After Taking Down Rape Joke Pages, Facebook A-OK With More Rape Joke Pages

Tempted to delete my Facebook account, but I doubt that would solve much. This is very sad, to say the least.

Wow.  That is food for thought.  On the one hand, humor is a tool to bring conversational topics into discourse that people might have otherwise been too sensitive to examine, or examine thoroughly.

On the other hand, actually accepting hate crimes in a public arena is a hate crime in and of itself.

Obviously, I get that Facebook is trying to reflect its own community – but they need to take a stronger, more clearly defined stand.  Whatever the foundation of this decision is seems very poorly communicated, at the least.

As I’ve said before, I’ll say again: the bottom line is that most of these violate their own policies. Regardless of how terribly offensive I find them or how many people will fight to keep them active, Facebook picks and chooses when it wants to stick to it’s own rules, and that’s a bigger problem. Their policies should be enforced across the board or they need to be changed to accomodate. They cannot have it both ways.

 I’ve actually got far more of a problem with facebook censoring speech (which it does) than with the existence of some unfunny jokes. I don’t see how they can justify taking them down. Are they offensive? Sure. I don’t have to read them. Nearly everything I post (with the possible exception of pictures of flowers) is offensive to someone or other. It shocks me how very pro-censorship many supposed progressives have become in recent years.Also, if someone thinks this kinda stuff is funny, I want to know. Far better that it’s out there in the open, letting everyone know exactly what sort of person they are. Similarly, I’m all in favor of letting the KKK march. They just shouldn’t be allowed to wear masks. I’d rather KNOW who they are. It’s foolish to think that if we stick our heads in the sand and pretend that everyone is a nice person, everyone will magically become all nicey-nice. 

Not calling out these sorts of behaviors is giving it’s practitioners
tacit approval. Rape jokes have been around a lot longer than the
internet and purging them from a popular site isn’t going to make them
go away. But it reminds people that we as a society refuse to accept,
much less condone, the vile, hateful, vicious and utterly moronic
beliefs that a vocal minority go out of their way to inflict on the rest
of us. Sometimes a public outcry is damn well necessary.

People won’t become nice by ignoring the problem. Leaving this kind of
behavior unchallenged is  cowardice. It’s gutless boys-will-be-boys
handwaving of ignorant hateful behavior that has real-world
consequences. Doing nothing is spineless and pathetic. No, it won’t
solve the problem and no, rape jokes won’t suddenly vanish into the
ether if Facebook removes a few pages. But people who are unwilling to
stand up for what should be a pretty straightforward idea–sexual
violence is wrong–can’t be counted on to stand up for anything else
when push comes to shove.

I’m not saying “don’t challenge it.” Of course, challenge it. Create feminist sites. Talk about it. If a “friend” posts such a thing, let them know it’s unacceptable to you. 
But the real “cowardice” lies in asking that something objectionable be removed so it’s not there making someone uncomfortable. That’s simply pretending it doesn’t exist. (hand-wave look! Gone! No more problem!) 
Every single person out there trying to censor a book in the public library, an exhibit in a museum, a cartoon in a newspaper, a video in a sex shop, is trying to censor that thing because they TRULY DEEPLY EMOTIONALLY believe it is “vile.” 
What makes this country a wonderful place, in all its diversity, is that we can live side by side and co-exist with people who hold radically differing views (and different senses of humor), and that we all have the right to express those views (and tell our jokes). 

I don’t enjoy these rape jokes. But I do enjoy horror films, and the novels of Stieg Larsson. (All of these have been criticized for “sexual violence,” even though one of them is strongly, effectively critical of such.) I want the freedom to choose my entertainment without anyone putting their seal of approval on it, and that means extending that choice to others, even when I personally find their choices “vile.”

This is why we have the concepts of “protest” and “counter-protest.” They’re a lot cooler than censorship.

This topic has been covered quite well in this paper on rape jokes and how they function:
http://chicago.academia.edu/EliseKramer/Papers/529275/The_playful_is_political_The_metapragmatics_of_internet_rape-joke_arguments

I think some people are also forgetting about the basic psychological concepts of why tasteless jokes exist. (Remember how popular that “Truly Tasteless Jokes” series of books was, before the days of the Internet?) Humor sometimes lies in pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable, crossing into “oh no you didn’t”-land. The fact that some people find rape jokes funny is actually an indication that rape IS completely socially unacceptable, and that there is a wide awareness of that. 
It’s not just that, of course. It’s also often tied into being deeply uncomfortable with sexuality in general and female sexuality in particular. Humor is also often a coping method for dealing (even if crudely) with things that make you deeply uncomfortable. (see: disaster jokes, gallows humor.) But it’s not true that all people who tell/read rape jokes are actually misogynists.

It’s interesting how quickly “freedom of expression” got twisted around here.  Facebook, of course, is not restricted in any way by the first amendment and does not have to provide a soapbox to anyone, any more than Blockbuster has to carry your favorite snuff film or Wal-Mart has to let people masturbate in the store.

Facebook is allowed to prohibit what they want and we are allowed to remind them that there is such a thing as rape culture, that Facebook is hosting examples of said culture on its servers right now, and that this is a circumstance at odds with common sense, its own stated policies, and the wishes of its advertisers.  (And yes, that sentence did contain three coordinated conjunctions nested within each other.  If you don’t like it, you can go the hell to Russia.)

And how come I never hear these people standing against the ban on muffin buffing in the CD aisle?  You know, in the name of liberty.  For Zod’s sake, people, try to use your talents in the pursuit of something worthwhile for a change.

Wait, so rape jokes are proof of a culture that disapproves of rape?

You would find great inspiration and hope for the future in my uncle, who likes to joke about murdering Mexican immigrants and wiping out the African American population through mandatory sterilization.  Before now, I never realized just how socially aware and progressive he really was.

You need to make a feminist site to challenge rape jokes? I thought you just needed to be a human being.

A second article about this from the Mary Sue, with a different author this time (thankfully, since the last one played the “censorship is bad when I don’t like it” card). Althea Ann is 100% correct. You may not like the joke (I certainly don’t…I don’t even see a decent “joke” there to be had, I see a poorly constructed shitty attempt at shock), but once you recommend censoring stupid things like that, you have pretty well opened the door to censorship of anything at all, and removed your right to complain about it. Photos that you think are empowering? Nope, someone else finds them offensive, they’re down. Did you say fuck in your last post? Well, that’s offensive. 

These posts clearly do not actually incite to violence, and I’m tired of “I find it offensive, it encourages violence”. I was thirteen once, I laughed about dead baby and rape jokes, and yet I manage to not commit atrocities. Part of humor is discomfort and awfulness. Of course, it’s hard to tell the difference between someone who finds it funny because it’s offensive and someone who finds it funny and not offensive. 

If these posts actually encouraged violence, I’d understand the desire to censor them. But they clearly don’t, or at least, the examples cited clearly don’t. 

There’s a lot of well-researched academic material out there on different types of humor, and the different ways in which they function. The sort of humor you describe your uncle displaying is really not the same sort of thing. If you’re interested in actually understanding this sort of thing, I suggest you go seek out some reading on the topic.
This paper is about the seriousness of violent racist jokes:  http://lboro.academia.edu/MichaelBillig/Papers/568302/Violent_racist_jokes_an_analysis_of_extreme_racist_humour

This book provides a variety of views on the topic of both racist and sexist humor: http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Joke-Limits-Michael-Pickering/dp/0230594506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321115869&sr=8-1

As it turns out, I do have a vague familiarity with the nature of comedy, but thanks for explaining it to me again.  I maybe needed a refresher I guess.

The point being, as I think is clear to anyone who’s ever actually told a joke rather than just reading about them in books, is that the mere existence of taboo is not itself an encouraging sign.  Why?  Because the null hypothesis here is not and never was that rape is a swell thing to do on a Friday night — that being the null hypothesis you have to start with if you want to take “rape is kind of taboo” as a sign of encouragement.

To put it more personally: I don’t need someone joking about putting a knife to my throat or their foot in my vagina to know that rape is considered taboo on the surface of society, and I’m certainty not going to be encouraged by the fact that some people find those images funny.  I’m going to be encouraged when people who find those images funny are met with a torrent of disapproval and find themselves aggressively shut down by social pressure and common sense business practices, like the one at Wal-Mart about not masturbating in the CD aisle.  Because that’s the kind of pressure that works to send a clear message that some things are just not okay.

Which is why I now keep my hands firmly at my sides, I get my CDs, and I leave.  It works, people.

Delete it anyway.  That may not accomplish much, but keeping it accomplishes absolutely nothing.

I dumped mine many months ago and haven’t regretted it.

A question for the “ZOMG NO, CENSORSHIP ALWAYS BAD” side of the argument here: When was the last time you saw an article on The Mary Sue about the terrible number of rape jokes that go on at 4chan? Hmm, what’s that, you say? Never? Because 4chan’s rules don’t explicitly disallow rape jokes, and so people go on making them there and the sacred First Amendment of the Internet is utterly untarnished? Hmm. I wonder what makes that situation different from the Facebook one.

It’s not like Facebook DOES have rules explicitly disallowing this sort of–oh, oh wait. Well, it’s not like they’re taking these rules that they wrote themselves and totally refusing to enforce–oh, right. At any rate, though, it’s not like it’s the prerogative of the owners of the website as to what rules they lay out for–oh, no, hang on…Well, thankfully there aren’t any rape survivors on Faceb–oh dear.

Wow, you’re doing your argument a great deal of good. Let’s start at the beginning. Nothing like just being dismissive right off the bat, right? Because “ZOMG NO, CENSORSHIP ALWAYS BAD” has been posited here. No, wait…it hasn’t. Just that censorship is serious bsuiness, and shouldn’t be taken lightly, nor applied unless truly warranted, because if you apply it to things you happen not to like, then you run the risk of having it applied to YOU. But this is a private website, so of course, this is a largely academic argument. 

Let’s move on. To answer your non-real question: no, they haven’t had an article about it. 4chan’s rules don’t specifically disallow rape jokes and…poring through Facebook’s terms of Service, neither does FB. Not one “explicit” mention of rape jokes anywhere in there. Weird! Oh, you meant something else. You meant that YOU FEEL it violates their TOS. The ones they get to enforce. Gotcha. 

They aren’t “totally refusing to enforce”, they’re refusing to enforce YOUR INTERPRETATION. A different ballgame. Sort of like when the ref makes a call you don’t like. That doesn’t even always mean the ref’s right, but please, stop framing this in unfair terms. And, for the record, there are rape survivors all over. Probably on 4 chan, too. These links aren’t being posted on their walls, FFS, they just exist in the same space. That is a stupid and, dare I say it, offensive argument. Using rape victims to push your agenda offends me a great deal. 

“try to use your talents in the pursuit of something worthwhile for a change.”

I totally, 100% agree. Worthwhile = helping people who have been raped. Making sure that perpetrators of actual rape are brought to justice. Making sure that law enforcement vigorously pursues allegations of rape. Making sure that people who witness a rape or have knowledge of a rape are required to report it (yep, lookin’ at you, Penn State). etc.
Not worthwhile = censoring facebook pages with tasteless jokes on them.

Yes, I understand having a knee-jerk reaction against things which are offensive. But really, think it through!
You do not defeat the enemy by becoming the enemy.

I think you would love Singapore. Their government is very much in agreement with you. Check it out.

Listen, I know that being dismissive of an arguement I find ridiculous really screws up my chances of being the next Saint Feminism, but I don’t even need to read the rest of you comment to know it’s kinda BS. (And from here, the other standpoint does seem to trend toward “They are taking away Freedom of Speech if they evenly enforce their own rules!” so, I’d apologize for being dismssive about it, but I’m not sorry.)

You’re claiming that these pages are “things [I] happen not to like,” as though they’re like, fan pages for Marvel and all the critics are entitled DC fans or something, demanding that Facebook capitulate to our tastes in pop culture. You could argue that these are just jokes, so let’s look at them that way. Of any of the pages cited here, do you see any for which the punchline amounts to anything but, “Get it? Because rape is funny!” or “Because women don’t have rights!” or “Because women I find promiscuous deserve violence!”

Please, tell me, how on earth does “Throwing eggs at sluts, brick shaped eggs — made from brick,” not count as “hateful, [or] threatening” content? MAYBE you could argue that it doesn’t “incite violence,” but it certainly trivializes and normalizes it, and, (and this is key,) “Hateful, threatening” content IS against Facebook’s TOU. If Facebook decides to change it’s TOU to a neutral position on this sort of thing, the discussion will be pretty much just as over as it would be if they shut down these pages.

And “there are rape survivors all over” was kind of my point there.The chances that these pages ARE getting posted on survivors’ walls is actually not really insignificant. And on a website that specifically disallows hateful content, and gratuitous violence (such as, you know, harming a woman for the lulz), I imagine that “Well at least they’ve got their free speech” isn’t much of a comfort.

So just to be clear, do you admit that you were, in fact, wrong? That it is not EXPLICITLY against Facebook TOU? We can, of course, debate whether it is against the TOU (does it qualify as “hateful”). But since you “don’t even need to read the rest of you comment to know it’s kinda BS”, you obviously don’t want debate. You want everyone to agree with you without any discussion, because of course you’re so right and everyone else is so wrong. 

Oh, and “Please, tell me, how on earth does “Throwing eggs at sluts, brick shaped eggs — made from brick,” not count as “hateful, [or] threatening” content?” is a ridiculous question. Since it’s clearly a joke, it’s equally clearly not threatening, in the same vein as when I talk about someone I don’t like, and someone says “kick his ass, C-Bass!”, they aren’t actually saying that I am C-Bass, nor that I should really kick their ass. 

Whether the speech is hateful is ARGUABLE, I’m not saying it absolutely isn’t, I’m saying that not everyone would choose to interpret it as hateful. Not everyone feels offensive jokes are hate speech. 

You feel the jokes mean that, and that’s fine. It’s your right to feel that way, and I wouldn’t blame you. But do you think that George Carlin, who made a  few rape jokes, thought “women don’t have rights”? In fact, do you honestly think that the people who liked these pages really think that? 

It’s hard to draw the line, it always is. You seem to think everything is black and white, but then, you don’t know the definition of the word “explicit”. 

I once again think that your use of rape victims is offensive; it’s no different than the old “Think of the childrens!!1!” argument. It doesn’t lend your argument more credence, and it just shows how little legitimate argument you have. “You can’t say that, X might maybe be listening potentially!!!”

None of this, of course, has anything whatsoever to do with the government.  The first amendment, as may know, does not start, “Congress and Facebook shall make no law…”  The only people talking about government censorship are the ones trying to hide behind a strawman.

P.S. The “you’d love it in Russia” card has already been played.  One per comment thread, please.  And no, changing the country to Singapore doesn’t count.

Precious, it’s generally considered bad form to call someone a knee-jerk reactionary, when you’re standing there saying that people petitioning Facebook are asking to live under a crushing, repressive government a’la Singapore.

P.S. I’m just going to assume that bit at the end (you know, where you equate rape with people petitioning Facebook to follow their own stated content policies) was not intentional.  But, you know, even unintentional?  That’s still really fucked up.

Linking to the PA Dickwolves fiasco as an example of an acceptable rape joke kinda undercuts the rest of the article. Semi-famous dudes encouraging their fans to harass rape survivors and selling shirts with pro-rape slogans on them just because their comic was criticized aren’t any better than the people who make these Facebook pages.

And yet my local public library does not have a porn section. Go figure. 

To give some perspective, these would not be all rape victims as a general group, these would be rape victims who were in the subset saying that any joke which uses rape in any way, even in the context of the most horrible thing imaginable, makes someone a “rape apologist”, and these “pro-rape slogans” were in support of “Team Dickwolf”, right?

It was less the original comic that made them rape apologists and more their response to rape survivors criticizing said comic – which was to mock them, encourage their ‘team rape’ fans on twitter to troll and harass said survivors, and make money selling shirts with a pro-rape slogan on them, and proudly wearing them to their supposedly women-friendly con.

And ‘Team Dickwolf’ IS a pro-rape slogan – you can’t argue that you’re representing rape as ‘the most horrible thing imaginable’ when you’re cheerfully aligning yourself with fictional rapists – especially when actual survivors who objected are being sent pictures of dead women to try and shut them up by your ‘team dickwolf’ buddies. Although though whole dickwolves concept was meant to be so exaggerated as to be laughable, so you can’t really argue that the original comic took rape all that seriously either.

The original comic (if someone hasn’t seen it) showed a hero approached by a prisoner, who is grateful for the rescue they think they’re getting, who lists the horrors and abuses they suffered (including “every night we’re raped to sleep by the dickwolves”), only to have the hero tell him that he already had the 5 rescues he needed for the quest, so… 

The point of the joke was, of course, that the heroes of a lot of MMORPGs are kind of monstrous when you realize what they AREN’T doing when they’ve finished a quest. So no, it didn’t take rape “seriously”, in that it was part of a joke; as a general rule, nothing included in a joke is serious, hence it being a “joke”. 

However, the response was that rape isn’t funny (while, according to one of the most vocal critics, murder is) because rape happens every day, so therefore there are no contexts in which rape can be used in humor under any circumstances, and what TERRIBLE PEOPLE the creators of the comic were, and how dare they contribute to rape culture. 

The original comic, of course, clearly was not doing so. 

The artists posted a tongue in cheek apology, which did not go over well. Then they pointed out that they do a LOT of offensive humor (including bestiality and pedophilia jokes), but continued to receive criticism. 2 MONTHS of continued criticism. At which time they produced the Team Dickwolves shirt, out of an understandable frustration. 

Oh, and there was never any encouragement from the creators to harrass rape survivors, in fact, the creators spoke out against it.

There were, of course, fans of the comic who felt that they were being treated unfairly, and responded in an over the top fashion. Of course, then, the opponents of PA decided to say that someone should “literally murder his wife and children”, so neither side was 100% winners. 

Check http://debacle.tumblr.com/post/3041940865/the-pratfall-of-penny-arcade-a-timeline out, it gives a decent timeline of events. And shows that while they DEFINITELY could have responded better, and certainly eventually lines of good taste were well crossed, at the same time, it was the other side who STARTED being unreasonable (RAPE CAN NEVER BE MENTIONED EVER OR ELSE YOU’RE PERPETUATING RAPE CULTURE), and the snowball came when they were snarky in response, which engendered further outrage, which caused them to respond with more anger which causes more outrage which send the whole thing spiralling downhill. 

I definitely think it’s relevant to the current discussion; it was one of the first things I thought of when this came up. 

Groupon still advertises on Facebook. I have called for them to pull their ads and funding, along with taking/posting numerous screenshots of their ads on rape/pedocriminality/misogynist Facebook pages. So far, I’ve gotten a patronizing and insulting response, including a suggestion that I ask Facebook to do something about it. Way to pass the buck, Groupon. I will be outing them now, big time.

Wrong.

Delete it. I did- men kept stalking, threatening, and harrassing me through it. Imagine that. /s

I think it’s perfectly well-communicated: “FUCK YOU, WOMEN”. Clear as can be.

Steig Larrson is a scumbag, and his books are rape and torture-fantasy trash. He also claimed to have witnessed a rape and done nothing about it. So, either he lied about witnessing a rape to promote his rape-porn trash (the original title of which was Men Who Hate Women), or he saw a rape occurring and did nothing to stop it. SCUM, any way you slice it.

WRONG.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071106083038.htm

In what sense?