Killing active-duty US military members to prevent them from engaging in their usual war crimes is OK because it serves a clear goal (incapacitate the soldier, deter other soldiers from joining).
Raping active-duty US military members is not OK because it does not serve any goal, she has PTSD now but that won’t stop her from doing more work for the military, and it does nothing to deter men from joining the military (if anything it may be a more enticing proposition for the target audience)
The question is not whether or not someone “deserved” something, it is “which material outcome do we want to achieve”.
Because you are refusing to answer my simple question of what you are advocating for, I will assume my initial assumption is correct. It seems the material outcome you want to achieve is terrible suffering for women in US military, not the prevention of war crimes by US military. While understandable that you want to hurt “bad people” like that, it’s not helpful at all.
You are once again completely ignoring the material reality and instead focusing on whether or not that woman “deserved” to be raped (that phrase has terrible connotations btw, this whole thread needs a large CW on it).
Whether or not someone deserves something is basically emotional and thus idealist, but its material roots are in the total social advantage of giving out a benefit or punishment to a given person. Therefore this is the angle we should take.
If we examine the material outcomes resulting from an active US military member being raped by a colleague, there is very little positive results there. For the victim, trauma does not prevent one from being violent and aggressive, if anything it exacerbates it. The perpetrator meanwhile will be enabled and mentally prepared for even more atrocities against their other victims. For everyone else, it normalizes a horrible behavior that has no place in society.
Then again, even form an idealist angle, I don’t think anyone deserves to be raped. Unlike killing, it is never a valid method of defense, because it requires that the target is already overpowered by the perpetrator. It does not serve any possible function other than satisfying the sexual/sadistic/controlling desires of the perpetrator at the expense of the victim.
It also serves as terrorism. Everyone else hears about the r*pe and has to think “that could happen to me” and that’s the point. That’s why Palestinian prisoners are SAed. It’s not just about humiliation and control, it’s about sending a message.
But terrorism has blowback. Now it’s being inflicted on civilian collaborators, when before it was only inflicted on enemies.
And that blowback keeps coming. These rapists will come home and r*pe us, too. There’s a chain of cause and effect.
What “deserved” are you talking about? She joined the rape force and got raped by her own rape force. Did someone but her own rape force rape her? I didn’t say you should go and rape the woman. I said she received what she signed up to do to others.
You are the one repeatedly saying that she deserved to be raped. You try to be edgy and sarcastic about it but that doesn’t change the message.
I didn’t say you should go and rape the woman. I said she received what she signed up to do to others.
If you repeatedly say that someone deserves something you are literally implying that we should go do something to people. It is what “deserves” fucking means.
Killing active-duty US military members to prevent them from engaging in their usual war crimes is OK because it serves a clear goal (incapacitate the soldier, deter other soldiers from joining).
Raping active-duty US military members is not OK because it does not serve any goal, she has PTSD now but that won’t stop her from doing more work for the military, and it does nothing to deter men from joining the military (if anything it may be a more enticing proposition for the target audience)
The question is not whether or not someone “deserved” something, it is “which material outcome do we want to achieve”.
Because you are refusing to answer my simple question of what you are advocating for, I will assume my initial assumption is correct. It seems the material outcome you want to achieve is terrible suffering for women in US military, not the prevention of war crimes by US military. While understandable that you want to hurt “bad people” like that, it’s not helpful at all.
Who raped her but the rape-terror forces she joined herself?
This is peak leapardsatemyface and you’re out here saying the person didn’t deserve to have their face eaten by a leopard.
Just women? What kind of sexist are you?
You are once again completely ignoring the material reality and instead focusing on whether or not that woman “deserved” to be raped (that phrase has terrible connotations btw, this whole thread needs a large CW on it).
Whether or not someone deserves something is basically emotional and thus idealist, but its material roots are in the total social advantage of giving out a benefit or punishment to a given person. Therefore this is the angle we should take.
If we examine the material outcomes resulting from an active US military member being raped by a colleague, there is very little positive results there. For the victim, trauma does not prevent one from being violent and aggressive, if anything it exacerbates it. The perpetrator meanwhile will be enabled and mentally prepared for even more atrocities against their other victims. For everyone else, it normalizes a horrible behavior that has no place in society.
Then again, even form an idealist angle, I don’t think anyone deserves to be raped. Unlike killing, it is never a valid method of defense, because it requires that the target is already overpowered by the perpetrator. It does not serve any possible function other than satisfying the sexual/sadistic/controlling desires of the perpetrator at the expense of the victim.
It also serves as terrorism. Everyone else hears about the r*pe and has to think “that could happen to me” and that’s the point. That’s why Palestinian prisoners are SAed. It’s not just about humiliation and control, it’s about sending a message.
But terrorism has blowback. Now it’s being inflicted on civilian collaborators, when before it was only inflicted on enemies.
And that blowback keeps coming. These rapists will come home and r*pe us, too. There’s a chain of cause and effect.
What “deserved” are you talking about? She joined the rape force and got raped by her own rape force. Did someone but her own rape force rape her? I didn’t say you should go and rape the woman. I said she received what she signed up to do to others.
You are the one repeatedly saying that she deserved to be raped. You try to be edgy and sarcastic about it but that doesn’t change the message.
If you repeatedly say that someone deserves something you are literally implying that we should go do something to people. It is what “deserves” fucking means.
What does leopardsatemyface mean?
It’s a term I came up with, and rape isn’t an acceptable punishment, and shouldn’t be celebrated. You’re making yourself look like a rapist.