Just Merveilleux

Life at № 42

Is rape imaginary?

The dissociation of labor and disintegration of society, which liberty and free competition occasion, is especially injurious to the poorer class; for besides the labor necessary to support the family, the poor man is burdened with the care of finding a home, and procuring employment, and attending to all domestic wants and concerns. Slavery relieves our slaves of these cares altogether Pg. 27, Sociology For The South Or The Failure of Free Society, George Fitzhugh

 

In the 1850’s, Fitzhugh rambled for over 300 pages, in nearly biblical fashion, defending the theory that slavery was a form of freedom whilst freedom was actually a form of slavery. His title page introduces his first fallacy (from the bible itself), an appeal to tradition. Then he has the nerve to quote Horace with You may drive out Nature with a pitchfork, yet she still will hurry back”.

fitzhughtp001

I chose Fitzhugh as an analogy because he perfectly demonstrates the method used by monotheistic religions to bastardize and destroy the true meanings of words. A process that began two thousands years ago with the bible and that is still abundantly used by Sophisticated Theologians™ today. We often hear this form of deception from defenders of the burqa: A woman who wears a burqa is truly free, unaffected by the gaze of others. A church near where I had tennis lessons as a boy had a monumental sign over its façade which was even more blunt: You can only be free if you repent and accept Jesus is your saviour. We can see variations of these forms of deception and manipulation anywhere where religion is being promoted- but that’s not why I’m bringing it up now. I think it’s important to revisit the topic because there’s a massive resurgence of this variety of idiocy. For years the anti-gay crowd have been telling us homophobia isn’t a “real thing”. In fact, opposing the right of two gay people to be married to each other is not homophobia. Because, of course, telling other free citizens who they can or cannot marry is utterly normal. Passing laws to prohibit such unions is indeed a reflection of individual freedom in democratic societies …?

Obviously not.

And that brings me to my point. Appeals to confusion and attempts to confuse. From Yiannopoulos to the garden variety Trump supporter, we see the same assault on language and reason. Take this hilarious line from the Trumpkin: “In a real democracy, people disagree… and they aren’t necessarily racist or sexist or Homophobic if they do.” – That is no more and no less than an attempt to normalize those three things. In a fair democracy all citizens have the same rights. All citizens are equal. And so yes, saying black people deserve less rights is racist, saying things that demean women is sexist, and interfering with a gay person’s right to lead their own life and choose their own partner is in all likelihood homophobic. Attempting to justify these things isn’t “politically incorrect”, it’s deception. Dishonesty in action.

Advertisements

40 comments on “Is rape imaginary?

  1. KIA
    January 20, 2017

    I’m pretty sure your thinking is skewed a bit. I’m not a Trump Supporter, didn’t vote for either Hillary or trump. Neither are fit or qualified in my opinion. And I never said or agreed that rape is normal or not a crime. Those words you put in my mouth, over my specific statements otherwise. Your insinuations about my post and words and thoughts are in direct contrast with what I have said. Couldn’t be further from what I have said or thought or expressed. Have a great day

    Like

  2. darthtimon
    January 20, 2017

    To touch upon the title of your article, no, rape is definitely not imaginary. If someone trying selling that line to rape victims, they would rightly be in for a world of pain.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. assirekaevas
    January 20, 2017

    If your views are skewed, then so are mine, and you know what that means? BBQ time!! I love skewers, the ones with the alternating vegetable & meat combos – hey, that kind of reminds me of the alternating personalities and party views of he-who-must-not-be-named-but-was-named-CIC! Skewed – as if.

    Thank you for this post, I was nodding my head and/or smirking the entire time I read it! I so admire your ability to be succinct and still sound so smart (the message in your post would have probably taken a 2 parter post from me!) May I also take the opportunity to say that every post of yours that I have read so far is both eloquent and erudite, so I’m def a fan 🙂 (can you tell I just did a chapter on alliteration, haha – sorry :?) xo – K

    Liked by 2 people

    • That’s utterly kind of you 😀
      I have the impression Kia and some others in his ideological circle, although probably well intentioned, don’t have a great grasp of Aristotelian logic. He seems to think that when you lay out an idea, it’s just an idea, when it’s in fact an equation 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      • assirekaevas
        January 23, 2017

        I think that maybe they’re more interested in what they already think they know and prefer to live their lives with blinders on. Or like ostriches, but instead of their head stuck intentionally in the sand, which is so impractical, they prefer to keep their heads snugly secured in a more personal space that’s almost as impractical, and probably not the best scented.

        OK, I’m hoping you’re not one of them and I’m not wasting your time becauseI’ve heard people say they think TED talks are lame propaganda-ish fodder. For me, I’ve learned something new or seen it from a different perspective after every TED talk I’ve experienced. Your reference to “equation” and how things are not just an idea made me think of this one – and I love his accent. I think you might like it 🙂 https://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • Some TED talks are fantastic. I’ll have a look now 🙂

        Like

      • Just watched it and loved it- and yes it’s very much in tune with what I mean.
        Any statement or position has a variety of implications attached to it.If we look carefully we can see the progression of what it took to get to a particular place and then what will (probably) happen next/be the effects. Exactly as in math 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • assirekaevas
        January 24, 2017

        YES!! It is a wonderful talk. He’s so passionate, and it makes such sense! And his accent just makes everything he says sound romantic 😉

        Liked by 1 person

  4. dpmonahan
    January 20, 2017

    The problem with the emotionally incontinent and not-very-bright kids on the left is that they use racist and sexist to describe everything. In their minds it is all racismsexismhomophobia all the time because it gives them a sense of moral superiority and lets them attack the character of their political opponents without having to engage arguments.
    Jokes on them. Everyone now knows those words are meaningless. If everything is racist all the time, nothing is.

    Like

    • And that’s yet another attempt at making the words seem meaningless. Right wing extremists have long argued racism didn’t and doesn’t exist. When it’s proven it does, they change the argument and pretend they’re the ones suffering from it. The same manipulation is done with homophobia. Gays don’t suffer from homophobia. It’s Christians who suffer by not being allowed to discriminate.

      Liked by 2 people

      • dpmonahan
        January 20, 2017

        So they adopt the left’s absurd identity-based politics and the left screeches “no fair!”? Goose / gander, pot / kettle, etc.

        Like

      • Personal autonomy is identity based politics?

        Like

      • dpmonahan
        January 20, 2017

        What do you make of this?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Appalling and ridiculous. You do realize I’m against identity politics, right? That’s why I’m defending the proper use of language.

        Liked by 1 person

      • dpmonahan
        January 20, 2017

        I think you have a hard time putting the blame where it lies. You blame the right for diluting the meaning of “racist” but here we have a leftist author defining racism as “wearing white while being married to a Republican”. Is it any wonder that no one takes the word seriously anymore?

        Like

      • The author is MISUSING the word racist. My point isn’t the identity of the person who misuses a word, but the misuse itself. I used the example of racism, sexism and homophobia because there is actually a group of people who defend those things as concepts. Or are you going to deny that?

        Liked by 1 person

      • P.S. that’s why the only ideology we should pledge allegiance to is the scientific method. We should make decisions based on evidence and study, not prejudice and ignorance.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. tildeb
    January 20, 2017

    You have outlined the very reason I often accuse others of dishonesty, of being intentionally deceitful, of relying on deception to support an misrepresented opinion, and the important clue that this is valid is demonstrated, as you succinctly point out, by someone trying to make a word’s meaning opposite to the word’s meaning. This goes beyond confusion and rationalization because the intention is to obfuscate for the purpose of making ‘up’ be another kind of ‘down’, that criticism of some example of an ‘ism’ is being an ‘ist'(criticizing an example of, say, racism is being racist), that ‘black’ properly understood is really the new ‘white’, that pointing out certain thinking mistakes and the problems these create is always the greater crime, namely, intolerance and disrespect usually labeled as a ‘whatever-phobia’.

    This is usually a tactic to misrepresent, to divert, to avoid taking responsibility for a supported bigotry. In religio-speak, we call it apologetics for the Right and sophisticated theology for the Left . In the politics, we call it regressive in the Left and denialism in the Right. But in all cases it is a thinking mistake that will inevitably lead one to the incorrect conclusion no matter how logical or deductive the form may appear to the befuddled who fail to see the obvious linguistic manipulation.

    Liked by 2 people

    • That could not have been better worded 😀
      What frightens me is the mainstreaming of the phenomena. In the post war era smart people, and a certain degree of standards (journalistic, for example), were enough to establish a narrative that was accessible, and reasonably non-destructive. Now it’s as if we’re back to the days of snake oil and miracle cures.

      Liked by 1 person

      • docatheist
        January 22, 2017

        I think “as if” is overly optimistic. We are there, as allopathic medical schools and care centers offer woo-woo treatments while claiming an emphasis on “evidence based medicine.” Osteopathy has been there for ages, and this was a defining barrier between the two. Now, they are merging, and so are their residency training programs. So much for “Let the buyer beware.” Now, it’s “Let the patient beware.”

        Liked by 3 people

      • Painful to hear!

        Like

  6. Carmen
    January 20, 2017

    I’m looking through my Noseybook feed as I eat lunch. Dan Fincke (Camels With Hammers) who lives in France now just quoted Donald Trump as saying, “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice” Dan says, “What does that mean?” The answers are amusing. .
    Here’s one: “If you call it patriotism it isn’t prejudice”
    Another one: “It means get your goose step on”

    Yes, indeed, what we do with language. . . 😦

    Liked by 3 people

    • Insanity- but so very effective. I find it shocking how easy it is for people to get away with it. There are reasonably intelligent people out there who don’t seem to see the distinction between proposing and opposing discrimination.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Carl D'Agostino
    January 21, 2017

    How the slave owners used/twisted scripture to justify this horror is astonishingly against everything Jesus preached.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Scottie
    January 21, 2017

    I am sure everyone knows the twisting of words as applies to religions saying they are persecuted by not being able to discriminate against others they don’t like. The thing I get driven over the cliff about is the mislabeling of things that do the opposite of what they are labeled. It happens most in politics. Lawmakers know they can confuse the masses and get support for something people would normally reject depending on how they label it. Like the clean air act really increases the use of coal. The animal protection act cuts down on wildlife habitats so developers can build on land once off limits due to endangered animals. I am sure others know of better examples. It just seems insulting and belittling to me. Be well. Hugs

    Liked by 3 people

  9. agrudzinsky
    January 22, 2017

    Is saying that blacks deserve more rights than whites racist?

    Like

    • tildeb
      January 22, 2017

      Yes.

      Liked by 1 person

      • agrudzinsky
        January 22, 2017

        Is affirmative action racist?

        Like

      • tildeb
        January 22, 2017

        No.

        Liked by 1 person

      • agrudzinsky
        January 22, 2017

        Isn’t affirmative action granting privileges based on race?

        Like

      • tildeb
        January 22, 2017

        No. Such actions are intended to improve opportunities – in this case based on race – and offer incentives to correct an employment imbalance. This is not racism but a policy response to it. You seem determined to falsely equate racial considerations with an exercise of racism. You are making up your own defintion.

        Racism (OED):

        1) Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:

        1.1) The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:

        I notice you’ve switched the topic from ‘more rights’ based on race (prohibited discrimination that is racism) to ‘privilege’ in the form of race-based hiring practices (affirmative action) intended to correct for social-historical racial imbalances in areas that are supposed to reflect the communities they serve but do not. As you can see, this is not racism.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Carmen
        January 22, 2017

        Tildeb,
        Thank you for your persistence. Just HOW many times have you explained this??

        Liked by 1 person

      • 🙂

        Like

      • tildeb
        January 22, 2017

        184 times so far with around 783 to go, I suspect. Again, note the change in terms and the inclusion of individually favoured meaning.in order to make a response to discrimination seem to be an exercise of discrimination. This is right out the apologist/denialist handbook of underhanded tactics that tends to convince those who are skeptically challenged but think themselves True Skeptics (TM) – and True Agnostics (TM) – that they are right and keenly insightful and the most tolerant of all.

        Liked by 3 people

      • It’s often a tactic, but can also be a matter of just not having taken a big enough step back to get a good look at the issue. It’s exceedingly common for people to just go with the parameters they hear used most often rather than checking if those parameters make sense in a wider context.

        Liked by 1 person

      • tildeb
        January 22, 2017

        Yes, on this issue of affirmative action context is very important. Vital, actually, because the problem being addressed is systemic and so requires a systemic response to correct.

        The tactic I was referring to specifically was the altering of term meanings – usually the opposite – to suit the partisan preference.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. belasbrightideas
    January 24, 2017

    “In a real democracy, people disagree… and they aren’t necessarily racist or sexist or Homophobic if they do.”

    This shit gets me SO riled up. Justification for ignorance doesn’t make a person erudite or compassionate or even sensible. There are certain things that are just Wrong. (What would Jesus do, fundamentalist Christians? I mean, what would he REALLY do? Yeah, I didn’t think so.)

    I see this a lot on social media – “We can agree to disagree and still be friends, no matter what side of the political sphere we are on.” NO. NOT true. If you stand behind a candidate (now a President of a ‘free nation,’ shudder/shudder/shudder again), you are either ignoring his hateful rhetoric or reinforcing closeting it within yourself. Either way, it’s just venemous and horrible and I now know this about you which I never suspected before … and I’ve got to step back for a bit.

    On a more positive note, at least that’s how I see it:

    https://shift.newco.co/https-medium-com-peteleyden-why-trumps-inauguration-is-not-the-beginning-of-an-era-but-the-end-72a86833f0a3#.ekp1bnod7

    Cheers, Pink. Aloha. Be well.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on January 20, 2017 by in activism and tagged , , , , , , , .
%d bloggers like this: