It’s not advocating for violence. It’s advocating for defending against rape. Without rape, which is obviously violent in and of itself, there’s no violence to speak of. The bottom line here is that, through deterrence, this sort of post yields a reduction in violence. Being against it can only really be viewed as an objection to consequences for rapists raping people.
If you got a ticket ordering you to cut off Lemmy over this, then it’s your duty to push back. An awful lot of terrible people were “just following orders” and the world doesn’t forgive that excuse. Stop defending rapists.
I thought I was pretty clear about it when you said that you were against the idea of posts about people defending themselves against rapists.
Being against it can only really be viewed as an objection to consequences for rapists raping people.
I’m not saying that you’re currently defending rapists, but it sounds an awful lot like you would be on the rapists’ side since you wouldn’t stand up to a request to block content that suggests that a rape victim should defensively harm their rapist to stop their rape. If that’s your stance, then that’s defending a rapist. That would be advocating against consequences for rapists, and I’m assuming that only a rapist who wanted to continue getting away with it would order such a thing. Or maybe it’s on behalf of their rapist friends. The point is that people who don’t rape people shouldn’t have any problem with the idea that rapists should know that getting killed in their quest to commit a rape is a very real possibility, and most people wouldn’t even feel sorry for them for being killed while attempting rape.
If there’s a situation where we need to choose whether a person gets raped or the person attempting the rape gets killed in order to stop/prevent that rape, I don’t think there’s even anything to debate.
It’s not advocating for violence. It’s advocating for defending against rape. Without rape, which is obviously violent in and of itself, there’s no violence to speak of. The bottom line here is that, through deterrence, this sort of post yields a reduction in violence. Being against it can only really be viewed as an objection to consequences for rapists raping people.
If you got a ticket ordering you to cut off Lemmy over this, then it’s your duty to push back. An awful lot of terrible people were “just following orders” and the world doesn’t forgive that excuse. Stop defending rapists.
How am I defending rapists?
I thought I was pretty clear about it when you said that you were against the idea of posts about people defending themselves against rapists.
I’m not saying that you’re currently defending rapists, but it sounds an awful lot like you would be on the rapists’ side since you wouldn’t stand up to a request to block content that suggests that a rape victim should defensively harm their rapist to stop their rape. If that’s your stance, then that’s defending a rapist. That would be advocating against consequences for rapists, and I’m assuming that only a rapist who wanted to continue getting away with it would order such a thing. Or maybe it’s on behalf of their rapist friends. The point is that people who don’t rape people shouldn’t have any problem with the idea that rapists should know that getting killed in their quest to commit a rape is a very real possibility, and most people wouldn’t even feel sorry for them for being killed while attempting rape.
If there’s a situation where we need to choose whether a person gets raped or the person attempting the rape gets killed in order to stop/prevent that rape, I don’t think there’s even anything to debate.
It’s no wonder women chose bears. jfc.