5 ms·

I strongly disagree with you. How is encouragement to rape ever acceptable?

by akie 13y ago

tommi 13y ago
I don't consider acceptance to be the criteria for censorship, legality yes.
ghshephard 13y ago
It's not "acceptable". It's horrible. It's despicable. It's disgusting - and the person who posted that picture, and created that picture, should be ashamed of themselves. Absolutely no reasonable person believes, for even a second, that that posting shouldn't be taken down, and immediately, and the person who put it up should also immediately apologize. The question, that is being posed, is whether Facebook should be taking down these horrible, despicable, and disgusting pictures without consent of the original poster. I'm pretty pro-censorship and government control over what people are allowed to post, and see - so I would say, "Yes. Take it down." There are those who are more pro-free speech, who would say, "No, Facebook should not be arbitrarily censoring these images. Leave it up." But - I can certainly understand both sides of the argument. [Edit - For those who believe that Facebook should remove that article, read through https://twitter.com/sammorril https://twitter.com/sammorril, and consider whether you believe twitter should be censoring his posts, for example, https://twitter.com/sammorril/status/307191599543234560 https://twitter.com/sammorril/status/307191599543234560 is one that I reasonably think should be erased by Twitter on the same grounds that the Facebook posting should be erased by Facebook. There's lots of offensive humor that I'm fine with being censored/removed. Your position on this topic doesn't necessarily reflect whether you believe the views being posted are acceptable, but more-so whether you believe central bodies should be arbitrarily dictating what others are allowed to post, and see, and how frequent, and under what circumstances that power to censor should be used.)
- TomGullen 13y ago
  > I'm pretty pro-censorship and government control over what people are allowed to post, and see That's pretty scary.
- dchest 13y ago
  You're wrong: there can be no arguments about pro-censorship or pro-free speech regarding this picture. As mentioned right in Facebook's reply, they already censor content according to their guidelines. The argument is about whether this picture is "bad" enough to censor it.
  - ghshephard 13y ago
    The reason why it's a pro-censorship vs pro-free speech argument, is that almost everyone (for any reasonable definition of everyone) believes in some censorship in a civilized society. The real question then, is not whether censorship should take place, but where the "line" should be drawn. Depending on your feelings regarding censorship, you may believe that crude and objective jokes that you find offensive should, or should not be censored. Depending on their content, I think they should. Those who are more free-speech leaning than I am may state that they are offended by that speech, but defend the person who is making the offensive speech their right to make it.
buster 13y ago
As much as i don't think it's funny, i don't think it encourages raping per se. The picture is just one of those "trying to provoke people" pictures. I've recently been at a comedian show where everyone laughed at very, very offensive and racist sentences. But after all that was the comedians intension. Hard to explain... How is this different?
- CaioAlonso 13y ago
  It says "Tape her and rape her". If this isn't encouraging rape, I don't know what would be then. Just because people are laughing doesn't mean it isn't encouraging horrible behavior by making certain actions seem less disgusting.
  - cabalamat 13y ago
    Genuine question: Do you think Sickipedia should be banned? ( http://www.sickipedia.org/ http://www.sickipedia.org/ )
  - buster 13y ago
    First of all: I don't feel encouraged to rape a woman at all after seeing the picture. Do you?! Second: Do you honestly believe that somewhere a woman is going to be raped solely because of this picture? Third: If you believe that this sentence leads to rapes, you also need to ban every comedy on earth that makes fun of blacks or jews because that would encourage racism. So no Seinfeld (jokes on jews!). No Simpsons (blacks AND jews and about everything). And current comedies like Family Guy, Southpatk or American Dad.. ouch.. that's some offensive stuff in there! Maybe not funny at all for you, but funny for many many people.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    In the same amount the violent video games are responsible for school shootings ...
  - lifebar 13y ago
    "If this isn't encouraging rape," Exactly HOW is it encouraging rape?
officemonkey 13y ago
Please note, I'm not defending the speech, just the right to say it. Well, there was an episode of Mad Men this season where Betty suggests her husband rape the teenager staying in the same house. Sure it was shocking, but I don't recall people asking AMC to censor the episode. I've also seen worse much worse jokes posted on reddit. Perhaps because it's an image macro that people are getting upset.
TomGullen 13y ago
It's attempting to be humorous (badly). It's not intending to propagate the idea that rape is acceptable.
petepete 13y ago
You can't censor humour; it's absurd to attempt to deem some subjects entirely off-limit. No, I didn't find this particular example funny, but that doesn't mean that comedy that touches on certain taboo subjects can't be.
cabalamat 13y ago
Encouragement to rape is bad, because it harms society. Censorship is worse, because it harms society more; if you look at the countries with the most censorship they are all rotten places to live and I expect most of them have higher levels of rape than countries with less censorship.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Are you talking about government censorship? Or about societal pressure to not post deliberately deeply offensive stuff to a place open to 13 year olds and above?
  - cabalamat 13y ago
    > Are you talking about government censorship? Is government censorship really any worse than censorship by a corporation/website? If it's a small website, then one can simply go elsewhere. After all freedom of speech doesn't include the right to an audience. Set up your own website or whatever. But what if it's a big website, one that nearly everyone uses, such as Facebook? Sure, someone can argue: if you don't like the website don't use it and then say because you don't have to use it Facebook isn't being coercive. But with government censorship, one could say: if you don't like it leave the country and go live somewhere else. In both cases there's a counterargument: it's not as easy as that, therefore it makes more sense to regard it as coercive. To my mind governments and large corporations are similar in that both are powerful, and neither can be relied upon to have my interests at heart. Therefore I am wary when either limits freedom of speech.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      Governments can put you in jail if you disobey their censorship laws. Facebook is weird because they removed images of women breastfeeding; and they took some time (and initially refused) to takedown images of women having their heads cut off.

I strongly disagree with you. How is encouragement to rape ever acceptable?

by akie 13y ago

I strongly disagree with you. How is encouragement to rape ever acceptable?

tommi 13y ago

I don't consider acceptance to be the criteria for censorship, legality yes.

ghshephard 13y ago

It's not "acceptable". It's horrible. It's despicable. It's disgusting - and the person who posted that picture, and created that picture, should be ashamed of themselves. Absolutely no reasonable person believes, for even a second, that that posting shouldn't be taken down, and immediately, and the person who put it up should also immediately apologize. The question, that is being posed, is whether Facebook should be taking down these horrible, despicable, and disgusting pictures without consent of the original poster. I'm pretty pro-censorship and government control over what people are allowed to post, and see - so I would say, "Yes. Take it down." There are those who are more pro-free speech, who would say, "No, Facebook should not be arbitrarily censoring these images. Leave it up." But - I can certainly understand both sides of the argument. [Edit - For those who believe that Facebook should remove that article, read through https://twitter.com/sammorril https://twitter.com/sammorril, and consider whether you believe twitter should be censoring his posts, for example, https://twitter.com/sammorril/status/307191599543234560 https://twitter.com/sammorril/status/307191599543234560 is one that I reasonably think should be erased by Twitter on the same grounds that the Facebook posting should be erased by Facebook. There's lots of offensive humor that I'm fine with being censored/removed. Your position on this topic doesn't necessarily reflect whether you believe the views being posted are acceptable, but more-so whether you believe central bodies should be arbitrarily dictating what others are allowed to post, and see, and how frequent, and under what circumstances that power to censor should be used.)

TomGullen 13y ago
> I'm pretty pro-censorship and government control over what people are allowed to post, and see That's pretty scary.
dchest 13y ago
You're wrong: there can be no arguments about pro-censorship or pro-free speech regarding this picture. As mentioned right in Facebook's reply, they already censor content according to their guidelines. The argument is about whether this picture is "bad" enough to censor it.
- ghshephard 13y ago
  The reason why it's a pro-censorship vs pro-free speech argument, is that almost everyone (for any reasonable definition of everyone) believes in some censorship in a civilized society. The real question then, is not whether censorship should take place, but where the "line" should be drawn. Depending on your feelings regarding censorship, you may believe that crude and objective jokes that you find offensive should, or should not be censored. Depending on their content, I think they should. Those who are more free-speech leaning than I am may state that they are offended by that speech, but defend the person who is making the offensive speech their right to make it.

buster 13y ago

As much as i don't think it's funny, i don't think it encourages raping per se. The picture is just one of those "trying to provoke people" pictures. I've recently been at a comedian show where everyone laughed at very, very offensive and racist sentences. But after all that was the comedians intension. Hard to explain... How is this different?

CaioAlonso 13y ago
It says "Tape her and rape her". If this isn't encouraging rape, I don't know what would be then. Just because people are laughing doesn't mean it isn't encouraging horrible behavior by making certain actions seem less disgusting.
- cabalamat 13y ago
  Genuine question: Do you think Sickipedia should be banned? ( http://www.sickipedia.org/ http://www.sickipedia.org/ )
- buster 13y ago
  First of all: I don't feel encouraged to rape a woman at all after seeing the picture. Do you?! Second: Do you honestly believe that somewhere a woman is going to be raped solely because of this picture? Third: If you believe that this sentence leads to rapes, you also need to ban every comedy on earth that makes fun of blacks or jews because that would encourage racism. So no Seinfeld (jokes on jews!). No Simpsons (blacks AND jews and about everything). And current comedies like Family Guy, Southpatk or American Dad.. ouch.. that's some offensive stuff in there! Maybe not funny at all for you, but funny for many many people.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  In the same amount the violent video games are responsible for school shootings ...
- lifebar 13y ago
  "If this isn't encouraging rape," Exactly HOW is it encouraging rape?

officemonkey 13y ago

Please note, I'm not defending the speech, just the right to say it. Well, there was an episode of Mad Men this season where Betty suggests her husband rape the teenager staying in the same house. Sure it was shocking, but I don't recall people asking AMC to censor the episode. I've also seen worse much worse jokes posted on reddit. Perhaps because it's an image macro that people are getting upset.

TomGullen 13y ago

It's attempting to be humorous (badly). It's not intending to propagate the idea that rape is acceptable.

petepete 13y ago

You can't censor humour; it's absurd to attempt to deem some subjects entirely off-limit. No, I didn't find this particular example funny, but that doesn't mean that comedy that touches on certain taboo subjects can't be.

cabalamat 13y ago

Encouragement to rape is bad, because it harms society. Censorship is worse, because it harms society more; if you look at the countries with the most censorship they are all rotten places to live and I expect most of them have higher levels of rape than countries with less censorship.

DanBC 13y ago
Are you talking about government censorship? Or about societal pressure to not post deliberately deeply offensive stuff to a place open to 13 year olds and above?
- cabalamat 13y ago
  > Are you talking about government censorship? Is government censorship really any worse than censorship by a corporation/website? If it's a small website, then one can simply go elsewhere. After all freedom of speech doesn't include the right to an audience. Set up your own website or whatever. But what if it's a big website, one that nearly everyone uses, such as Facebook? Sure, someone can argue: if you don't like the website don't use it and then say because you don't have to use it Facebook isn't being coercive. But with government censorship, one could say: if you don't like it leave the country and go live somewhere else. In both cases there's a counterargument: it's not as easy as that, therefore it makes more sense to regard it as coercive. To my mind governments and large corporations are similar in that both are powerful, and neither can be relied upon to have my interests at heart. Therefore I am wary when either limits freedom of speech.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Governments can put you in jail if you disobey their censorship laws. Facebook is weird because they removed images of women breastfeeding; and they took some time (and initially refused) to takedown images of women having their heads cut off.