Because our society has done a particularly poor job of discouraging sexual violence, and a particularly poor job of supporting survivors of sexual violence, such that, in many cases, perpetrators of sexual violence very frequently believed they were not doing anything wrong, and survivors were discouraged or even harmed if they spoke about their experiences.
This is different than murder or pretty much any other transgression, broadly speaking. For more, start here: Rape culture - Wikipedia
Because of all those things you mentioned, only one is actually incredibly common and therefore any audience you chuck it in front of is going to have a significant percentage of people for whom it’s in no way a hypothetical? Who might actually be right in the middle of an ongoing scenario and might be experiencing sexual violence on a daily basis? Living a nightmare that doesn’t end and they don’t get to wake up from? Experience constant PTSD reactions that make life a living hell?
No, you’re right, it’s MUCH more important that these “discussions” occur anywhere and everywhere you want them to. I mean, fuck those stupid snowflakes and their triggers, right? It’s not like they’re real people with real emotions who might right as we’re discussing the subject actually have bruises and tears or maybe a rape pregnancy going on? No reason we should EVER consider the human, that’s just Beyond The Pale for us Great Intellectuals and our Passion For Discovery.
I must have missed the memo. Are you sure this is a settled question, with respect to the actual rules? Because if that is the case, I am clearly clearly in the wrong for submitting this topic. And at least one other.
There was a hypothetical a while back, buried deep in a debate thread, that probably violated this rule/community standard. I’ve probably talked about rape in over a dozen threads since I joined in 2019, and while I’ve always given the subject a bit more care than say economics, I haven’t ever decided “it’s too offensive to post at all”.
~Max
Doh! I missed your distinction between sexual violence and the… suggestion of supposedly justifiable rape. Had assumed you were talking about rape the whole time.
~Max
I may be misunderstanding but I will point out that men can and do get raped everyday.
The incest, I pointed out myself in that topic post #2 as rationale against. The defects were pointed out in post #3 by Kimstu, I had overlooked that. So by post #3 my whole hypothetical was countered.
~Max
As you have described it, very similar to genital mutilation and foot binding.
~Max
#WhatAboutMen, amirite?
Of course men can and do get raped. But don’t pretend that your fear of being raped by the stranger you see walking toward you, or the date who invited you up for some coffee, is at a comparable level to the fear that women feel every day. It trivializes the experience of women and oozes male privilege to suggest that rape affects the genders in any comparable measure.
Is that the only criteria we’re using, how common it is? I would imagine that the people affected, directly and indirectly, by war probably outnumbers those by rape (although there’s some overlap there) and yet there’s no taboo for discussing the hypotheticals of war or the effects of war.
So I think those people should be able to withdraw themselves from being exposed to this sort of discussion. I would be okay with having an excused absense with discussing such materials in a college class, too. That does not mean that we have to stamp out any sort of discussion about the subject world wide, that it is unspeakable.
If you want a rule on the boards that nothing potentially relating to trauma can be discussed in MPSIMS because it’s a safe space hug fest, so be it. But Great Debates should have the same sort of atmosphere as any other open intellectual discussion. By all means it’s fine to warn people what the discussion is about so they can avoid it, but they should have the responsibility from removing themselves from the discussion, not demanding that the discussion not exist.
I can think of other topics that cause distress in readers. Topics addressing Genocide, murder and amongst some readers animal cruelty. I have mixed feelings about not allowing non gratuitous discussions of controversial topics.
Unless a man is in jail.
Nice excluded middle there, have you contacted Jeff Bezos about maybe renting it out for warehouse space?
For my part, I’m less concerned with whether we should have such a rule, and more concerned with whether the rule is already there. Because I actually got a warning (and 24hr suspension) for being too offensive.
~Max
So, why are you worrying about a 1 day suspension regarding a hypothetical that was deemed gross?
I get being “tense” or “feeling like I’m walking on eggshells” (me, my feelings) when getting Warned or Suspended but… you just admitted your hypothetical went beyond the pale. Personally, I would have asked my “hypothetical post” to be closed after I added “Wow, didn’t think about ABC or D and I’m sorry for glossing over so many considerations.”
(No, I did not read your thread… the connotation was just too icky from the get-go.)
I have no responsibility to facilitate a middle that I’m against. I want Great Debates to be open to all intellectually honest debate that otherwise doesn’t violate any rules. Saying you can do what you want with MPSIMS is not intended to represent the only other alternative, I just said I don’t care what you do with those forums but GD should be protected from such judgements.
You’re no Derek Bell (The Space Traders) or Ursula K. Le Guin (The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas).
But it’s now clear that it wasn’t intellectually honest debate, even if we allow the premise that No Topic™ should ever be off limits.
At first I wasn’t clear on how serious the 1 day suspension was. I thought it was a lot more serious than it turns out to be - apparently the multi-day suspensions are very very bad.
I still don’t think I deserved the warning, though.
I didn’t realize, at the time of the posts I was warned for, that the hypothetical was completely flawed. I had taken incest into account, yes, but my thinking at the time was that future generations would have enough degrees between them that it could eventually be worth it. I made a big mistake in overlooking the genetic disorders from inbreeding, and did not think of that until Kimstu mentioned it, after the posts were already made.
I didn’t really have time to fully process her cite or its implications before the topic was closed, but I may have asked for it to be closed if I had time. I did acknowledge, in-thread and before fully looking into her claim,
I knew there were genetic problems from inbreeding, but I never imagined they could be so severe and commonplace as to rule out repopulation from a single breeding pair. That alone would be enough to counter any desire to attempt repopulation, beyond one generation of children, even if the other person gave consent.
~Max
Remember, we don’t do bright line rules. If you weren’t a regular poster the suspension would have been for trolling and at least a week or a banning.
I don’t think I can explain this clearly enough. Your OP was very much against the rules. The general trolling rules. The big time don’t be a jerk rule. If I thought you were trying to troll, you would be still suspended as the ModLoop discussed your future. Instead, I gave you a day off with a warning to not make such confrontational, troll like threads.
On this board?
If this board had a huge Syrian population, I’d definitely think guidelines like “Let’s not have funsies debates about when it’s okay to use barrel bombs on civilians” would be worthwhile.