Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MadocComadrin]

Say, did anygrape see the enormous crabapple wormwood last krumpet?

[Nadaka]

... Let's skip the next 5 pages and agree that dictionaries aren't going to help anyone at all in this argument, okay?

Fine then... no more dictionary definitions for any word used.  Let's just make up whatever meaning we want.

wich is what the non sexual definitions of rape are, made up, even if they are in the dictionary.

[Bauglir]

... Let's skip the next 5 pages and agree that dictionaries aren't going to help anyone at all in this argument, okay?

Fine then... no more dictionary definitions for any word used.  Let's just make up whatever meaning we want.

Yes, because that's the meaning I intended to communicate. Definitely. 

Dictionaries are useful when you want to learn the meaning of a word you don't know, not when you want to prove to somebody else that it means something they don't think it means. Reference to a dictionary has never won an argument since the 6th grade, but remains a useful tool for learning. Use an encyclopedia if you want a reference in an argument regarding common use, or better yet, don't even bother. I hate to quote XKCD, but communicating poorly (which is to say, using words such as "rape" to mean things they technically might cover but are almost never used to refer to, without explicitly pointing out that difference in intention) and then acting smug about it isn't being clever.

[MadocComadrin]

Dictionaries are useful when you want to learn the meaning of a word you don't know, not when you want to prove to somebody else that it means something they don't think it means. Reference to a dictionary has never won an argument since the 6th grade, but remains a useful tool for learning.

This isn't quite true: a proper dictionary should have some basic facts about common usage and word origins. That being said, most dictionaries aren't proper dictionaries, but office references or pocket dictionaries--even some dictionary websites.

For the word in question, we have the Latin rapere -- to seize, carry off by force, with a modern synonyms and definitions reflecting this as well as the usage when referring to sexual assault.

[Bauglir]

Synonyms and definitions which are rarely used, and which therefore should only be used in contexts where the implication cannot be (or is explicitly called out not to be) the typical sexual version, known for the implication of asserting power and dominance over an unwilling but unable to resist victim. That implication typically being lacking from the other definitions, I'm not even sure how much sense the sentence makes unless he intended the sexual meaning and is now backpedaling in the most pedantic possible fashion. But now I've gone and argued the actual point, so I suppose that makes me a bit of a liar a couple posts ago.

EDIT: for clarity, edited the bit about context.

[Willfor]

So basically, I should have explained my reasoning here. There are people who read this thread who have experienced this in their lives and can be triggered by the use of a word. I politely asked that this word not be used for the mental health benefits it would give to the people who are in this situation. I didn't want to debate its definition. I didn't want to start an argument over this point -- because that is exactly the opposite of what I wanted to happen. I just wanted to diffuse a situation before it began.

Grats, I guess, the point has been so thoroughly missed that it seems impressive to me.

Can we just drop this and get back to previous debate? Or even a new debate? Please?

[Andir]

Eh, it goes back to the whole "Gypsy" argument.  If you can't see (don't know) that there's more than one meaning to a word, it's meaningless (pun intended) to argue about it.

[MadocComadrin]

are rarely used,

Nonsense, it's used quite often. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I'm not even sure how much sense the sentence makes unless he intended the sexual meaning and is now backpedaling in the most pedantic possible fashion. But now I've gone and argued the actual point, so I suppose that makes me a bit of a liar a couple posts ago.

I don't think so, as it makes sense to me.

So basically, I should have explained my reasoning here. There are people who read this thread who have experienced this in their lives and can be triggered by the use of a word. I politely asked that this word not be used for the mental health benefits it would give to the people who are in this situation.

I can understand this, so I'm not going to further the argument beyond this next statement:
I have OCD. There was a time when seeing the word "death" would send me into either a ruminative trance or an anxiety attack, yet I would not expect anyone to censor themselves on my behalf. In the end, censoring something for such a reason isn't really helping anyone in the long run--especially a word with such a meme-like usage nowadays.

[scriver]

Even if you wouldn't expect it from someone, it would still be the decent thing to do. Respect for our fellow forumites and all that.

[Virex]

management was strictly forbidden to discuss how the union was raping them...

Could you please refrain from comparing being given an unfavorable financial condition to sexual assault? Thank you.

I wouldn't put it beyond some managements to forbidding the discussion on "carnal services provided by selected employees", but unless Andir was actually angling for that, I think that he, and some others in this thread, have to ask themselves why they are defending the use of a term in a way that's hurtful or even triggering. Sure, you may have the right, but do you really want to exercise it?

[DJ]

So how do we refer to Rape of Nanking now?

[Virex]

The Rape of Nanking was (among others) a literal mass-rape though? Anyway, on some other forums, discussions involving things that could induce PTSD are usually prefaced with [Trigger Warning] or [TG], sometimes with subject matter, as an act of courtesy. Maybe that should be more common?

[Frumple]

There are some rules and guidelines for this thread.[snip]
4.  I will try not to police language too much, but use common sense.  If your common sense is subpar in this direction, you will be informed.

-> Guideline: this includes appropriation of words surrounding sexual assault and violence in general, as well as illnesses and hateful slurs, to make a point as a metaphor.  I will be gentle about this in most cases other than those concerning rape.

Folks. Please, let's not. Yes?

[G-Flex]

So how do we refer to Rape of Nanking now?

That event was sufficiently violent and horrible that I don't think the use of the term is a problem at all, especially considering the fact that actual rape was involved.

The problem with using "rape" to refer to things like economics, or as a political tool, or casually ("I got totally raped in that game last night") is not only that it serves as a potential trigger or might be offensive. It's also that it trivializes a very serious and very traumatic thing, and this is not what western society needs. Western society trivializes rape itself enough. It doesn't need any help.

[Andir]

So how do we refer to Rape of Nanking now?

That event was sufficiently violent and horrible that I don't think the use of the term is a problem at all, especially considering the fact that actual rape was involved.

The problem with using "rape" to refer to things like economics, or as a political tool, or casually ("I got totally raped in that game last night") is not only that it serves as a potential trigger or might be offensive. It's also that it trivializes a very serious and very traumatic thing, and this is not what western society needs. Western society trivializes rape itself enough. It doesn't need any help.

But isn't the sexual attack term derived form the original term?  So... in essence, calling a sexual attack "rape" is trivializing the original meaning of the word: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rape