4 ms·

He deemed it a trivialisation of rape culture and a "misogynist action". I find it worrying how nonchalantly the range of what is considered a transgression is

by 4bpp 12y ago

He deemed it a trivialisation of rape culture and a "misogynist action". I find it worrying how nonchalantly the range of what is considered a transgression is being expanded in feminist circles from fairly universally agreed upon beginnings (rape) to ever higher meta-levels. First, jokes about rape and presumably any discussion that suggests nuances within the range of what has come to be included under the umbrella of "rape", both of which are at least a significant component of what they refer to as "rape culture", were included in it - and now, apparently, so have been jokes about this concept of "rape culture" and presumably any discussion that would involve statements to the effect of "A is a not particularly serious instance of rape culture in comparison to B" . It doesn't take many steps of this sort of generalisation to arrive at a closure of the form "you must not question X, and you must not question the prohibition of questioning X, etc.", which basically amounts to the punchline of those "the worst thing about censorship is [CENSORED]" bumper stickers. One of the reasons the fairly commonplace legal prohibitions against hate speech are not perceived as censorship is that it is perfectly legal to discuss those prohibitions in most countries that have them. This arrangement has been very serviceable as a compromise so far; I can't help but be very unsettled if large traditionally liberal segments of society are cannibalised by a prohibitory movement that deems it insufficient.

dmkolobov 12y ago
The authors opinion about the misogyny of the speaker's trivialization does not carry nearly the amount of weight as legal prohibitions on hate speech. I do not think it's valid to dismiss a community's right to enforce a code of conduct to protect its members within its bounds. Maybe it's my own opinions, but ideally that is how positive social change is implemented. I do not think trivialization of concerns about hate speech would fly in most liberally minded circles either. If you are defending nuanced discussion about the value of rape culture, then I think there are better examples of nuance than this joke. I think a lot of good would come if we stopped using the word "censorship", and just responded to what people actually had concerns with. Censorship is distinct from a dude stating his opinions, and encouraging others to agree with him. (Edit): * defending nuanced discussion about the value of rape culture as a concept
- 4bpp 12y ago
  Eh, if that wasn't clear, I am not claiming that the author's statement constitutes censorship - rather, that statement, in conjunction with the other statements the author makes or very likely would agree with, constitutes an advocacy of it. (Certainly, the author does not merely advocate dudes stating opinions that agree with his.) If we collate them, I believe we obtain something like * Women are underrepresented in organisations which matter, such as in particular open source software development conferences. * This underrepresentation is [at least to a significant extent] due to these organisations maintaining a climate that is hostile or unpleasant to female contributors. * One instance of such hostility are misogynistic statements being made freely [without punitive measures being taken by the organisers in response]. * The trivialisation of the concept of "rape culture" is one such misogynistic statement. Since the leap from the first point being merely about a small free software conference to applying to every forum in which anything resembling a binding political decision is made is natural (if anything, most would argue that proportional representation of each gender in any such forum is much more significant than proportional representation in the free software movement), the complete argument does seem to imply that concept X should not be trivialised in any forum of nontrivial influence - and, as I stated in my original post, concept X is sufficiently recursive already that the upgrade to "concept X, and if F(Y)='trivialisation of concept Y is to be prohibited', F(X), F(F(X)), etc." seems fairly near. (I have used the implication that "misogynistic => to be prohibited in any influential forum" which I would like to believe I derived above in the definition of F.) You are right in that the referenced "joke" is not a good example of a nuanced discussion of rape culture, but it at least feels to me like accepting the proposition that "jokes about (the concept that jokes and nitpicks about $concept are bad) are bad" here is like giving 0.9 miles and expecting the whole mile to not be taken. ("are bad" is to be understood as shorthand for "are misogynistic" and hence "to be prohibited(...)" as above.) (Apologies for what you might perhaps perceive as an unnecessarily tedious writing style; given that this is a very politically and emotionally charged topic, I felt the need to tread more carefully to avoid being erroneously assumed to hold some wildly unpopular opinion.)
  - dmkolobov 12y ago
    I think generalized induction about "contept X" is the wrong tactic here, even though the formalization is for the sake of clarity. The specifics of this case matter. The thing is that "context X", in this case, refers to "rape culture", which at its core is a name for institutionalized systems which support and allow rape to occur. Allowing trivializations of such a term is completely out of line for a community that claims to support inclusivity and diverrsity. I understand that in this way many trivializations of many different "concepts x" could be argued to be not ok. When "concept x" refers to oppressed groups speaking abut the issues that affect them, especially if the issues are ones so violent and brutal as rape, I think this is good. Such things should not be trivialized. Organizations setting limits on what type of discussion is allowed is a good thing, and again, specifics matter. The statement, at its heart, stifles the speech of these groups by trivializing the concerns of those people who are affected by the systems termed "rape culture"( systems supporting violence against certain groups ). The fact that the transition to a more inclusive community involves prohibiting this type of speech is a given IMO, since that speech is precisely what makes for a hostile climate to non-white-guy contributors. Such statements are problematic if the community in question claims to be based on freedom and inclusivity. [Edit]: In general, I think "freedom of speech"( and the implied "freedom to be offended" ), are less important than maintaining a community climate that feels safe for its members.

by 4bpp 12y ago

dmkolobov 12y ago

The authors opinion about the misogyny of the speaker's trivialization does not carry nearly the amount of weight as legal prohibitions on hate speech. I do not think it's valid to dismiss a community's right to enforce a code of conduct to protect its members within its bounds. Maybe it's my own opinions, but ideally that is how positive social change is implemented. I do not think trivialization of concerns about hate speech would fly in most liberally minded circles either. If you are defending nuanced discussion about the value of rape culture, then I think there are better examples of nuance than this joke. I think a lot of good would come if we stopped using the word "censorship", and just responded to what people actually had concerns with. Censorship is distinct from a dude stating his opinions, and encouraging others to agree with him. (Edit): * defending nuanced discussion about the value of rape culture as a concept

4bpp 12y ago
Eh, if that wasn't clear, I am not claiming that the author's statement constitutes censorship - rather, that statement, in conjunction with the other statements the author makes or very likely would agree with, constitutes an advocacy of it. (Certainly, the author does not merely advocate dudes stating opinions that agree with his.) If we collate them, I believe we obtain something like * Women are underrepresented in organisations which matter, such as in particular open source software development conferences. * This underrepresentation is [at least to a significant extent] due to these organisations maintaining a climate that is hostile or unpleasant to female contributors. * One instance of such hostility are misogynistic statements being made freely [without punitive measures being taken by the organisers in response]. * The trivialisation of the concept of "rape culture" is one such misogynistic statement. Since the leap from the first point being merely about a small free software conference to applying to every forum in which anything resembling a binding political decision is made is natural (if anything, most would argue that proportional representation of each gender in any such forum is much more significant than proportional representation in the free software movement), the complete argument does seem to imply that concept X should not be trivialised in any forum of nontrivial influence - and, as I stated in my original post, concept X is sufficiently recursive already that the upgrade to "concept X, and if F(Y)='trivialisation of concept Y is to be prohibited', F(X), F(F(X)), etc." seems fairly near. (I have used the implication that "misogynistic => to be prohibited in any influential forum" which I would like to believe I derived above in the definition of F.) You are right in that the referenced "joke" is not a good example of a nuanced discussion of rape culture, but it at least feels to me like accepting the proposition that "jokes about (the concept that jokes and nitpicks about $concept are bad) are bad" here is like giving 0.9 miles and expecting the whole mile to not be taken. ("are bad" is to be understood as shorthand for "are misogynistic" and hence "to be prohibited(...)" as above.) (Apologies for what you might perhaps perceive as an unnecessarily tedious writing style; given that this is a very politically and emotionally charged topic, I felt the need to tread more carefully to avoid being erroneously assumed to hold some wildly unpopular opinion.)
- dmkolobov 12y ago
  I think generalized induction about "contept X" is the wrong tactic here, even though the formalization is for the sake of clarity. The specifics of this case matter. The thing is that "context X", in this case, refers to "rape culture", which at its core is a name for institutionalized systems which support and allow rape to occur. Allowing trivializations of such a term is completely out of line for a community that claims to support inclusivity and diverrsity. I understand that in this way many trivializations of many different "concepts x" could be argued to be not ok. When "concept x" refers to oppressed groups speaking abut the issues that affect them, especially if the issues are ones so violent and brutal as rape, I think this is good. Such things should not be trivialized. Organizations setting limits on what type of discussion is allowed is a good thing, and again, specifics matter. The statement, at its heart, stifles the speech of these groups by trivializing the concerns of those people who are affected by the systems termed "rape culture"( systems supporting violence against certain groups ). The fact that the transition to a more inclusive community involves prohibiting this type of speech is a given IMO, since that speech is precisely what makes for a hostile climate to non-white-guy contributors. Such statements are problematic if the community in question claims to be based on freedom and inclusivity. [Edit]: In general, I think "freedom of speech"( and the implied "freedom to be offended" ), are less important than maintaining a community climate that feels safe for its members.