"Rape Only Hurts if You Fight It": Backlash against college newspaper satire

I have a t-shirt with that little saying, so there is no disconnect between my conduct online and in real life. In fact I think I am a little more restrained online.

As for Sarah, while I may sympathize with her past experience, that does not mean I am going to modify my behaviour, or expect others to modify these, just so that she will not run the risk of being upset. Should we be banning all depictions of rape in film or books so that Sarah's knees wont buckle and her eyes wont have to well up with tears?

Gotta love people that support rape culture.

Do you have a shirt that says "It sure is fun to molest little kids" as well?

Not exactly, but I do have 2 that allude to it.

ZenAid wrote:

No, we should not ban all depictions of rape, and nowhere has this been stated. Did you read that suggestion in some other thread?

Let me ask you a question in turn: Should there be publication of a depiction of rape as "a magical experience that benefits society as a whole", as a beautiful thing that has many advantages, as an act that "should not only be accepted, but even endorsed", without it attracting the backlash that this article has?

I never claimed that had been stated, which was why I framed it as a question.

I cannot answer your question, as I do not believe it is my place to tell people how they should react to situations. What I do believe however, is that there are no sacred topics. Like art and music, humor and opinions are subjective and people are best served to remember that when they encounter something they take offense at.

Roan,
What drives one to say such things? Why do you do it? Are you just interested in being shocking no matter the cost to others in society? Do you have any boundaries at all, or is everything permissible? I wouldn't outlaw such things -- I believe very strongly in free speech -- but I am very curious as to your personal motivation in saying and endorsing such things. Even if you don't think so, by wearing a shirt like that or the ones you refer to, you are endorsing rape and molestation and that's exactly how it's being perceived.

enigma,

I guess I have reached an age where I finally do not care what people think. Perhaps I am going through some sort of mental andropause? I guess what amuses me the most about some of my t-shirts is the reaction of some people who think that they have some power beyond the fact that they are only words on a t-shirt.

We will have to agree to disagree. It is not that I do not think so, I know what I endorse and what I do not endorse, and words on a shirt do not have the power to make me endorse anything. I have a shirt that says, "Why kill them with kindness when you can use an axe?" That does not mean I endorse murder.

If Raed Jarrar's t-shirt read "Terrorist" in Arabic, would he be supporting terrorism?

If Raed Jarrar's t-shirt read "Terrorist" in Arabic, would he be supporting terrorism?

Perhaps not. But we would be more than within our bounds to ask someone with a shirt like that if they did.

You're more than welcome to wear whatever you wish. Just don't expect people to respect you for it or think that you are some sort of maverick. And when you do talk to a woman that has been a victim of sexual assault, you can explain to her how you were supporting the rape culture that victimized her by treating it as a joke.

Saying the most shocking thing you can think to say isn't particularly difficult, so being amused by your own ability to do so isn't all that impressive.

I know what I endorse and what I do not endorse, and words on a shirt do not have the power to make me endorse anything. I have a shirt that says,

Except, no one else knows what you endorse. Face it: If everyone "thinks" you're an @!$%# because of some blurb on your shirt (or left on Newsvine) -- you're an @!$%#. (Whether you believe you are or not.)

And, whether you believe those things or not, it says a lot about your character that you'd say them anyway -- knowing the emotional distress it could cause someone. So, in my mind -- you're an "inconsiderate" @!$%# on top of being "just" an @!$%#.

Frankly, I hope I'm nearby the day someone decides that you're enough of an @!$%# that you need to be smacked across the mouth or punched in the nose. I'm sure you'll say the reaction was unwarranted -- I'll say that their are no sacred mouths or noses.

When I am wearing my shirt I would welcome the opportunity to explain to anyone how words on a shirt cannot endorse or support anything, much less an alleged culture.

I am not a person who needs other people's respect, but if I do happen to earn it, I would want it based on who I am as a person, not the color of my skin or my clothes.

Brian Ford wrote:

Except, no one else knows what you endorse. Face it: If everyone "thinks" you're an @!$%# because of some blurb on your shirt (or left on Newsvine) -- you're an @!$%#. (Whether you believe you are or not.)

And, whether you believe those things or not, it says a lot about your character that you'd say them anyway -- knowing the emotional distress it could cause someone. So, in my mind -- you're an "inconsiderate" @!$%# on top of being "just" an @!$%#.

Frankly, I hope I'm nearby the day someone decides that you're enough of an @!$%# that you need to be smacked across the mouth or punched in the nose. I'm sure you'll say the reaction was unwarranted -- I'll say that their are no sacred mouths or noses.

Perhaps for you Brian, but I do not allow people's opinions to form my reality.

In my mind, I am better off without the company of people who think they can judge a person based on a slogan on their shirt.

So you are prepared to support violence by proxy, but appear unwilling to take that stand yourself? That says quite a bit about your character.

Wow, if people are this pissed off about a joke on a shirt...You guys should really never go near a comedy club...or read the internet...or talk to a college student. Chances are you will be quite offended.

Also Brian, If you do not see how what you wrote about "I hope somebody beats you up so I can gloat" is also pretty immature, you have blinders on. I am not saying what you said is somehow worse than Roan's comments, but people in glass houses etc.

P.S. My favorite Shirt: Joseph Smith -- Big Pimping

I wish I could post links.

I would welcome the opportunity to explain to anyone how words on a shirt cannot endorse or support anything, much less an alleged culture.

Wearing a shirt like that trivializes the issue of rape, it makes it into a joke. Joking about how funny rape is seeks to lessen it's severity, therefore making it more acceptable. It is supporting rape culture. Whether you want to admit it to yourself or not is of no importance to me, whether this is your actual goal is not important to me. All that matters to me is that you are supporting a culture that is hostile and disrespectful to women with the message you willingly advertise on your body, for a reason as silly as the fact you think it makes you edgy, funny or unique.

Your attempt to compare the clothes you wear to the color of your skin is laughable. You are born with the color of your skin. You choose what you wear. I would not judge someone's character by how they were born. I have no problem judging someone by the choices they make.

Wow, if people are this pissed off about a joke on a shirt...You guys should really never go near a comedy club...or read the internet...or talk to a college student. Chances are you will be quite offended.

I guess I just hold humor to higher standards than "Ha ha, I made you cry, that's so funny!" To me, good humor takes a normal situation and makes it absurd. This doesn't quite work with rape, being that rape is not an absurd situation, it is a reality for many women.

I can't believe you would joke about the discrimination that funny shirt wearers must endure on newsvine. I was once made to cry and told it way funny by Brian Ford. When I read your comment, my eyes welled up with tears and I slumped in my chair. Every February 16, 2007 we are forced to wade through hardship after hardship to fight for our right to party. This issue is very serious to my people.

Do you honestly believe that reading a joke about rape encourages rape?

Does hearing a joke about "how white people walk is different than how black people walk" encourage racial stereotypes? Don't even get me started about the different ways in which we hold the steering wheel!

At this point in his life, my Priest won't even go within a mile of a bar.

In your opinion, Stacy, in your opinion. In my opinion, which is just a valid as yours, it is not supporting rape, or your alleged rape culture.

Admit it to myself? That sounds like you are suggesting that I am in denial because our opinions differ? Disrespectful to women? Only women? My closet male friend was gang raped by four men. I guess my shirt is not disrespectful to him, only to women because more women are raped than men? Your opinion aside, my shirt does not make me anything, it is just a shirt.

I never compared by skin color with my clothes, but while I may choose what I wear, neither can completely reflect who I am as a person; and by judging me on either you are only doing yourself a diservice and that says more about your character than the words on my t-shirt say about mine.

That is, if a Rabbi or person of Polish decent is in the party.

He takes this sort of thing very seriously.

Roan, above you will find the link to the story, as well as the Hartford Courant interview with Sarah, who was raped when she was 15, and couldn't keep her knees from buckling and the tears from welling in her eyes when she picked up a copy of the student newspaper.

This is heart rending AND we can't spend our entire lives wondering if everything we say or do will "trigger" someone. Each person needs to develop some perspective for their own issues and respect for others right not to live in fear of offending them. As a former rape victim, I must wouldn't read that column. But I'm weird, I still nearly collapse with laughter whenever I hear the joke: "Heard about the new domestic violence shelter in Tempura, KS? It's for lightly battered women." ::chortles::

I'm wearing a t-shirt right now that says "Roan is a Dick".

The backside says, "Help stop diarrhea, put a plug in Roan's mouth".

My apologies to everyone else reading this. My tolerance has limits. Please don't be offended.

As Roan himself says, words on a tshirt cannot be construed to have any meaning, and certainly does not indicate that I condone Roan being a dick.

Why are you apologising?

I for one voted for you comment even though I never said that words on a shirt cannot have a meaning; and calling people names is slightly different than general and impersonal statements.

I find it really amusing that someone that claims not to care what others think about them is so invested in convincing me of what I should think about them. At any rate, this will be my last comment on the subject because I've already given you what you wanted, attention. Which is why you post jokes like that, and why you wear shirts like that, right? Because any kind of attention, bad or good, is craved by you? But I digress.

My closet male friend was gang raped by four men. I guess my shirt is not disrespectful to him, only to women because more women are raped than men?

Naw, I don't want to play strawfeminist today. But I have a question about your friend - Do you crack jokes about male rape to him? And there's not need to give me an answer, being that antedoctal. I just want you to think about it.

That sounds like you are suggesting that I am in denial because our opinions differ?

I think that someone that is less likely to be affected by rape is more willing to trivialize it and then not understand why that might not be a good thing.

I never compared by skin color with my clothes,

Really? Because I could have sworn you said:

I would want it based on who I am as a person, not the color of my skin or my clothes.

Sounds like you are comparing the two situations to me.

while I may choose what I wear, neither can completely reflect who I am as a person

I think you are trying to compare two different things here. This example is going to sound a bit cliché, but bear with me, I'm kind of in a hurry. Let's say someone walked into my store and was dressed up like a punk rocker, and I instantly judged them as having all the characteristics that I might associate with a punk rocker. Perhaps my impression of a punk rocker is that they are thieves, that they are up to no good, that they will be rude to my customers, whatever. That to me would be unfair.

But this is not what you are doing, your shirt has a clear message on it, and you are choosing that shirt because of that message. There isn't really a way to misinterpret "I think rape is funny". Understand that I am not saying that the fact you wear that shirt must mean you are a rapist. I'm saying that you wearing that shirt shows an irreverent attitude towards an issue that is quite serious to many people. You can't wear a shirt that makes a joke about rape and then try to convince me that you think it's a serious issue. It just doesn't make sense.

Do you honestly believe that reading a joke about rape encourages rape?

Yeah dude. I think that reading one joke encourages everyone to rape. It really has nothing to do with the aspect of culture and the overall trivialization of rape as a serious issue that I've been talking about this whole discussion.

Does hearing a joke about "how white people walk is different than how black people walk" encourage racial stereotypes? Don't even get me started about the different ways in which we hold the steering wheel!

It really depends on the context. Let me try to make a comparison for you. Take the recent rise of stereotype humor, and let's compare Dave Chapelle and Carlos Mencia. Basically, it seems that Mencia uses the stereotypes to make fun of the people, where as Chapelle uses the stereotypes to make fun of the stereotypes. So I feel that Mencia is actually reinforcing those stereotypes, whereas Chapelle is calling them out.

I'm wearing a shirt right now that says, "Vas uses a picture of a smoking man as his profile"

The backside says, "And he doesn't even smoke"

Vas, I for one am just APPALLED that you would encourage smoking on the youngsters reading Newsvine. Personally, after seeing your portrait I was compelled to buy 3 cartons of cigarettes. I have since smoked them in the last 3 minutes and was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer only moments ago. I left everything in my will to Roan, under the condition that he only buys shirts with wholesome family value phrases on the front. AND THE BACK. I'll be watching from heaven, so none of those innocent looking shirts that twist it up on the back with some funny comment.

Please consider the consequences before you flippantly choose an avatar.

Also Brian, If you do not see how what you wrote about "I hope somebody beats you up so I can gloat" is also pretty immature, you have blinders on. I am not saying what you said is somehow worse than Roan's comments, but people in glass houses etc.

Welcome to the land of missing my point. Please enjoy your stay.

First -- I didn't suggest that someone "beat him up" I suggested that someone slap his mouth or punch his nose because he apparently gets a thrill out of the types of reactions that people have to his shirts that are designed to cause said reactions.

I further stated that he would probably be pretty upset about said reaction -- despite his glee at causing emotional distress to rape victims. I then turned his own words on him in an effort to show how absurd they were. (By stating that their are no sacred, etc. etc.)

Still, I admit that I would enjoy seeing it happen, because I think he comes off as a smug, callous ass and if it's immature to see people like that get put in their place in a manner that isn't going to cause serious bodily harm -- so be it: I guess I'm immature.

Better than being an ass.

Vas, I for one am just APPALLED that you would encourage smoking on the youngsters reading Newsvine. Personally, after seeing your portrait I was compelled to buy 3 cartons of cigarettes. I have since smoked them in the last 3 minutes and was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer only moments ago. I left everything in my will to Roan, under the condition that he only buys shirts with wholesome family value phrases on the front. AND THE BACK. I'll be watching from heaven, so none of those innocent looking shirts that twist it up on the back with some funny comment.

That's a great analogy. The situations are identical.

Sadly, there is no "Post Sarcasm" button.

As Stacy suggests, time to stop waisting our time and breath with these two (or perhaps they are the same person). It's pretty obvious that he doesn't give a @!$%# about anyone but himself. We're just feeding his sickness.

You must be easily amused by nothing, as nothing I have said was intended to change your opinion of me. Yes, you do appear to digress, to a not so subtle attempt at poisoning the well.

You are not listening (or comprehending) very well then, because I did not compare them, just presented them as two examples of ways I do not want to be judged because they are both based on shallow external appearances.

No, my shirt does not say rape is funny and it does not mean that I think rape is funny. I understand that the message of the t-shirt is clear in your mind. Can you understand that others may see a different message, or even no message at all? I disagree that I cannot be serious about an issue if I wear a shirt with an irreverent slogan about the same issue. I am from Africa, and have spent some time in various sub-Saharan countries working to alleviate hunger, yet in your opinion my t-shirt which makes light of starvation in Africa means I was not serious about what I was doing. I will have to respectfully disagree.

You called me out, I'm really just Roan's subconscious...the side of him that is sorry that he made a joke or was creative or wanted to be an individual with his own sense of humor. I'm just overcompensating because I am so ashamed. You should see what he does in the shower.

I actually agree with ZenAid and think we should overturn the first amendment. Only state sponsored Speech and Newspapers for me. The potential damage to people who might be offended by speech is just too great. The "sticks and stones" argument never held much sway with me.

Or maybe, just maybe...I am a socially liberal individual that argues for women's rights and minority rights. Maybe I can recognize a joke as a joke, and assume that nobody in the universe will actually take "Rape is a magical experience" as a real statement of belief. Maybe I know how to take a joke.

I believe my position is that he can say it (wear it) if he wants: It just means that people will think he's an ass, and most likely be pretty spot on with the assessment.

I don't recall being told (by the founding fathers) that we couldn't judge people based on their actions and/or words.

Brian Ford wrote:

First -- I didn't suggest that someone "beat him up" I suggested that someone slap his mouth or punch his nose because he apparently gets a thrill out of the types of reactions that people have to his shirts that are designed to cause said reactions.

I further stated that he would probably be pretty upset about said reaction -- despite his glee at causing emotional distress to rape victims. I then turned his own words on him in an effort to show how absurd they were. (By stating that their are no sacred, etc. etc.)

Still, I admit that I would enjoy seeing it happen, because I think he comes off as a smug, callous ass and if it's immature to see people like that get put in their place in a manner that isn't going to cause serious bodily harm -- so be it: I guess I'm immature.

Better than being an ass.

One question Brian, if you would enjoy seeing it, then why would you not attempt to slap or punch me yourself?

As a side note, I have a very large collection of irreverent t-shirts from all over the world, some way worse than the rape one, which I have been wearing for the last 10 or 12 years. In that time, I have only ever had one negative reaction.

However, in the event that I am ever assaulted for wearing one of my t-shirts Brian, I will report it here on Newsvine with the pictures of my injuries for you to gloat over.

As Stacy suggests,

Agreed -- though, here I must state how admirable it is that Stacy can keep her calm and soundly destroy the oppositions argument through reasonable (yet cutting) analysis of what makes said oppositions points absurd.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again: Thank God I usually agree with Stacy. I'd hate to ever have to argue against her. She makes me feel stupid when it comes to intelligent discourse. Somehow I doubt she's making Roan feel stupid but if he doesn't: He ought to.

Yes, I should feel real stupid just because I do not agree with your opinions.

Hey Brian, which argument of mine was it that she so soundly destroyed?

All of the words that appear under your name were typed by you, right?

Those.

I actually agree with ZenAid and think we should overturn the first amendment. Only state sponsored Speech and Newspapers for me. The potential damage to people who might be offended by speech is just too great. The "sticks and stones" argument never held much sway with me.

Ma! Ma! Get those cows outta the barn! Straws on fire! Straws on fire!

You must be easily amused by nothing, as nothing I have said was intended to change your opinion of me.

That would be pretty convincing if this sub thread here wasn't 30 posts long.

Brian Ford wrote:

All of the words that appear under your name were typed by you, right?

Those.

In other words, you are unable to. No shame in admitting it Brian.

Stacy Malbon wrote:

That would be pretty convincing if this sub thread here wasn't 30 posts long.

Me attempting to show you what I see as flaws in your logic is not the same as me attempting to change your opinion of me, Stacy.

Sorry to get in the way of your circle jerk of compliments here, but if your points are that shirts/saying such as this one make light of rape...great you did it, you figured it out.

If you are arguing that it is an @!$%# thing to say. Score!

If you are arguing that it isn't funny? There is where we part ways.

If you are arguing that shirts/phrases hurt society? You are on your own on that one.

Are you worried that somebody will say "You know what, rape is pretty funny. I bet that girl was just making up her claim of getting raped as a joke. I get it." OR "Oh man, did you hear that Jane was raped by her uncle as a teenager...that dirty old scoundrel! Ha Ha! He gets me every time."

Do you seriously believe that there is nothing that you have ever done or said that would offend somebody? You've never laughed at joke at someone's expense?

Stacy, I know this is your favorite subject and I generally agree with your slant on things in this sphere of knowledge. I guess our senses of humor are just a little different. About the first amendment thing, you do realize ZenAid actually did suggest/imply that, right? I am just getting a jab in at him/her, I know you didn't mention it.

And Brian, you seem pretty angry about this, we are just talking about rape, don't take it so seriously.

I can't follow all this. I don't want to follow all this.

I guess I just hold humor to higher standards than "Ha ha, I made you cry, that's so funny!" To me, good humor takes a normal situation and makes it absurd. This doesn't quite work with rape, being that rape is not an absurd situation, it is a reality for many women.

Just because something is real doesn't mean its not absurd. War is absurd, racism is absurd, sex crimes are absurd. If I had to deal with all these things on a personal and empathetic level I'd be over in the corner right now sucking my thumb.

I can be crude, but does that really mean I'm enabling what I'm crude about? An effort to declaw a horrific action by confronting its shockiness in abstract, absurd terms, does not cause the underlying impulse that causes those actions. Maybe it can enable, but it also allows some people just to cope.

I just wanted to point out that shocking humor isn't always spiteful. It's also very difficult to pull off properly. I can't be sure if the author is a scumbag but he definatly over reached.

This may not rise to the level of satire. It's not on the level of "a modest proposal" by any means. Still, devil's advocate, what seperates people who are outraged at this article and those who are outraged at the prospect of baby eating?

Doesn't this generate awareness of a sort? Wouldn't you already have to be quite a monster to believe that forced sex is "beneficial to society"? I don't want to defend this guy but I've seen at least one female comedian make a well set up and satirical rape joke, and I'm certain she wasn't for the culture of rape.

I can't follow all this. I don't want to follow all this.

Yeah, I can't say I blame ya.

Wouldn't you already have to be quite a monster to believe that forced sex is "beneficial to society"?

I'd think so. But you'd be amazed at how many times people have rationalized rape to me. And one of the ways it's done is to claim that men have a desire to impregnant as many women as possible so blah blah blah... therefore rape is actually a procreational tool - so that's kind of along the lines of rape being beneficial to society.

And most people that bring this stuff up would say that they would never, ever condone rape. But in the same breath, they will say stuff that completely justifies it. The disconnect some people have is strange.

This may not rise to the level of satire. It's not on the level of "a modest proposal" by any means. Still, devil's advocate, what seperates people who are outraged at this article and those who are outraged at the prospect of baby eating?

Because baby eating wasn't happening at the time. Rape is. That's what I was kind of trying to get at when I made the point about absurdity.

The Swift reference may have weakened the overall point I was trying to make.

There are only so many occasions where rape can be discused publicly. Academics, public health programs and serious articles are good settings. Crime dramas, comedy and satire are more questionable but can be useful also. No so sure about the crime dramas, actually.

I think theres a certain framing and context where it can become so absurd that it doesn't seek to rationalize or diminish the reality. In fact I think it *can*, sometimes, be beneficial to bring certain topics to the surface insted of making it taboo or something only for serious sober discussion.

During an orientation at college they discussed rape in one of those sober public health programs. The presenter mentioned that rape is a crime about control, that it's not a sexual crime in its motivation. There was a serial rapist caught in my area recently. His co-workers at the factory said he was a reserved but involved, seemingly kind, considerate family man, but underneath that he was a monster.

If its not done at others expense, isn't it empowering to laugh, perhaps akwardly, in the face of any taboo subject? Isn't it more healthy to be loud about something then to hide it? From what I've seen of tabloid tv coverage of murderers, it's usually the quiet ones, or the arrogant ones. Comedy and satire shouldn't be either.

Wow - what a thread. For the record, I do believe Roan has the right to wear that t-shirt. I also believe that if he does, he should not be surprised or offended when a majority of people judge him based on the t-shirt. It says a lot more about him than it does rape or rape victims. I'm always amazed when people are suprised or offended at the outrage they generate when they insult others.

I am so disgusted I could not even finish this thread. I was already disgusted by the article, and then I see that rape is apparently a laughing matter for people such as Roan. Of course people have rights to wear t-shirts, but since those tshirts could only be interpreted as offensive by the majority of the population, I have to wonder what kind of person would trivialize rape and child molestation so. The author of the column and some Newsviners seem to have in common that they desire attention and get it by preying on the emotions of everybody who's been directly or indirectly affected by rape and child molestation, and everyone who recognizes it as a horrible, horrible crime. As someone who knows someone who was molested as a child, a tshirt which trivializes that comes off as extremely insensitive.

Jeez people, you all need to smoke some pot and chill out. Are you all just fighting for the fun of it and the joy of getting on your respective high horses or was there supposed to be some point to this?

Rape is horrible, child molestation is horrible, I'm sure we all agree on that. Some people have twisted senses of humor is all. If you can't laugh at the sad travesty that is human existence what can you laugh at?

Hey where are your t-shirts from Roan?

http://www.tshirthell.com/hell.shtml

I'm sure everyone can find a shirt here that offends them, and probably makes some other people laugh.

HOW DARE I WEAR THIS GODDAMN SHIRT IN FRONT OF YOUR @!$%#ING KIDS

You'll regret reading this shirt when the sketch artist asks you to describe my face

I STOLE THIS SHIRT FROM A HOMELESS GUY - WHY HE HAD A SHIRT THAT SAYS THIS, I'LL NEVER KNOW

"Good news for Michael Jackson, not guilty on ten counts! The bad news -- he's going to Disneyland!" --Jay Leno

"Michael brought his personal magician into court with him. Good to see this thing doesn't turn into a circus. I guess the magician's job at Neverland was to make the young boy's pants disappear." --Jay Leno

"According to the news, Michael Jackson is broke and can't even afford the payroll at Neverland Ranch. So the next time you see Michael with his hands in a 12-year-old's pocket, he might just be looking for lunch money." --Jay Leno

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blmichaeljacksonjokes.htm

Maybe you've heard them before. Maybe you didn't notice. I did. I'm talking about incest jokes. If you haven't, listen to late night TV, and you will. On one particular late night show, a popular comedian thrives on telling jokes about child molestation and incest. The Mary Kay Letourneau and Michael Jackson stories gave him fodder for his show for several months.

I know that he is just reading what his writers give him, but doesn't he care that there are millions of child abuse survivors out here who think that his choice of humor is insulting and shameful?

This man is profiting from children's pain and suffering! His audience laughs at his jokes. I wonder how many of them are child abuse survivors? I wonder how many laugh while they really feel disgust or even shame?

There is NOTHING funny about trying to survive sheer terror. There is NOTHING funny about being betrayed by someone you loved and trusted. There is NOTHING funny about nightmares and flashbacks! There is NOTHING funny about attempted suicide. There is NOTHING funny about shame, disgust, rage and hate. There is NOTHING funny about a lost childhood. There is NOTHING funny about a child whose spirit has been broken. There is NOTHING funny about feeling guilty for something you were not responsible for. There is NOTHING funny about not being able to trust anyone. There is absolutely NOTHING funny about incest or child molestation! NOTHING! Incest is not a joking matter!

etcetera, etcetera

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/child_abuse_and_recovery/117094

I dunno, they're pretty ok for Leno jokes IMHO. I was molested as a kid, and yeah it sucked and caused me a lot of problems, but the topic's not offlimits to humor for me. When you can only talk about something seriously and can only parrot the official party line on it, you might as well not be able to talk about it at all.

Jeez people, you all need to smoke some pot and chill out. Are you all just fighting for the fun of it and the joy of getting on your respective high horses or was there supposed to be some point to this?

Rape is horrible, child molestation is horrible, I'm sure we all agree on that. Some people have twisted senses of humor is all. If you can't laugh at the sad travesty that is human existence what can you laugh at?

Nice of you to mark those of us who are offended by the editorial or Roan's tshirt as being high-strung and bickersome. This is an issue that stirs passionate anger in most people. Don't expect us to laugh at something we feel shouldn't be joked about just because some people intend it to be funny.

And being offended by a tshirt designed to do so is being on a high horse? If anything, you are on a high horse by telling us how silly we are for being angry.

I laugh at many things. But not rape, and not child molestation.

I agree, songbird. Brian's reaction is the one I was talking about ... why anyone would be surprised that some people are offended is beyond me. Just as it's not my place to tell Roan to not wear the shirt, it's nobody's place to tell someone that they shouldn't be offended by someone making light of a controversial subject like rape or child molestation. I don't really get that.

Personally, I'm not that worked up by Roan's t-shirt - I am not easily offended. The author of the piece at Central Conn. had a right to author the article - I'm surprised it got published - however, now that it did, that article is going to stick with him throughout his career. He's going to have to deal with that himself. Funny - it may stick with him as long as a rape person is haunted by their experience. That would be fitting.

And let me clarify - when I say I'm not worked up, I mean that I'm not consumed with anger and hatred. I do have an immediate, non-emotional, strongly negative reaction. I have come to a number of snap judgments that may or may not be true about the author, and I'll probably not find out if those judgments are accurate. No need.

Those are the consequences associated with affixing a label to oneself in such a controversial manner. It's hard to bounce back from that.

I believe my position is that he can say it (wear it) if he wants: It just means that people will think he's an ass, and most likely be pretty spot on with the assessment.

Agreed.

Mr. Ford, while your idolatry of Stacy is rather thinly veiled, and while the fact that she seems to be barely keeping in her anger about a T-shirt is understandable, her natural leap from "Roan wears that shirt" to "Roan supports rape culture, and must be in denial if he doesn't admit it" is absurd, and has nothing to do with how incisive her analyses are.

Humor is humor. Being offended by humor is fine, and often expected nowadays. Hell, take 10 random stand-up comedians, and chances are that at least 5 of them will have said something on stage that can easily offend more than one person in your circle of friends, and many people would've laughed at those same quips.

Margaret Cho makes Korean jokes and fat jokes.
Chris Rock and many, many others make black jokes.
There's also Carlos Mencia.

How is it that none of these people are ever seriously accused of actively encouraging overt racism and discrimination against the obese, and Roan's comment suddenly makes him a staunch supporter of rape culture?

If it's offensive to you, that's fine. If you feel good generalizing personal opinions (I know I do at times), that's fine, too. But, the horse from which one condemns a person wearing a crude T-shirt as a supporter of rape culture (in self-denial, no less) is no higher than the horse from which one condemns Chris Rock for being racist against... himself.

Roan's shirt elicits an inward groan from me, but that doesn't mean I'll gloat like Mr. Ford when someone decides to sock him in the face. You'd think that someone calling for sensitivity wouldn't blatantly find vindictive amusement in physical assault.

But, speaking of horses, this one seems near death, and beating it with blows of outcry, counter-outcry, counter-counter-outcry, and self-congratulation seems no longer effective.

I think you're misinterpreting Stacy, Jack.

"Support of Rape Culture" doesn't mean that you have to think that "Rape is Great!"

Supporting something can involve making light of it. Trivialize something often or long enough -- and it risks becoming a trivial issue. I'm not going to say that I've never made an insulting off-color comment that -could- hurt someone, but I have the balls to feel like @!$%# when doing so makes someone else cringe or -- if my words and/or a slogan on a shirt were to emotionally cripple someone. (And, I would never do so in a situation where that emotional harm could be severe.) Roan seems to think that his free speech trumps his need to care or be a decent human being in the presence of someone who's been through a terrible, terrible ordeal. (In truth: It does -- most of us are just decent enough to not feel pleasure in the sorrows and pain of others and .)

For what it's worth, I'm supporting Stacy in this argument (and declaring her victory) because Roan's stance seems to be: "I love the look on people's faces when they are shocked and hurt by the words on my shirt."

In my view, Stacy has laid out a detailed analysis of why he might want to reconsider his stance and what a trivial view of a completely non-trivial subject reflects upon Roan. (And, I think he takes it a step beyond viewing it trivially. He leads me to believe that the reactions of people are the whole point and I don't think he has the decency to care that some of those reactions can be very painful.)

I don't suspect anyone will ever sock roan in the face -- but I do think that the feeling of that experience would be less damaging that the feeling of reliving a rape if the victim were to see Roan walking down the street in his shirt. My assumption (based on his comments) that he would later recall with pleasure how that woman was torn apart and an emotional wreck because of something he chose to wear -- yes, it makes me feel as though seeing him get a little taste of that would be a good thing.

Mencia is no Chappelle. He exploits these charged topics for popularity. I don't like his show, and sometimes I feel he's just an ass. I don't think his shows much insight. Nonetheless, he's just depicting the stereotypes and prejudice that's prevalent, and it's clear he doesn't condone it. He at least intersperses his crappier, exploitive stuff with some sincere expressions of disdain.

Roan's t-shirt does not educate or force people to think and reflect in new ways. It isn't satire. It isn't black humor like Heller's or Vonnegut's. It has zero redeeming qualities.

Mr. Ford, while your idolatry of Stacy is rather thinly veiled,

That's just disrespectful and stupid rhetoric. Stick to substantive points, Jack.

Vas,

Do you mean the substantive point of claiming a "winner" in the middle of an discussion and then going to give compliments on how smart, insightful and level headed one of the participants is?

Just so that I can make equally substantive points...

Jack Huang, I am always amazed at how insightful and wise you are when riping Vas' and Brian's points to shreds. They must secretly be angry that your benevolence has decided to come down on the opposite side of the fence here, because you omnipotence is rarely wrong. The fact that they do not yet realize how wrong they are only points to how intelligent your argument must be, and the fact that they do not yet understand it. If they do not yet realize how high-strung they are: they ought to.

You are also great looking and make one hell of a long island iced tea.

Do you mean the substantive point of claiming a "winner" in the middle of an discussion and then going to give compliments on how smart, insightful and level headed one of the participants is?

The middle? The discussion was flogged to death by the time I made that comment and I made my personal assessment of who was making better arguments based on having a shot at reading a pretty lengthy back and forth. I lay out my criteria for an evaluation and if you can point out some arguments made by Roan which amount to more than: "I like to shock people" I'll re-evaluate my stance. His falling back on his "right" to do so is lazy and I feel it was countered effectively by Stacy.

I don't think I'm alone in my view of Stacy and I'm certain that I'd need a few more hands to count the people who hold her in high esteem on Newsvine.

Mr. Ford, while your idolatry of Stacy is rather thinly veiled, and while the fact that she seems to be barely keeping in her anger about a T-shirt is understandable

Wow, great "thinly veiled" way to hit on the two major ways to discredit a woman. Thanks for the disrespect, man.

her natural leap from "Roan wears that shirt" to "Roan supports rape culture, and must be in denial if he doesn't admit it" is absurd, and has nothing to do with how incisive her analyses are.

The context in which Roan made his joke is what gives me that idea. I didn't dig through Roan's closet to find his shirts, I didn't see Roan commenting on a different thread and jump on him there. What happened here was that there was a discussion about rape going on here, Roan came into this space and made a rape joke. To do that during an ongoing discussion seems to be an attempt to trivialize the issue, what would the purpose of doing so be?

Did Roan seek out a rape thread, rub his hands together with glee, and post the joke because he wants to support rape culture? Probably not. But that doesn't change the fact he did trivialize the issue, that downplaying rape is a means to support a culture that already has a large lack of concern over the issue. And not only that, we aren't even talking about rape anymore, are we? We are talking about Roan, which is what I'm assuming his actual goal was. See how that works?

I actually wish I hadn't even taken up the shirt thing. But it just strikes me as odd that Roan expresses a surprise that if he's wearing an offensive T shirt, people might actually take offense at that shirt and this might reflect poorly on him. This mindset and his defense of it was very odd to me, so I took it up.

Anyway - Do we show up on threads regarding genocide and makes jokes? Do we show up on threads regarding hate crimes against people of color and crack black jokes? Most of us would not, because we understand that these are serious issues, and that space should be allowed to discuss them. I don't understand why rape would be any different. Yet for some reason, it is.

As far as Roan being in "denial". What I actually said was this:

I think that someone that is less likely to be affected by rape is more willing to trivialize it and then not understand why that might not be a good thing.

And I stand by that. I honestly don't see it as any different from the white guy that claims racism doesn't exist anymore because hey, he never sees it, and plus he has the luxury of not having to think about race. It is easy for us to trivialize the things that we have the privilege of not concerning ourselves with.

Humor is humor. Being offended by humor is fine, and often expected nowadays. Hell, take 10 random stand-up comedians, and chances are that at least 5 of them will have said something on stage that can easily offend more than one person in your circle of friends, and many people would've laughed at those same quips.

This is not a comedy club. This is a thread about rape.

Margaret Cho makes Korean jokes and fat jokes.

Margaret Cho happens to be Korean and has dealt with weight issues.

Chris Rock and many, many others make black jokes.

Chris Rock happens to be black.

There's also Carlos Mencia.

I actually posted a blurb about Mencia's humor above, contrasting it with Dave Chappelle's humor, and what I see to be the difference. There's a difference between using humor merely to shock people, and using humor to shock people in order to make a point. I don't feel Roan's joke was aiming for the latter, I feel he was just trying to be an ass. I feel that vas actually covered this pretty well above.

As far as Roan being in "denial". What I actually said was this:

I think that someone that is less likely to be affected by rape is more willing to trivialize it and then not understand why that might not be a good thing.

And I stand by that. I honestly don't see it as any different from the white guy that claims racism doesn't exist anymore because hey, he never sees it, and plus he has the luxury of not having to think about race. It is easy for us to trivialize the things that we have the privilege of not concerning ourselves with.

So was the South Park episode where Ike sleeps with his kindergarten teacher offensive to everyone here? After all, it's about child molestation, so apparently if you laugh at that episode you are trivializing child molestation and supporting 'child molestation culture'.

I laughed my ass off at that episode. And yes, I was molested as a child. The fact that things suck does not mean you cannot make jokes about them. Walling them off as verboten is more damaging in the long run in my opinion.

Stacy Malbon wrote:

The context in which Roan made his joke is what gives me that idea. I didn't dig through Roan's closet to find his shirts, I didn't see Roan commenting on a different thread and jump on him there. What happened here was that there was a discussion about rape going on here, Roan came into this space and made a rape joke. To do that during an ongoing discussion seems to be an attempt to trivialize the issue, what would the purpose of doing so be?

Wrong Stacy. There was no real context yet, as despite your incorrect allegation, there was not yet a real discussion taking place when I made my statement. There were only 5 posts in a separate thread prior to my comment, discussing freedom of speech and satire, not rape. Your version of what happened here does not coincide with reality.

And not only that, we aren't even talking about rape anymore, are we? We are talking about Roan, which is what I'm assuming his actual goal was. See how that works?

Another incorrect assumption. The only reason we are talking about me, is because you and others attacked me personally. You could have addressed the statement, but you choose to address me. So by your logical I can now assume that was your actual goal, to talk about me. Thanks Stacy, I never would have guessed you to be a fan of mine.

But it just strikes me as odd that Roan expresses a surprise that if he's wearing an offensive T shirt, people might actually take offense at that shirt and this might reflect poorly on him. This mindset and his defense of it was very odd to me, so I took it up.

What utter nonsense. At no time did I express surprise that my shirt may offend some people.

This is not a comedy club. This is a thread about rape.

No, this is a thread about a controversial op-ed piece about rape.

I'm not sure that it's an apples to apples comparison, Brian.

South Park almost always include a moral punchline -- by the end of the episode, if you're laughing at the Mormon kid, they let you know that it's @!$%#ed up to do so -- even though it seems as though the whole episode is set up to poke fun at Mormons.

People tend to forget that the episode about Catholic Priests and Molestation spends an equal amount of time talking about the @!$%# spewed out of the mouths of atheists.

Roan's shirt is a punch to the gut without the benefit of a moral punchline. At any rate (to me) it's not the shirt that is so offensive -- it's the callousness with which he doesn't care "who" is affected by it or what it does to some people -- so long as he gets the benefit of enjoying their reaction. He's so wrapped up in his "right" to wear the shirt, that he doesn't care about (possible) serious ramifications.

Some people like to divert the argument away from themselves by turning it into a debate about rights and freedom of speech. I don't think anyone (yet) has said that he can't wear the shirt. It's been said over and over that his attitude towards the ramifications is the problem.

I would also note that I can choose to watch or not watch South Park. Roan left his comment like a bomb in the middle of a bustling street corner and he -wanted- this explosion. Because, he seems to be the kind of guy who craves (needs?) attention.

Happy Birthday, Roan.

Rape jokes are not an apples to apples comparison to child molestation jokes? Dude there's no difference other than the fact that in the second case one of the people is known to be young.

Did you even bother to read and/or attempt to understand my comment? I said the delivery and intent of the jokes themselves are not an Apples to Apples comparison.

It's very similar to the above debate about Carlos Mencia and other similarly-themed comedians.

I'm not sure how you managed to think that I was saying that rape and child molestation are not similarly @!$%#ed-up transgressions, if you actually read my comment.

Carlos Mencia is a weak minded joke thief, according to Joe Rogan.

Joe Rogan vs. Carlos Mencia

It's the thread that won't die!!!!

Brian White - I actually do think child molestation jokes are offensive in the same way, but again, it really depends on the context. I haven't watched that episode of South Park yet, I'm just going on the jokes that surfaced when the Catholic Church was under fire. The only South Park episode I can think of is the NAMBLA one, and they made it pretty clear at the end that child molestation was wrong. Plus, I know what to expect when I watch South Park.

At any rate - context, context, context. There's a difference between telling a joke in a comedy club and telling one on this thread here. And there's a difference between humor that makes a point, and humor that is without substance and only meant to offend.

Roan - I'm curious what about the article and the ensuing discussion screams "Comedy Club" to you? Because I'm not seeing it. In fact, what I see is an article about someone that did use rape as a joke and offended a great number of people, and the ensuing controversy that surrounded it because of that.

But why don't you just clear this up for us and tell us why you posted it. Because to me, it appears you were trolling. And being that you seem to like attention like that (as evidenced by your claim that you dig wearing offensive TShirts), I just don't think that's an unreasonable guess. But you are welcome to correct me by explaining what your goal was here - why you decided to come here and post that joke, and what you hoped it would accomplish.

Stacy, I am curious why you always appear to twist what I say? What I am not seeing is where you get the idea that the article or this discussion screams "Comedy Club" to me.

Throughout our entire discussion you have misrepresented what I have said, attempted to poison the well, and made assumptions for the sole purpose of bolstering your opinion; and then adroitly avoided any counterpoints I have presented.

I posted the comment, because like the article it is absurd, and I thought the absurdity of the comment was appropriate given the tone of the article.

Your guess would not be unreasonable if that was what I had claimed, but once again Stacy you are misrepresenting me. I have never claimed that I dig wearing offensive t-shirts.

Actually Brian you committed the cardinal sin of using a pronoun without first having used an antecedent, which just always causes confustion. You merely said "it" without identifying what "it" is. You then went on to talk about South Park but I didn't see what you were trying to say - I assumed "it" was rape vs child molestation. That said

He's so wrapped up in his "right" to wear the shirt, that he doesn't care about (possible) serious ramifications.

That's what a right is, isn't it? You don't have a right to do something if you have to check with the people around you first.

You do realize that the article wasn't about a real rape and was actually about satire, right?

And that Roan then posted a joke (in a new thread) in the comments of an article that was about a form of humor, right?

What exactly is the disconnect there?

Again, No rape has occurred, no serious discussion about rape itself has occurred in any of this discussion. The discussion has 100% been about if satire about rape can be funny or can only offend. Or if the ludicrous idea of "rape culture" actually exists.

What do you want from me, a signed paper saying that I will never rape anyone? A promise that if any of my friends ask if me if rape is a good Idea...that I will advise against it? A link to an article saying that the number of rape cases per capita has declined almost every year since 1979 and is at an all time low (down 89% since 1979)?

I think it is pretty clear here that it can be funny, as the 4-5 people in this thread saying that it was funny can attest. Why exactly does humor have to have moral values again? Sometimes the chicken just crosses the road.

Stacy, I am curious why you always appear to twist what I say?

Oh fine, let's talk about Roan some more, because this accusation is getting old.

I'll give you the rape discussion one, I was wrong. However, I guess I expect that the people that comment on the articles actually read the articles, and this article is what is framing the discussion - it is about how the "satire" piece is offensive. Upon reading the article and the resulting comments (which like you said, was based on free-speech), I fail to see where your joke applies. I see that you're basically doing the same thing the guy that wrote the editorial did. I don't see see the point you were trying to make. I just see you reading that the guy offended a lot of people by it, and you decided to jump on that bandwagon. I am not impressed.

Comedy Club - Also, a large portion of this thread is talking about jokes in the context of a comedy club vs a serious discussion on Newsvine. You were the one that told the joke, I'm asking why you feel the atmosphere was right for that.

Expressing surprise at people being offended at a T-Shirt: You sure you want to take this one up? Because it's an example of where you deliberately misquoted me. You focus in on the line:

"But it just strikes me as odd that Roan expresses a surprise that if he's wearing an offensive T shirt, people might actually take offense at that shirt..."

...and leave out the rest of the sentence in order to skew what I'm saying:

"...and this might reflect poorly on him."

You claim to wear a T-Shirt that can be seen as very offensive to some, and when people react to it by pondering why someone would wear a shirt like that, you play victim. You compared it to racial discrimination, for crying out loud.

Comparing judgments made on your choices to discrimination about people of color: I quoted the line.

I have never claimed that I dig wearing offensive t-shirts.

Ridiculous. Do you wear these shirts or not? You claimed you did. One would assume that people wear these shirts because they like doing so, because the like the reaction they cause. But perhaps you were forced to wear them or something. Who knows at this point.

Throughout our entire discussion you have misrepresented what I have said, attempted to poison the well, and made assumptions for the sole purpose of bolstering your opinion; and then adroitly avoided any counterpoints I have presented.

What relevant counterpoints have you presented that I didn't take up? Just because I didn't answer them how you would like me to doesn't mean I did not address them. You asked how the joke can support rape culture, I answered that, which you have ignored. But you can list them, and I will look at them.

I posted the comment, because like the article it is absurd, and I thought the absurdity of the comment was appropriate given the tone of the article.

Okay, so you thought it was "appropriate" even though the article was about the offensive taken at this kid's satire piece? That seems a little strange, but let's follow it up. Can you answer the whole question? What you hoped posting that line would accomplish?

Stacy Malbon wrote:

Oh fine, let's talk about Roan some more, because this accusation is getting old.

I was actually talking about you, but here you go making me the topic of conversation again.

I'll give you the rape discussion one, I was wrong. However, I guess I expect that the people that comment on the articles actually read the articles, and this article is what is framing the discussion - it is about how the "satire" piece is offensive. Upon reading the article and the resulting comments (which like you said, was based on free-speech), I fail to see where your joke applies. I see that you're basically doing the same thing the guy that wrote the editorial did. I don't see see the point you were trying to make. I just see you reading that the guy offended a lot of people by it, and you decided to jump on that bandwagon. I am not impressed.

Sorry to disappoint you Stacy, but people are not always going to behave how you like in the real world. Good thing I have no interest in impressing you.

Comedy Club - Also, a large portion of this thread is talking about jokes in the context of a comedy club vs a serious discussion on Newsvine. You were the one that told the joke, I'm asking why you feel the atmosphere was right for that.

I never told a joke, I made an absurd statement and none of my messages remarked on that line of reasoning, so if that is what you meant to ask I am confused why considering I was never part of the discussion you mention.

Expressing surprise at people being offended at a T-Shirt: You sure you want to take this one up? Because it's an example of where you deliberately misquoted me. You focus in on the line:

"But it just strikes me as odd that Roan expresses a surprise that if he's wearing an offensive T shirt, people might actually take offense at that shirt..."

...and leave out the rest of the sentence in order to skew what I'm saying:

"...and this might reflect poorly on him."

You claim to wear a T-Shirt that can be seen as very offensive to some, and when people react to it by pondering why someone would wear a shirt like that, you play victim. You compared it to racial discrimination, for crying out loud.

Comparing judgments made on your choices to discrimination about people of color: I quoted the line.

Sure I want to take this one up, and the alleged comparison to racial discrimination. No, I did not misquote you, if you go back and read what I typed you will see your sentence in its entirety. Yes I did focus on the fist part of the sentence, not that it makes any difference. I have not expressed surprise at either the fact that people would be offended or that it would reflect poorly on me. So now you are wrong about two things, not just one.

I never played victim, and nowhere have I ever compared judgments of me based upon my clothes to racial discrimination. Once again, please read what I wrote. As I have already explained to you; I did not compare them, I just presented them as two examples of ways I do not want to be judged because they are both based on shallow external appearances.

Ridiculous. Do you wear these shirts or not? You claimed you did. One would assume that people wear these shirts because they like doing so, because the like the reaction they cause. But perhaps you were forced to wear them or something. Who knows at this point.

Yes, I do wear such shirts, but I do not consider them offensive. Absurb, pithy, sardonic, and perhaps even witty; but not offensive to me.

What relevant counterpoints have you presented that I didn't take up? Just because I didn't answer them how you would like me to doesn't mean I did not address them. You asked how the joke can support rape culture, I answered that, which you have ignored. But you can list them, and I will look at them.

The second and third paragraphs of my post #2.27
The second paragraph of my post #2.56
The fact that this is not a thread about rape like you claim.

Okay, so you thought it was "appropriate" even though the article was about the offensive taken at this kid's satire piece? That seems a little strange, but let's follow it up. Can you answer the whole question? What you hoped posting that line would accomplish?

To be clear when I said article, I meant the original article not the seeded one. To be honest I did not post the comment with any specific intent. I read the original article the seed was about, and that phrase was the first comment that came to mind. So I typed it; and as they say, the rest is history.

Doo be doo be doo...

Yes, I do wear such shirts, but I do not consider them offensive. Absurb, pithy, sardonic, and perhaps even witty; but not offensive to me.

You can replace "offensive" with any of the above, it doesn't change the point I made.

The second and third paragraphs of my post #2.27

Okay.

You are not listening (or comprehending) very well then, because I did not compare them, just presented them as two examples of ways I do not want to be judged because they are both based on shallow external appearances.

Covered this, I quoted it above. You are indeed comparing, you claim they are "both based on shallow external appearances". However, like I pointed out above, there's a difference. I just feel that your attempt to equate the two is dishonest, a means of throwing in an accusation of something I am most defiantly not guilty of.

I understand that the message of the t-shirt is clear in your mind. Can you understand that others may see a different message

Can you?

I disagree that I cannot be serious about an issue if I wear a shirt with an irreverent slogan about the same issue.

And I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you on this. What I'm more concerned about is the fact that you made light of it on a thread that was being serious. Take the same situation, satire and all, and replace "rape" with "genocide". Would you have made the same type of comment?

The second paragraph of my post #2.56 The fact that this is not a thread about rape like you claim.

Just covered this one in the above post, admitted it was my bad. I don't really understand your reply to it though.

To be clear when I said article, I meant the original article not the seeded one. To be honest I did not post the comment with any specific intent. I read the original article the seed was about, and that phrase was the first comment that came to mind. So I typed it; and as they say, the rest is history.

At this point we are just going in circles, playing semantics and misrepresenting the arguments. Not to mention, you haven't really addressed the things I did bring up, such as things I pointed out in posts 2.14, 2.15, and 2.22, instead you were stuck on the "You can't judge me by my shirt" thing. So we'll just have to disagree, say Marilyn made a good point, and make this history as well. I'm out.

That's what a right is, isn't it? You don't have a right to do something if you have to check with the people around you first.

Hrmph. You're really trying hard to miss the point, now. I've said over and over that he has the right to do it. (And "cardinal sin" or not, my comment clearly didn't make -any- correlation between rape and child molestation.)

Everyone has the right to be a dick. Most people choose not to exercise that right because -- well -- most people don't want to come off like a dick.

All I've ever said throughout this entire thread (other than my opinion that Stacy happens to be arguing more effectively than Roan) is that Roan made the comment because he knew it was a dick thing to say. Parsing his numerous comments -- it seems clear that he doesn't make a distinction between who he makes this sort of hurtful comment to (in fact, it appears that he gets a thrill out of the hurt it can cause some people) and in my book, that makes Roan a dick.

I would also like to restate the gist of my first comment: Saying the most shocking thing you can think to say requires the intellect of a toddler.

Beyond being a dick thing to say -- it isn't even all that clever.

Gals, guys, have you taken a look look a little further down (#3.4 to 3.7) at my discussion with Roan. If you have, you've seen that we had a civilized discussion, with Roan deciding to put away the t-shirt. This discussion up here could have been directed at the article, rather than a fellow Newsviner. I, too, was upset at first, but by calm discussion we were able to learn a little about and from each other.

"There are some things that just aren't funny, and rape is one of them," Griffin said. "I mean, what's next? The Holocaust? Slavery? There's nothing funny there, I'm sorry."

I am sorry too, but that is only his opinion, to which he is entitled. However, I hope he does not expect the rest of the society to agree with his opinion.

Hi Roan. While I support your right to free speech, I think you might change your mind about the rape t-shirt if you felt yourself personally in danger of being raped. For example, if you were in prison with only that t-shirt, would you wear it? After how many rapes committed against you would you find that those words have the power to hurt?

Context is important. The pen is mightier than the sword. If you felt at risk of being raped, I'll bet you'd find another saying to wear. And if you asked all the women you are close to if they have been raped, and if they were honest with you, you'd find way too many have been raped for you to want to joke about it, if you care about them.

Marilyn, you are correct on both accounts. I certainly would not consider wearing that shirt in prison; and being South African I have the unfortunate experience of knowing far too many people that have been raped.

Current estimates from the SAPS have a person being raped in South Africa ever 85 seconds, while most activists believe that it is every 26 seconds.

In my opinion my shirt does not make light of their personal tragedies, and thus far it has not lost me any friends. Although, I do admit, it does not appear to have made me any friends here on Newsvine.

Roan, I consider you a friend. I'm trying to understand your viewpoint. Thank you for understanding mine. I don't like to see you become the brunt of anger at the author of the rape editorial who was initially being discussed.

My concern with all of the current discussions about censorship is that 'the pen is mightier than the sword'. I believe in the power of the word, whether written or spoken, and I believe we all need to step back, take a breath or two, and consider what that means to us. Not to beat each other up, but to remember that people are moved to incredible actions on the basis of words, thoughts, ideas. For both good and evil. So, I believe we ought to learn the power of words before we use them to punish, to shame, to scapegoat, to hurt others and ourselves.

Thank you Marilyn, I do appreciate what you are trying to do here.

In retrospect my initial comment was ill-advised, given the current topic and the fact that few here have met me in person or know me well enough to make an educated judgement of my character based upon more than the 4 words in my initial post.

Your last paragraph has struck a note with me. I do not have an answer to it, because I agree with what you are saying. All I can say is that some of my shirts will now be relegated to nightclothes. Thank you for making me smarter.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere!

In college and for a few years after I worked in child care centers, at a time when men in child care were few and far between (the '80s -- well, they are still few and far between). I've always been against corporal punishment, but in college I was veered strongly toward anarchism and favored anarchist approaches to education (e.g. Tolstoy's Yasnaya Polyana and Ferrer's Modern School). My friends knew how passionate I was in my criticism of the use of punishment and fear to raise and educate children.

So once in a while, being the irreverent guy that I am, I'd make some crack like "That lady just needs to wack that kid upside the head" when I observed a child behaving in a way that uptight people would consider "out of control". There was no doubt to my friends that this was mini satire. I never made such a remark around anyone who didn't know my real feelings. Why? Because too may people really, really think what I said in sarcasm, and are only encouraged when they hear the words or see the actions of others that appear to be in agreement.

You're t-shirt, Roan, might be funny and even have therapeutic value to others if you were a rape victim, a known feminist or anti-rape activist, and wore it only to feminist and anti-rape gatherings where everyone knew you. But even in that case you should respect anyone who came up to you and told you your t-shirt made them feel pain or sorrow, and take it off.

For every funny shirt Roan does not wear, I will wear two.

However, since the shirts are not translucent, the effect will be the same as wearing one.

Such is the irony of the universe.

<snark>
vas I cannot believe you support child smacking culture.

whoa I typed sensible there... 'as sensational' would be a better description

God I need sleep

I feel the same way I feel about all arguments that go along the lines of "OMG WOMN R CRZY GBITCHS & LIE ABUOT RAPE ALL THE TIME!!!111!!!" in a culture where 1 in 4 women are victims of sexual assault and the majority of rape cases are never fully prosecuted.

Simply - What an @!$%#.

The guy that wrote that is the news editor, so editorial oversight is out the window. I agree with the both of you.

(The guy that wrote that tries to say something 'edgy' every week but usually just comes out looking like a dick... as Brian noted earlier, saying the most outrageous thing you can think of isn't particularly difficult)

Some people just don't know when to quit, huh? I mean it's so clear that they are wrong and they are just making the same old tired arguments to try and defend their actions over and over and over again. I read through this whole long list of comments, and that just about summarizes it.

But let me tell you. Rape should never ever even be talked about (let alone joked about). It is an awful twisting of the natural course of sexual action, and as we all know, sex is not a proper subject for jokes. To joke about a thing trivializes it and there is no more sacred act that human beings are capable of than that of sex. Sex is the cause of all human life. If you joke about sex then you joke about life, and as we all know life is a deadly serious occasion.

Child-birth is a very painful experience for both the mother and the child. This is when a new human being forces his way out of the uterus. It is so devastating that most people do not even remember their own births. They simply block it out.

Now think of rape victims who deal with the exact opposite experience. The thing is so terribly traumatic for them that they cannot stop thinking about it. They've been violated, their human rights trampled upon. Their minds just keep looping around the occasion over and over again. It is almost absolutely humanly impossible to move on from something like that. A poorly written humorous article for a school newspaper can cut away years of progress toward the person's recovery from the gravity of memory and trauma.

When a person steps over the line and mentions rape, sex, war or violence that only increases human acceptance of these things as actual reality, and regresses the progress that people who have gone through them have made toward separating themselves from their memories. It takes away from the respect of the perpetrators of these crimes against society and the fear that they have so rightly earned.

The greatest unifying force in man is a common enemy. When we are all struggling against the same thing then we are all made one, made part of the same organism. The same army. Unified. But that union is only as powerful as its opponent. The union is of course the antithesis of, the mirror image to, the thing that it is created in order to destroy. Thus its qualities increase and decrease in parallel.

If the enemy is not viewed as strong in a war, then how can we view ourselves as strong? If the opponent is not viewed as worthwhile in a sports event, then how can we view our participation in that event as being worthwhile? On that note, if a rape victim is not consumed in absolute bleak seriousness by the event to the point that it shapes his entire life and perspective on the world from then on out… then the whole lesson of the rape is lost. And then what would the point of suffering through the rape and its after-effects have been? What good would it have done?

Exactly Yuriy, Exactly. I'm glad somebody had the insight to call a spade a spade.

If we even mention rape we are encouraging it and making it socially acceptable. We should probably just get the news stations to stop reporting on it, maybe even strike the offense from the criminal record of the offender, so that they are less likely to remember they did it.

Also, don't the rape victims deserve to be treated with kid-gloves and not given a normal life? I for one won't even treat a rape victim the same ever again. Or even look them in the eyes, for fear that my penance stare could insight terrible memories.

------------
On an out of character note: Wow man, how long did that take you to write? Did you copy that from somewhere. It has a lot of funny bits, I am still digesting it!

When a person steps over the line and mentions rape, sex, war or violence that only increases human acceptance of these things as actual reality, and regresses the progress that people who have gone through them have made toward separating themselves from their memories.

Yuriy, you're completely insane. You think we should all pretend something doesn't exist and never mention it because it's unpleasant? We shouldn't talk about war because it might make people feel bad? @!$%# that, people are dying in agony, that's something that needs to be talked about. Reality is never improved by ignoring it.

Sorry, let me say that that attitude is what I find objectionable. Yuriy I do not know.

I don't see any other way to function in this world. God put us here and now we must see through the cage. The only way to do that is by placing everything that upsets us on a great pedestal with which we could climb through the bars of the cage.

Imagine, for a moment, that we do not mention war, that no one were to mention war. Would we be wasting our time right now with a war in Iraq? Well, I'd never have mentioned it. Now imagine that no one mentioned rape, retardation, or child abuse. These things would simply slip away into the realm of the unmentionable. Like cloth covers for genitalia.

And those who mention these things as if to make them jokes only serve to make their place in our society firmer by increasing their gravity and their general acceptability. When someone makes a joke about the war in Iraq... for instance John Kerry when he was told to tell all of those children that they had to do well in school otherwise they'd wind up in Iraq... he not only worsened our ability to fight the war in Iraq, he made that war more real by mentioning it, and less worth fighting by making light of it. When someone makes a joke about child abuse and rape I am hard pressed to stop myself from running out and finding the first man woman or child I see and...

And anyway. Making jokes about situations that should not exist only makes them exist even more. It makes light of them. And, unless you're some kind of madman who does not know the laws of physics, that causes an equal and opposite reaction. When you make light of a thing it decides that it must become heavier. Just to be contrary.

Physics! My nemesis, you are the real villain in everything. Finally unmasked!

Its like in Superman. God would enjoy Superman because it takes the story of his son and makes him appear more powerful. Like when you get your picture taken, you cross your arms and put your fists under your biceps so they look bigger. Or if you put a sock down your pants on prom night.

Anyway, no matter who Superman (Jesus) was fighting at the time, the real villain pulling the strings was always LEX LUTHOR (PHYSICS).

Did you know that you can take the letters of "physics" and perform mathematical computations on the letters until they spell "Satan"? I do now.

puglas... puglas... puglas... What you have to realize is that physics don't actually exist. Like biology, geology, and chemistry, physics is merely a study of some of the world's processes. The natural world is not bound by the laws of physics. The laws of physics are bound by the natural world. Physics is just like a sketch of all action in the world.

Therefore physics can be applied to anything. As in this case, physics is not bad, but rather good in that it allows us to understand what is happening when a joke is made and the world is worse off because of it.

Yuriy, you seem much more likely to ignore pressing problems and make them worse than to make them disappear with your approach. Did Marting Luther King talk about racism? Yes, and his words reduced the actual presence of racism. It's the thing itself that must be gotten rid of, not talking about the thing.

That said, jokes about otherwise un-funny situations can exist outside the realm of poor taste. Richard Pryor and Dave Chappelle have demonstrated this

No, not really. I'm not a Richard Pryor expert, but Dave Chappelle uses humor to point out what's wrong, not in spite of what's wrong. It has a positive purpose. That's what satire is.

And there's humor that helps lighten things, to reduce stress and pain -- to laugh at the very thing that kills you. Laughter can be and probably exists because it can be the best medicine.

But the only person that can laugh at flippant rape humor, or at any kind of rape humor without a simultaneous feeling of revulsion, that trivializes rape, is a cold and insensitive person.

I can laugh at anything. If I didn't, I'd go insane. People deal in different ways vas.

Some people deal by becoming serial killers.

Exactly, you see they don't laugh enough.

Cool. I'm compiling anecdotes for an article about Libertarianism ultimately being the worship of selfishness, about its stubbornly extremist belief that the individual is so supreme and sacrosanct that nothing should ever stand in its way. That every Libertarian I've met so happens to be born into a situation that would fare way, way better than the average human on Earth would fair under a Libertarian regime with its uncomprimising ideas about the free market and private property isn't an issue because, after all, to a Libertarian sacrifice and deference to others is a betrayal of the divinity of the individual anyway. @!$%# everyone else! You get what you deserve! If you're life sucks, don't look at me, you only have yourself to blame. You got raped? Sorry to hear that honey. I've never been, but I sure love a funny rape t-shirt! Get's the blood flowing, great for the heart. Gotta live long! Anyway, rape's just a word. The act itself is natural, Darwinian. Look at the noble beasts in the wild, the original Libertarians. You never see a doe complain long about being taken forcibly by a the most powerful stag -- pretty soon she's sired a fawn that's clearly benefits from the superior genetic material. Feel lucky that you didn't fall for some wimpy buck.

Ayn Rand would be proud! Robert Heinlein would shed tears of joy, except he's busy thinking about himself. Every man (and woman) for themselves! Oh, how noble! How free!

Your disagreement with my political views doesn't bother me. You assuming that I'm selfish because of those views is rather annoying. You assuming I've had some kind of golden life because of those views is utterly preposterous, it's more of a horror show than any kind of charmed golden life. As a child my family was just barely above the federal poverty line. As a child I was also molested. In the past year I've lost my wife (murder), my grandmother (amyloidosis), and my uncle (cancer).

This is completely unrelated to the fact that I don't believe there is any such thing as 'rape culture'. 'Rape culture' exists exactly as much as 'arsonist culture', 'mugger culture', 'murderer culture', etc. When people do horrible crimes and the blame is put on what amounts to peer pressure, I call bull@!$%# on that. Rapists are @!$%#s. Child molesters are @!$%#s. Murderers are @!$%#s. And the responsibility for their crimes is all with them as individuals. And yet I can laugh at a South Park episode that's about child molestation. The fact that you can't doesn't mean I'm some sort of inhuman monster just because I can.

They are more moral views than they are political. I never assumed you had a golden life. I said neither "you" nor "golden life" in my statement. My point is that Libertarianism rejects the interconnectedness of people and their actions, believes that its 100% nature and 0% nuture, and so cannot avoid resolving down to a philosophy of "me first".

I'm sorry to hear about the suffering you have and continue to experience. But I am not surprised that someone of your background could adopt such a world view. I hesitate to get into a personal discussion here on Newsvine, so I'll leave it at that. If you want to continue, let's do it over email.

You make a solid point. Every word that anyone says can and should be taken at face value. I know that if I see a person who is wearing a shirt that say, "Help stop rape. Consent." My immediate reaction is pure, undiluted revulsion. This person is saying one thing and one thing only, that he believes that it is a woman's own fault if she is raped because she did not consent. He is saying that he believes that it is fully in a woman's, or a man's for that matter, that it is fully in the power of the victim to stop rape by simply saying it's not rape, but consentual. He is saying that rape is indeed a good thing and a natural course of action for anyone whose sexual overtures and advances are turned down. Not only that, but he is making a direct attack on the modesty and prudence that this great nation in which we live was founded upon. To interpret it in any other way would not only be folly, but in direct confrontation with both good sense and reason.

He is saying nothing Yuriy. You are reading everything into it. Your diatribe tells me much about your viewpoint, that shirt says nothing in particular about the wearer's viewpoint.

Dear god tell me you're being satirical, little brother, or I'll have cause to whack you one for taking yourself too seriously.

And,

Not only that, but he is making a direct attack on the modesty and prudence that this great nation in which we live was founded upon.

Sorry, where in the constitution was that one? I know public schools suck, but... :-P

Yurij, you are truly the next great messiah for the human race.

Do you have any words of wisdom on the war? taxes? How to treat children?

There is so much I need to learn before you are nailed to something by your opponents.

Satire is a terrible thing old brother, you and I both know this, I think. There is no lower form of humor. It takes a point of view and twists it in to something objectionable. The satirer does not even believe what he is saying! In fact he is making an attempt at being humorous! How absurd, how disgusting, how deridable is that?

If everything is not taken entirely seriously and interpreted exactly as it sounds, then what is the point of living? What is the point of living if everything is not absolutely serious? What is the point of living if nothing is held sacred? Every note of laughter is an insult to God himself. Would you dare to laugh at God? Are you some sort of Godless heathen? Our mother raised you better than that, I think.

puglas if you look a bit higher I teach about war, and touch upon children. However I have not yet made any mention of taxes.

Taxes are the tithe that we owe to our government for the right to live in our country. Roughly two-thirds of our bodies are water. All of the water in our bodies actually belongs to the country in which we live. Therefore we should pay two-thirds of the money that we make using our bodies in which the water belonging to the state is necessary for our proper function.

Of course people who have more money should pay less. That just goes without saying.

Anyway, we should pay two-thirds of our money to the people who control us because really we're renting the hydrogen in our bodies from them. No one can own air, so it must be the hydrogen.

Children are uninformed vessels empty of any redeeming wisdom. As such anyone who hears a child speak is affected adversely by the occasion, as it actually works to lessen his resolve to live in the world of adults, instead of the purely silly, tantalizing, world of the care-free child, and the only way to keep from being swallowed by it is to mock, lie to, and ultimately patronize the child. And this care-free world that children live in should be hemmed in at all times. They should be forced to work long hours, making worthless things just so that they get used to it for when they are adults and have to work longer hours making useful things. Things like water meters so that the amount of money that other adults owe to the government for the water they are renting can be more accurately assessed.

My children haven't left my basement in 4 years. The money I make from the wallets they make isn't much. But there are more important things in life than money, you know?

You should see them, they are really quite cute...little wrists all handcuffed. Shackles all jingle-jangling.

I really spoil them.

And well you should. While staying within the bounds are society's laws you should treat children as well as you are able. That is just simply balance. Society mandates that a person is not really a person until the age of eighteen and therefore they are really just property, and the only purpose of property is to generate money. The purpose of money is to give to the government so that we can afford to keep renting the water that's in our bodies from them. You do pay the two-thirds tax on all of it correct?

Satire is a terrible thing old brother, you and I both know this, I think. There is no lower form of humor. It takes a point of view and twists it in to something objectionable. The satirer does not even believe what he is saying! In fact he is making an attempt at being humorous! How absurd, how disgusting, how deridable is that?

The scores of people who think "A Modest Proposal" (or the Daily Show, or Canada's "22 Minutes") is intelligent, witty, and incisive beg to differ. Of course, your original comment maybe satirically commenting on the absurdity of deriding satire, but if not, you should take your brother's advice.

Satire, very simply, is presenting an argument in favor of an idea that you do not support. How is it then any different from a simple, cold, calculating lie?

Sir, do you propose to tell me that lying is not wrong? That somehow it is good? Surely then either you yourself are being satirical (how dare you accuse me of such a thing!) or else you are an unscrupulous person of malintent.

Anyone who outwardly supports a thing while inwardly deriding it, inwardly cursing the stupidity of the faction that he supports and hoping against hope that his words might be seen to ring true to the opposite of their apparent meaning, anyone who would bold-facedly and with seemingly sound logic argue against his better judgment in favor of an idea that is both absurd and unreasonable to his mind, anyone who would say such words, or wear a shirt with them written on it... anyone who would do something like that should have his front door broken down and be dragged out into the street and brutally violated, just as he has so clearly violated the sanctity of the honestly and clearly written word that rather than bringing his uncertainty should instead bring only certainty in a certain set of views and express only one idea. And that idea must always, always, always, be one that he believes in and that he can use to represent himself. For what are things but the labels that surround them, and what are our labels but the words that surround us?

Yuri,

why not check out my comment 1.2? I don't think satire is the lowest for of humor (please note I am not using "low" as in "low comedy" which is a literary definition). I think the term satire is used too broadly, Not all oppositional humor in bad taste is satire. Not all of it is humor, for that fact. It can be argued that if it's purpose is not corrective, then it is not.

Dave Chappelle - satire.

Sarah Silverman and Carlos Mencia - not satire, or less than successful satire, IMO.

Dear Sweet Miss J,
You are absolutely right. Satire, in order to be considered good, must seek to correct vice. Vice of course is the things that other people do that we disagree with.

But, here get this, all humor can be considered corrective, whether you find it funny or not. To correct a thing is to change it, no? Change it for the better. And so now we must define better, since even the slightest action has an effect and to have an effect is to cause a change.

Well, vaguely speaking, Jesus's definition of better would be to have everyone love each other a little more, unconditionally, and unconditionally judge each other a little less. Rockefeller's would have been any to have more money in his hands and less in those of his competitors. Hitler's would have been to have no Jews, a lot more Germans, and the entire world under his control. I tend to like Jesus's idea the best, myself, but even so I'm sure others would disagree with me. Some people's idea of better, it would seem, is to have everyone be a little more careful about what they say and a lot more vindictive towards those who aren't.

Perhaps the writer (Petroski was it?) perhaps his idea of better was to have people pissed off. In which case, judging from the comments of people of the sort that I mentioned before him, he was indeed successful, and if success can be said to be the measure of worth then his article was in fact good.

Of course, I didn't much care for the article myself. In my opinion it wasn't very good. But if we are to look objectively it accomplished exactly what it set out to do: show that people didn't care what was written in his paper unless it was something they could rally around. Come on, you can't deny the irony in that. And you also can't deny that it made a very real point and so it could very well fit into the spectrum of satire.

And so when you say that Chappelle is good and therefore he's allowed to give his work the sacred title of satire, what you really mean is that he's funny, makes you laugh, and you like his idea of better. When you say

Sarah Silverman and Carlos Mencia - not satire, or less than successful satire, IMO.

you are really saying one of three possible things. That you don't find them funny. That you do find them funny but they don't make any point. Or that you know better than they do what point they are trying to make and for some reason they're just not good enough to make that point. And of course who is more qualified to judge a person's intent than other people?

I prefer my definition of satire to Robert Harris's. It's a lot simpler. Whenever a person argues in favor of a thing that they are against that's satire. With that statement I condense his definition and tear down the unnecessary walls. Beg to differ?

How can a person argue in favor of something that he is against without intending to give some sort of moral lesson? The very fact that he is against it indicates that he has a moral stance on the issue. How can a person pretend to be for something while actually being against it without some measure of wit and cleverness?

As for saying what a true satirist is, well that's just lifting up an unnecessary wall, isn't it? What imperator of satire first defined what it is to be a satirist?

What did you think of the big bang comic on page 5?

Completely tasteless. Women are not fertile fields to be "plowed". They are objects put on Earth in order to allow men to pass their genes to the next generation.

hahaha.

You're gonna get crucified some day.

Yeah, if I were the Ruthe Boyea Women's Center (see bottom left p. 8 of the linked pdf above), I'd be pulling my advertising right now. Either that or invite Mr. Petroski over to learn firsthand how "beneficial" rape is for its victims.

I think you're right Yuriy. It's possible that in your youth you are naturally more self-centered (I was, even when thought I wasn't) and so naturally assume that all the negative reactions above were because people were personally offended, that it all boils down to a a set of self-centered, one-on-one clash of egos.

Do you think if Roan and I were stranded on a deserted island I would give a damn about his t-shirt? The thing is, we are all part of a society, and everything is interconnected. I reacted strongly to Roan's comment and t-shirt in the same way I would react strongly to a teacher or cop singing a racist or sexist song "because it was funny", even if he/she was not acting racist or sexist. Messages are powerful, whether it is what you say or what you do. Ignoring the person may be a great solution for me personally, but I can't in good conscience ignore the impact to society.

4. What is the general life expectancy of horses living in the nation of Newsvine? Like a day?

I dont think that horses can live in newsvine, unless maybe, per chance we are able to put the nation of newsvine in the horse.

5. I'm just trying to process wisdom from a dead horse, aren't I?

What gives you the assumption that you are attempting to process wisdom from a dead horse?

6. Horses lose their wisdom when they die?

It depends on whether horses have souls. And whether or not souls retain wisdom at the death of the material host or not.

Or whether or not horses have any wisdom at all...

I think the world would be a better place if everyone lightened up. But I suppose that maybe it wouldn't. If everyone were to lighten up then maybe all of it would fade into disarray and chaos, with no one caring to make a stand for what's right, taking everything that comes as a joke. But now I do see why there would be an argument. The real topic of debate here, I suppose, is whether a butterfly's wings have any effect, and what that effect is. Is it better to be flippant or serious? Probably it's best to be flippant at times and serious others, as most people are, and let debates push the line between the two back and forth.

I guess this is probably this horse's last breath. Still, I had a fun time riding him.

And as you no doubt know, I thought myself very clever for having argued satirically in a thread that dealt with outrage over a poorly chosen and poorly written piece of satire.

Still, I had a fun time riding him.

And as you no doubt know, I thought myself very clever for having argued satirically in a thread that dealt with outrage over a poorly chosen and poorly written piece of satire.

You really are a totally self-engrossed youngun, aren't you?

;)

C'est la vie.

Sorry Yuriy, I didn't catch your satire in your first couple of lines. It reminded me of me when I was younger and very serious about everything.

C'est le morte.

Quite alright. If you could catch it easily it wouldn't be what I was going for.

And as far as being serious goes, well I was fortunate to have Myk around growing up to scare me away from that path.