Doing a quick search of someone’s posts is considered stalking now? :dubious: If that’s the case, then we’re all in trouble. Call out the restraining orders!
Thank you.
Go ahead and do a search that cross-references my username with the word “rape” and see if it comes anywhere near as many hits as the same search would result with the user name “Skald the Rhymer”.
This post excluded.
Bolding mine because it’s my quote.
I’m not normally a big fan of the quote-parsing, but it’s needed here:
Doesn’t actually say her “funny” uncle actually raped her per se, I suppose, so presumably OK.
Really, it was only * attempted* rape.
Features discussion of rape.
Features rape.
Features coercive sex. I’m not a lawyer, but reasonably sure this isn’t consent.
I’m starting to feel dirty just C&Ping this stuff. Fine, it’s not fucking rape, it’s only fucking degradation, humiliation and sexual fucking assault. Hoo-fucking-ray.
Does so fucking feature rape. Twice.
Features “Fuck, I don’t need this shit in my head”.
And you’re disputing this, are you?
“The cheese stands alone” can be a trigger for people who suffered bullying as children. But oh, a good, runny Brie is pure heaven.
Made ya look!
I’ve always liked that about you as a poster–sometimes a little freaky, but I don’t recall you getting judgmental on folks who are different from you. There are a lot of folks here who are quite comfortably nestled in their tapestry of socially-acceptable positions and contingencies, and they find it tiresome to explore contradictory positions or, heaven forbid, patiently help someone else along to these same good conclusions. Those people strike me as tedious and unimaginative, and I find their smug attacks on the moral explorers among us remarkably distasteful. Yeah, Skald is an imperfect nutter at times, but he’s not on my radar as a condescending prick. For whatever my evaluation is worth.
Okay, “moral explorers.” Sure, why not. I thought it was a creepy guy jerking off in his basement, didn’t know he was exploring the human psyche.
Quick question, why do you think he spends so much time exploring women being raped and not, you know all the rest of human experience?
OK, I’ll bite. Maybe Skald can work through 98% of what drifts through his mind on his own, but he needs some feedback on the rest? Not “Is X an immoral thing?” so much as “On the scale of [burn in Hell] to [Just Icky], where does X lie?” As for why this particular topic interests him, I suppose that’s his business and he can share it if he wants. Maybe he’s got an imagination that takes him to places he doesn’t care to visit, or maybe he’s seen some really messed up life, or maybe he’s just having a wank at our expense.
Yes, I am disputing that the threads you linked fit either of the two characterizations above. I’m not disputing that the word ‘rape’ is used in some of them, but your milder claim is that they are “stories he’s concocted which feature rape”, not merely that the word or concept of rape turns up in them. Your more extreme claim, the first one, is that Skald posts scenarios that are variations on a theme of ‘in this hypothetical, you have to rape someone to get a good result, would you do it and what techniques would you use’, and none of your examples are remotely close to that.
A hypothetical about how the reader would respond to a virulent racist in which part of the racist’s characterization is that they make a statement typical of racists that includes the racial stereotype that blacks rape indiscriminately is simply not a story that features rape. There isn’t any rape that happens in the story, and the feature of the story is clearly the fact that the person is racist, with the comment serving as characterization. It’s most certainly not a hypothetical about a situation in which the reader is given ‘would you rape this person’ as a choice, or in which techniques for same are asked.
A question about what would prompt the reader not to vote for a candidate where the writer references two public rape allegations (one in the news, one which was in the news two decades ago) where the writer mentions that the candidate being involved in covering up is simply not ‘a story he concocted featuring rape’. It’s a discussion of actual events that have been reported in the news - even if you want to use the word ‘story’, it’s not a story that ‘he concocted.’ And the jump from ‘I wouldn’t vote for a candidate involved in covering up a rape’ to ‘this is a hypothetical where the reader is expected to decide whether or not to rape someone, and then asked about techniques’ is simply completely absurd.
Skald’s hypotheticals touch on a lot of dark topics, and people are certainly free to not like them. But the characterization of him as a deranged basement-dweller posting rape fantasies disguised as hypotheticals while jerking off to the idea of people reading them doesn’t seem to be based in reality, but only in the minds of certain posters.
Huh?
Every panel that contained a “little-known fact” had either two or three links to statements backing them up. Maybe you didn’t recognize them as links because they weren’t in underlined blue text, but were little ovals labeled “*SOURCE #”.
He’s a moral explorer! It’s like if Lewis and Clark decided that instead of exploring North America, they decided to stay in camp and gang rape Sacagawea. He’s a hero, really.
I would think more along the lines of L&C doing a survey of terrain, wildlife, resources, and indigenous peoples, and trying to decide whether their report would be valuable on its face, or if it could instead be used to determine whether the resources were worth exploiting in terms of infrastructure and the cost of white lives in subduing/exterminating the natives–and trying to gauge the net morality of the expedition. Given how things turned out, it may have been best for all involved if they had just stayed back at camp with Sacagawea and left The West a mystery, but they didn’t have the benefit of a message board stuffed with the ethically astute flower of morality to berate any such inquiries.
Let’s just drop the whole trope of these hypotheticals being any kind of genuine intellectual or philosophical enquiry. Like 'em or don’t, but there’s no research question here and Skady isn’t taking furious notes for some treatise.
I’m glad some people can read.
Would you mind providing a link to Skald’s apology post? I can’t seem to find it. Thanks!
Good lord, the lengths that some of you are willing to go to to rationalize away any of what’s been brought up is mind boggling. Some Dopers really do prefer fantasy over facts.
Like “Rape is bad”?
Good grief. What pedantic horseshit. Condemning rape, degradation, and assault isn’t a morally superior position, it’s the position of decent humans. You can use all the ostentatious language you want, but good luck convincing me or a number of others that Skald is some kind of “moral explorer”. If he is, why doesn’t he morally explore subjects that don’t include the maltreatment of women?