Heh…that’s kind of an understatement. 600 posts in nearly 12 years and still a Charter Member.
One would hope that would count for something around here.
This isn’t the first time I’ve seen her decide to ignore the rules in favor of personally attacking someone. She knows she’ll get away with it- even be congratulated if and when she apologizes.
My apologies for not posting earlier – I am completely swamped at work right now, and though I saw this thread when it was started, I decided not to post immediately after reading the “worst mod ever” comment.
What I was responding in the Cafe Society thread to was my reading of the post in question as “okay, so was she like, raped, raped? or is this one of those slap on the ass legality things?” My reaction was, in fact, “what the fuck is wrong with you?”
I should not, however, have said “what the fuck is wrong with you.”
I apologize to devilsknew for inappropriate language, and I apologize to everyone in that thread for not keeping my opinion of what he said separate from my actions as a moderator.
And with that, as is my wont, I’m done commenting on the matter.
twickster, Cafe Society moderator
It was a valid question. I have differing kinds of outrage for battery that is just a plain beating and the kind of assault that is intentionally sexual in nature. It’s still not clear to me whether it was just plain battery that somehow gets classified as “sexual assault” because the breasts are incidentally touched, or was there some indication that the assault was intentionally sexual. What if it had been Anderson Cooper or some other non-breasted person suffering the same beating? Would it still have been sexual assault or just a regular assault?
In the future, you might do well to actually ascertain when your “mod hat” is on or off, and then take it off BEFORE responding as a poster reading a post.
I’ve got to admit, as a journalist the use of the term ‘sexual assault’ in the stories about the incident made my ears perk up. Not in a prurient way, God knows, but in a ‘that reporter isn’t including all of the facts’ sort of way. There’s an enormous unanswered question there and it bumps headlong into an aspect of journalistic ethics that is still working towards a resolution.
Naming a rape victim, even someone who claims to be so, is not often done. That includes victims of ‘sexual assault’ as differentiated from ‘rape’ in many (most?) peoples minds. It isn’t often done unless the alleged victim gives permission.
I infer from the stories being written about it that Logan has given permission for her name to be used but asked for the details to be held in confidence. I may be wrong but given that the stories, cross-outlet, have been written to carefully NOT use the word ‘rape’ or any further details I make that assumption.
As is her right. I would certainly respect it were I there.
However, devilsknew is also perfectly justified in asking his question. To most Americans (I don’t know if dk is American or not, frankly) there is a wide space held under the phrase ‘sexual assault’ that goes from groping and touching to hand under pants and other very aggressive and violent behaviors. However, ‘rape’ as a word is generally reserved for penetrative sexual violence. By using the phrase ‘sexual assault’ in the stories the reporters in question, while possibly having little choice, are opening a new series of questions about what TYPE of sexual assault took place. Had the stories used ‘rape’ the reader (and the public) would know what happened. But to use ‘sexual assault’ the follow up questions are inevitable and should be expected.
So who is married to Derek Trucks?
Twicks or Lara Logan?
That’s what I’d like to know, dammit! 
Q
In addition to this good point, it’s important to remember the attraction exerted on the media by polysyllabic euphemisms, clarity be damned. Under the circumstances of this story, I can’t imagine for a minute that the victim was not truly raped. The media call it “sexual assault” not because they mean to downplay the seriousness of the attack, but because they don’t want to actually say “rape”. There are a number of mechanisms at work here, strictly in my own opinion.
[ul]
[li]Rape is a short, Anglo-Saxon word to describe a horrific crime. Sexual assualt is a polysyllabic word which (a) is more inclusive so it has less of a potential accuracy problem, and (b) has Latin roots, so it must be the way legal professionals refer to the crime. This is supposed to confer an air of authority on the speaker/writer.[/li][li]Obviously it’s a horrific crime and an unpleasant subject. Rape is not exactly a four letter word–except in the literal sense, but why say it on the six o’clock news?[/li][li]And then a lot of crime reporting is vague. How often have we heard of “narcotics” busts without the drug being specified? Some of that relates to my point above–“narcotic” sounds so professional, because isn’t that what the police call it? I can’t fault them for the Latinate roots here, since most of the drugs have Latin-derived names anyhow, but “narcotics”, in this context, seems to carry “professional” gravitas because it isn’t what people normally call the substances involved. (Again, this is just my opinion).[/li][/ul]
A Slate article asks and answers the same question devilsknew raised. There was nothing out of line about it.
Slate, what the fuck is wrong with you?
The example of “narcotics” is apt.
“Rape” refers to a specific act - penetrative assault. “Sexual assault” refers to a range of crimes including but not limited to rape.
“Narcotics” is a specific class of drugs - opiate-based. “Drugs” refers to a range of substances including but not limited to narcotics.
So if the police, or anyone else, is referring to “narcotics” when they mean something like marijuana, they are being (IMO) inaccurate, just as they would be to call non-penetrative sexual assault “rape”.
I am as subject to the moral failing of prurient interest as anyone else, but I am also prone to ask what specifically is meant when people use terms like “narcotics” or “rape” to see if the term is being inaccurately applied.
The subject of the assault should obviously control how much, or how little, of the details appear in the popular press. And I join with the rest of the civilized world in wishing a prompt and full recovery to the reporter in this case.
And kudos to twickster for apologizing as appropriate.
Regards,
Shodan
So, loosely speaking, when I got the occasional butt pinch from my female co-workers in the ER, I was being “sexually assaulted”?
Or worse! I was… asking for it!
The above is meant as satire only, okay? Y’all don’t get your panties wadded up!
Quasi
Woo! I called that shit.
Oooh. Is anyone else in the media as turned on by Spectre as I am?
Actually opioid is the preferred term now, reflecting the fact that they can be entirely synthetic, rather than derived from poppies.
I agree they are being inaccurate, but then for them the key fact about the drugs is that they are “controlled”, meaning that the drugs are strictly speaking legal under limited circumstances. The actual effects of a particular drug are, in many situations, secondary. So “narcotics” is useful as a shorthand term, possibly better than “illegal” or “illicit” which, strictly speaking, aren’t 100% accurate, either.
It’s more the media that I was criticizing by this analogy, because I think in the interest of completeness they should tell us the specifics.
I want to give kudos too to the mod in question, for apologizing.
~heavy czarcasm~
The apology is good and all and I’m willing to admit it might just be my perception, but it seems she has to offer quite a few for her inconsistent and biased moderation. At what point does it become clear that she’s not really cut out to be a mod here?
Cookie!
I’m still waiting for the words “class act” to make an appearance.
I’ve always had this understanding, too, but unless I misread it, the Slate article seems to suggest differently.
Well, I’m just gonna check the box for “devilsknew’s line of questioning was creepy as hell, and I, too wondered what the fuck is wrong with him,” and also the box for “Twickster’s moderation made me laugh.” devilsknew’s first post seemed a bit off-key, as if he didn’t know what the thread was really about, and his persistence made it worse, in a “we don’t know whether she was penetrated, and why the hell do you need to?” kind of way.