is justified/unjustified in that case. I’m just barely on the no, it’s not justified side. Obviously I am biased since I am male. So it was essential to the purpose of me making the topic that it was gender-neutral, the whole point (for me) is to see how other people approached the question. Pick their brains, see if it changes my mind. That’s what I wanted out of the discussion.

I don’t think the topic is undiscussable. The main issue appears to be the angle you came at it from. Even this:

@Grrr

Why don’t you start a thread asking if the last couple on Earth has a moral obligation to repopulate it?

…would have been a more sensitive and constructive approach, and would likely still have included the discussion about rape while allowing it to be addressed with more sensibility. Whereas jumping right in with “here’s a scenario in which rape might be morally acceptable, even though I don’t think so” rightly earns one a look askance from the moderation and a lot of other posters as well. The board over the years has had a lot of people attempting to promote some pretty morally questionable positions in the guise of purely academic discussion, so it’s not surprising you triggered a lot of people’s suspicions.

A one-day timeout purely to cool off was a reasonable response under the circumstances, IMO. It will go on your permanent record (I assume) but as long as it’s taken as a teachable moment it’ll be a good thing in the long run. And if the mods retroactively expunge it from said record, well, that’s fine too.

[octopus]

Well said.

[Max_S]

@k9bfriender

But, everyone is going to see it, and people don’t know what they are getting into when they simply hit “latest”, and get to see it.

Everyone would see the question, but the part I would think could be offensive is the answer and its rationale.

I think a title such as, “Rape is OK in this situation”* ​would be way out of line. Opinions I read about my topic title match what I would say if it read “Rape is OK in this situation”.

ETA: A person who is offended just from the title is offended that I even asked the question. There is no way I could re-title the topic so as to prevent that form of offense, while still guarding against the title being too vague and people getting triggered when they open it up.

~Max

* not my position

[QuickSilver]

@Gyrate

The board over the years has had a lot of people attempting to promote some pretty morally questionable positions in the guise of purely academic discussion, so it’s not surprising you triggered a lot of people’s suspicions.

I don’t know about you but I believe those are the discussions from which I’ve learned the most. At least two are now thrice told tales that immediately get shut down. I was never a 9/11 Truther or a Holocaust denier, but I lacked the deep subject knowledge to refute some of the more nuanced arguments presented by those that were exactly that. I’m better informed and prepared now to counter those arguments for having taken part in those conversations (which are now restricted on these boards).

[Max_S]

@GreysonCarlisle

Repopulating the Earth [CW: rape]

What does the CW mean here? And the focus of my topic wasn’t really the repopulation of the earth, but the moral analysis behind the decision to rape that last person.

~Max

[QuickSilver]

I read it as “Content Warning: Rape”.

[Gyrate]

@QuickSilver

I don’t know about you but I believe those are the discussions from which I’ve learned the most. At least two are now thrice told tales that immediately get shut down. I was never a 9/11 Truther or a Holocaust denier, but I lacked the deep knowledge to refute some of the more nuanced arguments presented by those that were exactly that. I’m better informed and prepared now to counter those arguments for having taken part in those conversations (which are now restricted on these boards).

They’re specifically restricted not because the topics are too sensitive to discuss but because we’ve discussed them over and over and over ad nauseum. I found them useful too, the first several times. Later on…not so much.

[Max_S]

Hmm, okay. Do (collective) you think it would be less offensive if the topic was titled

“Repopulating the Earth [CW: rape]”?

~Max

[Sunny_Daze]

No

(characters because Discourse)

[Max_S]

@BigT

Your post was challenging a very strongly held moral precept, the one that rape is inherently wrong. If not handled carefully, this will come off as advocating that we no longer view it as such

I used to think rape was inherently wrong. Now I don’t view rape as inherently (or rather, necessarily) wrong. That was the outcome of the thought experiment, and part of the rationale behind making the topic to begin with - because you know, it’s not… safe to think about these subjects on your own without conversing with other humans, or I could end up like Thomas Aquinas.

~Max

[Max_S]

@BigT

Now, I do think your post itself wasn’t as bad as people are reacting, so I suspect it was the title that took it so far. However, that is unfortunately something I cannot comment on, as it was already changed by the time I became aware of the thread.

The original title was “Would you rape the only other person alive?”

~Max

[thorny_locust]

I think the title would be less offensive; but the OP wouldn’t be. So I don’t think just changing the thread title is much help.

If what you want is to have a conversation about conflicts between two moral wrongs: I’d phrase it that way, rather than as a conversation about whether under a particular strained example a moral wrong might become right. And I think it would be better to have two things that are actually acknowledged to be wrong. It’s quite arguable that allowing the human race to finish dying out, given the hypothesis that we’d already destroyed ourselves down to two people, wouldn’t be wrong at all.

@Max_S

I used to think rape was inherently wrong. Now I don’t view rape as inherently (or rather, necessarily) wrong. That was the outcome of the thought experiment, and part of the rationale behind making the topic to begin with - because you know, it’s not… safe to think about these subjects on your own without conversing with other humans

— that’s where you wound up?

I don’t think it is possible to produce an inoffensive thread arguing that rape isn’t wrong.

And I don’t think you’re hearing the other humans you’re conversing with.

[Max_S]

@BigT

imagine if the subject was child molestation. If you asked if that was always wrong, and came up with a scenario where it might not be, how do you think people would react?

I believe I have asked myself and answered that question here, in response to iiandyiiii if I remember correctly. I don’t remember if it was child molestation or actual sex acts with prepubescent children (pederasty), I think the latter. I rejected the premise that it was axiomatically wrong, but given the harm potential (which I think is mostly cultural) and the success of other methods of education than pederasty, I would not defend it. In hypothetical scenarios I’m not sure how I would answer and to be honest I would rather not try.

~Max

[Pleonast]

@Max_S

I’ll never have to experience rape

No one is immune to rape. Two of my male friends came out in the “me too” movement as victims of sexual assault and rape. You may be in a very low risk category, but it can happen to you.

[thorny_locust]

To be fair, I think that’s exactly what Max was saying to a different poster.

[Max_S]

Yeah, I didn’t think so.

~Max

[iiandyiiii]

But there was no debate here. If you have questions, that’s one thing. Or if you want to explore and discuss. But this was presented as a debate, as if both sides of this were reasonable and acceptable, at least in some way.

It’s akin to trying to deliberately come up with the most horrible hypothetical imaginable - something like you must torture puppies or aliens will destroy the earth (and yours is even worse!). That’s not a real debate - it’s a moral gross out contest. Maybe some people actually have fun talking about that kind of thing, but to many others, the very idea is so abominable as to be unmentionable. And for others, it might bring up personal trauma that can be temporarily shattering.

If you’re shooting the shit with your close friends, and everyone trusts one another, etc., that’s one thing. But this is essentially a room full of strangers, and you don’t know what people here have been through.

GD is not for moral gross out contests. If you really have questions about sexual violence, then there’s probably a way to ask them appropriately here (though if your question is anything close to “is it ever acceptable to rape”, then there’s not). But this wasn’t it.

[naita]

@Max_S

But if I apply this logic to other environments… the questions are never asked or answered. Satisfying my personal curiosity is never more important than potentially offending people. I guess that’s your point.

Yes and no, my point was a bit more nuanced than that. There are degrees of offense and utility. A topic like “are there situations where rape is okay?” is both extremely offensive and of low utility. A topic like “is it actually wrong to kill and eat animals?” will be offensive to many, but considering how many people will answer “no” or answer “yes” and ignore that answer because “bacon”, it is a high utility debate.