Should "They Were Asking For It"-style rape denial be a moddable offence?

In a Pit thread, Miller says:

With respect to a poster saying that women who choose to drink alcohol or take drugs deserve blame for being raped.

My contention is that this is a level of victim-blaming that is beyond the pale, and should already be moddable as both jerkishness and misogyny. And yes, if it was about “people” rather than “women”, just jerkishness would be fine. There should be no need to point to a specific “don’t say rape victims deserve it” rule.

Being a jerk is an “actual rules violation”, and being a sincere jerk is no defence - hopefully any sort of misogyny will be modded even despite a poster actually being a sincere hater of women, for example, or homophobia would be modded despite a poster being a genuine homophobe.

Either use the “don’t be a jerk” rule where it really, glaringly is applicable, or remove the references to it in the rule if the mods refuse to apply it when it definitely, unequivocally works.

I would like to add that there is precedent for moderation action on blatant rape apologia, in one Starving_Artist.

I agree with both posts so far.

Nope, Didn’t use those words.

Said something similar, meaning something similar, but when you’re calling for modding, and objecting to something that’s in the pit, you have a responsibility to make a distinction between ‘blame’ and ‘responsibility’.

Fortunately, we have a place where you can call people out for what you think they mean, rather than what they wrote. It’s the pit.

This is special pleading. At no time in the history of the SDMB has anyone been required to directly quote someone to discuss why they deserve moderation.

The summary is accurate. A poster revealed they had been raped. @split_p_j’s first response was to ask how it happened. After that was explained, @split_p_j said, and I’ll actually quote:

That is victim-blaming someone who was raped.

If being a weapons-grade asshole directly to the face of a rape victim doesn’t warrant moderator action, then the whole “jerk” prohibition is meaningless.

Didn’t have to.

Distinction without a difference when it comes to rape apologia. Any shifting of responsibility away from the rapist is victim-blaming. And in any case, in that thread, it was blame, not responsibility.

This thread is about the moderation, not the poster. It belongs in ATMB.

I’m waffling about this. The position of the poster in question is repugnant, but as already noted he’s in the right forum for repugnant views and repugnant phrasing of those views, and not obviously trolling or breaking any current rules. Believing something that is deeply unpopular is not in itself a reason to be modded or banned.

On the other hand, there are ways to discuss those views that are not obviously jerkish. So really the only question is whether the individual in question - and, to be fair, those responding to him including me - are being jerks to an extent not permitted in the Pit. The rule exists; it’s just a question of whether it’s being violated, which is what the mods have already been discussing.

Personally I’m inclined to say “not yet”, but it’s getting mighty close to the line.

The Pit is not the “Give any and all bigotry free rein” forum.

If anything, I’ve seen way more repugnant views expressed in GD and IMHO over the years than in BBQ.

I’m also waffling about the position in general. However, his reply to the person who was actually raped was certainly moddable, in my opinion. That was really “being a jerk”.

People are jerks all the time in the Pit, of course, but that one was over the top.

I’d forgotten about that one. Yeah, I agree on that point. I was thinking more about his general advocacy for his viewpoint.

Could you link to that post please, I’ll bump it up to the Mod Loop.

BigT already did, but here it is again:

I don’t think this should be a bannable offense or anything, but a note or warning seems appropriate.

Thanks, I bumped it up. Sorry BigT, I was just glancing through this thread as I have to head out and missed your post.

I’m having a little trouble figuring out exactly what @split_p_j’s position is in that thread. The portion you quoted, @RitterSport and @BigT, is basically as the OP stated, and since it was directed at a poster, I tend to agree it should be moddable under the rules as they are now.

But @split_p_j also seems to be making the argument that the women in the Cosby case (presumably all of them) consented to sex, then consented to taking the drugs, then had sex, and then got mad about it and changed their story after it didn’t help their careers. It’s a weird argument that doesn’t seem to be supported by the facts, but I don’t think it’s a violation of any rules.

And lastly - the very fact that he seems to glide back-and-forth between “they explicitly consented to sex before taking the drugs” and “even having a first drink is implicit consent to anything that happens later” makes me question the actual earnestness with which he holds the position. I’m not as convinced as everyone else that there’s no trolling going on.

Oh trust me, not everyone is convinced of that either.

This is a picture perfect example of what’s wrong with having the Pit. When the board allows posters to use any insults of any wording against other posters yet then suddenly rears back and says, well, not those insults, confusion about the line is inevitable. Being a jerk is existentially part of the Pit. Having after-the-fact gradations of jerkiness in the Pit is Orwellian doublethink. There are Pit rules about what is impermissible. The word “jerk” is nowhere mentioned. Hate speech is banned, but the references are to slurs. Does this qualify as a slur? Not in normal English, but when everything is undefined, who knows?

Now, do I think what split_p_j said was jerkiness? Certainly I do. Do I want the mods to issue warnings for jerkiness? Absolutely.

But they don’t. Jerkiness is not moderated here, even outside the Pit. My reporting of jerks is shrugged off. Only organized campaigns protesting the treatment of certain groups creates enough pressure to issue belated rules. Meanwhile, the “don’t be a jerk” rule is violated daily with impunity.

The Pit is unworkable in its current form. I stay out of it for that reason, so I recognize I have little say in any decisions made about it. Once you mods figure out what constitutes jerkiness in the Pit, though, you need to start applying it everywhere because that problem is all pervasive.

I don’t see how “you were asking to be raped is any worse” than many of the other insults that are allowed in the Pit. Since the pit is where you go to the attack the poster not the post I don’t see anything wrong here.

It is. Because it is shaming someone for going through something horrific. It’s not some nebulous “you are an idiot” or “you suck” kind of insult. It is victim-blaming for something that actually happened to them. It’s as if someone posted how they lost a child who suffocated in a crib and someone else accuses that person of being a terrible parent. That’s waaaay beyond a standard Pit comment.

There are other insults in the Pit that aren’t allowed. You can’t attack someone for their race for example. (I’ve seen that modded recently.) It’s not a 100% “anything goes” place.

Yeah, I agree. The quote above is flat-out victim blaming. I’m not sure whether the rules of the Pit give free rein to all speech like that.

But I think that there’s also some merit to the idea that your actions can contribute to the likelihood or potential severity of bad situations, without necessarily doing any victim-blaming. For example, leaving your car door unlocked in a public parking lot is not smart, regardless of whether or not someone steals your stereo. It doesn’t somehow let thieves off the hook- they chose to steal, but it also is evidence that you didn’t necessarily exercise customary and proper precautions to prevent theft either, which isn’t the same thing as victim-blaming.

I think that’s where the moddable offense comes in; if it’s clearly victim blaming then maybe, but if it’s something less than that, probably not.