Because I seem to be getting attacked on all sides (for having the nerve and temerity to suggest that women should be careful and that the rapists should be blamed for the rape), I think I’ll just pull all of the issues into one post. It’ll be fun.
Anonymous commenters in general — Sad that some people don’t feel like attaching their name to comments. Esp. given who some of them are. (Yes, I do know, for the most part)
Shad, in general — Curious how you feel the need to litter every comment with invective. Is that because you feel like that makes you sound more intelligent, or because you really don’t have a point and just feel like being a dick? Questions, questions…
Grant, re: the “fucking moron” and “douche bag” comments — I didn’t think you were a fucking moron before today, but if you indeed believe that we should be saying “Dude, don’t rape girls” INSTEAD OF telling women to be careful… then yes, I’m sorry, I do think you’re a fucking moron. As for the douche bag comment… that was Bernie in the hypo. If I had wanted to call you a douche bag, I’d have done it. I didn’t, however, because whether you are or aren’t a douche bag doesn’t really change how wrong you are here. I am not in this post, nor have I in any other post that I’ve written, taking any stance on whether or not you’re a douche bag. Just to be clear. Maybe we can do a series on that later.
Shad, re: the first comment — “instead of you telling girls that they should be careful.. YOU should tell guys to never rape.” — and that’s exactly what’s wrong with the post. There’s no “instead of” to it — telling guys not to rape is good, that’s true. It may or may not be helpful, but you can easily apply an analog of Pascal’s wager here and make the case for using it. But my complaint, still, is that it’s not an instead of situation… it’s an in addition to situation. And yes, there are plenty of girls who do not know or do not practice all of the precautionary methods that they should… just as there are guys who do not understand or do not act like they understand that raping girls is bad.
Grant, re: “Pete’s a chauvinist” — I find it comical, to say the least, that the guy who suggested that the other team at the PILF Softball Tourney bat left handed because they didn’t have women on the team and we did is going to call me a chauvinist. Especially when all I’ve really done is suggest that people ought to be careful to protect themselves from crime. I also find it comical that you’re trying to tell me that I don’t understand my own post. Of course, there’s no backing for that statement… because, apparently, you don’t like providing support. Just make a claim, hurl an insult and it’s all good. Hell, sometimes the insult is the claim. It’s a really intelligent and mature way to handle a debate. At any rate, is it possible for you to make points minus the ad hominem? Or does that so nicely complement your strawman arguments that you can’t let it go?
Grant, re: the “I took one for the team” hypo — You were one (of many) “but for” causes of being subjected to the roofie. The blameworthy person was the one who slipped it in your drink. The blameworthy person was not some guy who tells his friends to be careful and not drink drinks from strangers. This is not as difficult as you’re wanting to make it. It can all come down to “Girls, be careful. Everyone, blame the rapist.” I don’t think I can make it any more plain, so if you’re not comprehending that yet, it seems like you’re trying not to.
Shad, re: the second comment — Now you’re finally getting what I’m saying here. Doing both is good. Doing just one or the other is leaving out a huge component. This is especially true when talking about leaving out the precautionary measures. Why? Because rape will never go away. Crime doesn’t go away. There will always be a criminal element. We can reduce it in many ways, one of them (of course) is by instilling in children that crime (of various kinds) is wrong. That’s the “supply side” view of preventing crime. But no matter how well we do that, there will always be criminals, and we should always take reasonable means to protect ourselves from that.
Generally — I’m still confused as to how anyone with even a modicum of reading comprehension skill can construe any of my posts as suggesting that we not tell guys not to rape girls. Personally, I don’t surround myself with guys who treat girls this way — and maybe that’s where the difference of opinion is coming in. Maybe Shad, Grant, and the others have a lot of friends who rape girls… or something. I don’t know. All I know is that none of my friends (to my knowledge) do that stuff, and if I were to walk up to one of them and say “Hey, Bob, when you go to the bar tonight… don’t rape anyone.” They would think I had lost my mind because, “No shit, dumbass… what sort of asshole do you think I am?”
But maybe just as a thought experiment, I’ll start trying to tell everyone. But, just in case I don’t get a chance to tell every one of my friends personally, I’ll say it now: DON’T RAPE ANYONE. I’ll try, over the course of the next few weeks, to be sure to mention rape in all of my conversations with my male friends, just to make sure we’re all on the same page. I would hate for Grant to take the small step from what he’s doing now and actually having the balls to just come out and say “Pete Holiday is Pro-Rape.” Maybe there should be a facebook group.
And Grant? Between you and I? Don’t rape anyone, ok? It’s not cool.
Pete. what’s invective and when did i use it? examples please. oh.. from my comment. not in general.
Drama, drama, drama! Pete: you criticize Grant for misreading your posts, and refusing to “let go” but then you come right back not “letting go” yourself. On top of that, you misread Grant’s 1st post by taking everything in it literally. Did you consider that maybe there’s a message UNDER the actual words?
*blink*
Ummm… when did I criticize him for refusing to let go? I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t do that.
Further, I’m going to put out there, again, that if there’s a meaning under the words that is contrary to the words, that’s a little silly. People should say what they mean, and if they mean “in addition to” they should say that
in addition toinstead of “instead of.”It’s easy to debate the underlying meaning (if any) of a string of words, but what cannot be as easily argued is what those words mean, which may be why so many people hate to say what they mean, because then it’s harder to squirm out.
Ditto.
Just a couple thoughts -
You seem to focus a lot on the “instead of” part. I think the real problem is different interpretations of the “that” that follows the “instead of.” Pete takes it to mean all preventative measures. I think the vast majority of other people, myself included, see “that” as meaning ridiculous, extreme preventative measures. I don’t know many people that would advocate all women having short hair in order to prevent being raped. I think statements 2, 3, and 5 are blatantly extreme and know people who would also say the first is. Not leaving your drink unattended is a great tip but can also have some gray area. For example, is your drink unattended if you go to the bathroom and ask your friend to watch it for you? Your friend could easily be careless while you’re gone because she’s drunk as well.
Either interpretation of “that” is an underlying meaning, since it doesn’t specifically say which it is.
If I remember correctly from English class there aren’t any right or wrong interpretations as long as it can be supported. Pete and Nick see one thing; everyone else sees something else. You’re entitled to your belief and with that comes the responsibility of respecting others’ beliefs. Once you get to the namecalling point, you know things are out of hand.
I think this all would have been a lot clearer and less convoluted like this:
Pete: I agree that rapists are bad, but I don’t think saying “don’t rape” will accomplish anything. Preventative measures are good.
Other side: I agree that preventative measures are good but, rather than all the emphasis being on the female side of rape, I think there should be more emphasis of rape prevention on the male side than there currently is.
Or did I completely miss something?
I’d agree, mostly, with that appraisal except that I think the thing you’re pulling from English class is that meanings can be read into things, and context means a great deal, as does connotation.
That all said, things cannot possibly mean anything or we’d have a funadamentally inescapable ambiguity of language that would allow us to get nothing done. Moreover, I think we have to also agree that some meanings are more likely than others.
I think you have to work really, really hard to get “Instead of that bullshit, how about” to mean “Instead of the more extreme of the above statements”. Specifically looking at the fact that the “instead of” line was in a different paragraph also lends itself to the meaning that it was taking the entire previous paragraph to be “that bullshit” — and this is strengthened by the umbrella-like statement at the top… essentially you have “A lot has been said about how to prevent rape. . . . Instead of that bullshit, how about…”
Which is the most plain, and least tortured, way to read it.
It’s possible that the person meant “Instead of putting our focus there, why not focus on:” — it’s also possible that they meant the “instead of” to apply only to the most proximate sentence. Or even “Instead of going to those extremes” — but as it stands, we’re left to guess what “that bullshit” is, and occam’s razor dictates that we take it to mean the preceeding paragraph in full, I think.
Again, my point is that words do, indeed, mean things and that if Grant had been writing this himself, I think I’d expect more careful word-choice and less ambiguity if, indeed, that section is ambiguous.
Nope, I meant exactly what I said about English class. I hated it when teachers asked me to interpret parts of books and what not. And I wasn’t suggesting that something can mean anything. I said an interpretation isn’t wrong if it can be supported. You can add “well” in front of “supported” if you want.
I was attempting above to figure out why there were two such drastically different interpretations. I proposed one idea based on breaking down my reactions as I read the post. As I read the first six lines, it was the extreme ones that jumped out at me. I was shocked, and my first thought was “people expect us to do that???” So when I reached the seventh line that called it bullshit, I full heartedly agreed that some of the suggestions were indeed bullshit. I also believe that some people would see all of them as bullshit or at least questionable.
Don’t disregard Kant’s anti-razor if you’re going to throw Occam’s razor out there.
I guess it just comes down to differences in perspectives and personal feelings, and how literally you take the text. Not everything is meant to be taken literally.
I’m not saying one side or the other is right or wrong. I maintain that all of this could have been over in a few lines rather than monstrously long blog entries and dozens of comments.
Well, that’s sort of irrelevant, I think — saying “anything can be true if you can prove it” is sort of trival… so is “Any interpretation is valid if it’s well supported” because all that does is changes the debate from what the words mean to how good the support is.
And, just to be clear, this: “I agree that rapists are bad, but I don’t think saying “don’t rape” will accomplish anything. Preventative measures are good.” is not an accurate portrayal of my point at all.
My point is don’t say “don’t rape” to the exclusion of being careful. That’s it. That’s been it the whole time. I don’t presume you were trying to misrepresent, but that’s a pretty big difference that I didn’t catch the first time around.