OK, well, while this is entirely correct and I agree with it:
FYI, rape =/ anything that happens in an internet spaceships game.
(though I'd interpret that as actual,
real-life rape does not equal anything that happens in an internet spaceships game)
I'd argue the word 'rape'
is very often used to describe events in an internet spaceships game. So much so that it's become common parlance; for good or bad I've heard it more in EVE than anywhere else. And no, this doesn't neccesarily make it
right, just that it often occurs.
I'm going to quote here (not the whole thing, as only a tiny bit is relevant to EVE/gaming):
But to take these general principles about causing offence and feeling offended and apply them to something specific:
The word ‘rape’, the meaning of the word and it’s increasing casual useage, and the idea that this makes rape seem more permissable and acceptable, resulting in a ‘rape culture’.
I can’t disagree that ‘rape’ has taken on a different connotation other than it’s literal meaning. I’ve encountered it being used as such in the gaming community (which, it should probably be mentioned, is largely male dominated) – when one player ‘defeats’ another player in a particularly humiliating way, completely dominating them, they ‘own’ or ‘pwn’ them. And, sometimes, they rape them.
And while that does show some overlap with the integral meaning of the literal definition of ‘rape’ (violence, dominance, humiliation) it is also sometimes taken completely out of any real-life context whatsoever. For example, in the game Eve-Online it might not be unusual to read:
“Dude, that kestrel raped your ship!”
To someone with no knowlege of the context, that is a ridiculous sentence and mental image. It’s something dubious involving a bird and a boat. Is it making light of real-life rape because of it’s nonsensical ridiculousness? Well, in my opinion, it doesn’t bear much resemblence to real-life rape: someone being forced into non-consentual sex, which is traumatic, serious, devastating, gritty and real with long-term repercussions. This is, instead, absurdist.
And I don’t think anyone using ‘rape’ in that context means it in any way outside of that context. (A context which would be impenetrable to a wider audience, and is actually talking about spaceships fighting eachother) I don’t believe that the casual use of the word implies that the speaker condones actual, literal rape or is making it more or less acceptable as they are using it in a way that is not interchangeable.
This is how language works – it’s not static, it’s dynamic and it takes on new connotations, implications and is largely dependent on context. It’s a similar kind of thing to useage of the word ‘gay’ – which once had a meaning of ‘happy’ then meaning ‘homosexual’ and then taking on a negative connotation of something being ‘gay’ as something teenagers have interchanged with ‘sad’ (pathetic/uncool). And often the word ‘gay’ is used unthinkingly and on it’s own terms, without really considering this negative connotation is insulting homosexuals – without really making the link in meaning.
And yet that negative connotation, whether intended or not, is still implicit in the use of the word. No matter how many new meanings and connotations words take on, they will always retain their old meaning.
Which is the main problem.
So does that mean we shouldn’t use words which have conflicting meanings? Can we trust the context to make sense of the word?
Not always, as there are always people willing to take the word out of context.
But that's a ramble about the word being problematic (which we already knew) and aside from 'rape' being commonly used in EVE as a slangy-word (and debating the rightness and wrongness of that) the specific use of the word in
this scenario wasn't inappropriate or incorrect useage.
Edit: in retrospect (and to connect the above and below paragraph) I wonder if that isn't the problem here...that we're so used to the (argueably inappropriate) casual use of the word 'rape' in eve that it was automatically assumed that when Bacch used it to describe something in eve, it was being used in the same slangy casual way - x raped x's ship etc. However, despite discussing something eve-related, this was not the way he used the term...While 'rape' is always a loaded word, I do think applying the meaning of real-life non consentual sex to someone saying "It'll rape the economy." is taking the comment out of context. The context here is evident: he's talking about the effect on the economy. Use of the word 'rape' being applied to the economy does not seem dissimilar to, for example, rape of the land. Modern useage can encompass both, and has been used in an official-and-not-slangy-way in recent years, e.g:
2003 EnRoute Apr. 34/1 We aren't out to rape and pillage the countryside.
2007 Penrith (Austral.) Press (Nexis) 22 June 16 The gravel company has raped the best rural land in the area leaving only dry land which‥is no longer useable.
It would be fairly unreasonable for someone to take the above examples personally, as it would be taking it out of context. And I don't think the above examples should be moderated any more than Bacch's comment, as neither are incorrect or inappropriate useage.
Yes, 'rape' is a loaded and emotionally charged word, but it is (like everything else) context-bound. You can, of course, object that the term is being used to describe rape of the land or rape of the economy, and argue that useage should be restricted to one meaning and one context only (sex forced on another), and the word should only (respectfully) be used to describe this. But it
isn't restricted to one meaning and one context only in
language or modern useage...
(and as an aside, after reading Chell Charon's comments, I'd agree there does seem to be a bit of a trend to leap onto something and decry it lately... Particularly how things like analogies are being taken absolutely literally and then people complain the comparison makes light of something more serious. I think often things are meant slightly less literally and a bit more figuratively than that - for example, I do not think anyone was saying there was a
literal abusive relationship between CCP and the playerbase, just pointing out the similarities in both
seperate scenarios. It did seem a bit off to moderate that analogy, given I first came across it by one of the mods (I think by Casiella?) on twitter. And yes, I do realize the forum has it's own rules whereas posting freely on twitter has different rules, but the analogy itself is not inappropriate - or at least, you can argue it's applicability
within the scenario (CCP and the playerbase is like an abusive relationship because of x,y,z or CCP and the playerbase is
NOT like an abusive relationship because of x,y,z), but to say even
making the analogy is offensive to people in actual abusive relationship seems, to me, to be missing the point of what an analogy
is.
It almost seems like being offended by something is the 'I win' button here and is being abused slightly in a (misplaced) clamour of righteous indignation. I have to wonder if (/theory) in the same way as the lack of moderation in chatsubo made it more likely people would be offensive, the increased moderation here makes it more likely that people will be offended? (Like "nature abhoring a vaccuum" or "If You Build It, They Will Come", though neither quite fit...) )
Author
Topic: Reporting of moderator posts and related issues (Read 5902 times)