As far as I can see, nobody in the discussion has brought up anything which would justify the "rape apologist" label Matthew Garrett used. Below I address some of the claims made:
"Ted called rape victims liars" This is false. He questioned some statistics, without making any such general claim. Also, it's rather ironic that the feminist side here then complained about how Ted's mail (the one linked next to this "liars" claim in Matthew Garrett's post) cited a statistic of the majority of the women in a study not themselves classifying the events as rape. In other words, *they* claimed that the women must be denying the truth or intentionally lying, while Ted did not claim that...
"Ted claimed that rape was impossible if both people were drunk enough" This is false. This lie seems to have been spread by Valerie Aurora. Ted did not claim rape is impossible if both are drunk enough. He was commenting on a claim that sex is always rape if there was no clear informed consent, and noted things can not be quite this simple: two people may have sex while both are drunk beyond the limit of informed consent, and in this symmetrical situation you either have to say that neither was raped despite lack of informed consent, or say that both were rapists themselves. Ted's claim is obviously true.
"Ted thinks rape is the victim's fault, not the rapist's" This is false. These claims seem to be based on Ted's mail saying "regardless of whether Alice is guilty of raping Bob (assume that Bob was inebriated and couldn't give consent, and she knew that Bob was drunk), should Bob be faulted for putting him into a situation where he was so drunk that he couldn't take responsibility for himself?". Some people have interpreted this to mean Alice was not at fault; this interpretation is false (note the "regardless of whether Alice is guilty"). Ted is in no way condoning the actions of the rapist; he's saying that people who incapacitate themselves by drinking too much may be faulted if they then suffer harm, even if that harm involved a crime by another person. This is an opinion people may disagree with, but it's hardly a rare one, and not specific to rape (even if you think he's wrong, "rape apologist" is certainly not an appropriate label for people disagreeing with you).
"Ted questioned what should be called rape, so he must be against sentencing anyone as a rapist" This is obviously false as phrased, yet there were various claims that essentially boil down to this. Some people seem to think that any discussion of gray areas (or terminology) is in itself harmful - they want to represent things as simple black and white. But that attitude is dishonest; gray areas do exist. There seems to be little substance to the claims that Ted would have actually said anything unacceptable about this, other than that he discussed gray areas at all.
"Whatever the details of what Ted actually said, the discussion was derailed after his posts, so he's guilty" So Ted's posts did not help the feminist crowd push their agenda. Regardless of whether this "derailing" is true, and who was to blame for it, this does not justify Valerie Aurora's and Matthew Garrett's attempts to intentionally harm Ted's public reputation. I hope nobody seriously thinks it's OK for them to attack Ted and label him a "rape apologist" just because he's not helping them push their views.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My overall take on the discussion
Date: 2012-11-04 06:48 pm (UTC)"Ted called rape victims liars"
This is false. He questioned some statistics, without making any such general claim. Also, it's rather ironic that the feminist side here then complained about how Ted's mail (the one linked next to this "liars" claim in Matthew Garrett's post) cited a statistic of the majority of the women in a study not themselves classifying the events as rape. In other words, *they* claimed that the women must be denying the truth or intentionally lying, while Ted did not claim that...
"Ted claimed that rape was impossible if both people were drunk enough"
This is false. This lie seems to have been spread by Valerie Aurora. Ted did not claim rape is impossible if both are drunk enough. He was commenting on a claim that sex is always rape if there was no clear informed consent, and noted things can not be quite this simple: two people may have sex while both are drunk beyond the limit of informed consent, and in this symmetrical situation you either have to say that neither was raped despite lack of informed consent, or say that both were rapists themselves. Ted's claim is obviously true.
"Ted thinks rape is the victim's fault, not the rapist's"
This is false. These claims seem to be based on Ted's mail saying "regardless of whether Alice is guilty of raping Bob (assume that Bob was inebriated and couldn't give consent, and she knew that Bob was drunk), should Bob be faulted for putting him into a situation where he was so drunk that he couldn't take responsibility for himself?". Some people have interpreted this to mean Alice was not at fault; this interpretation is false (note the "regardless of whether Alice is guilty"). Ted is in no way condoning the actions of the rapist; he's saying that people who incapacitate themselves by drinking too much may be faulted if they then suffer harm, even if that harm involved a crime by another person. This is an opinion people may disagree with, but it's hardly a rare one, and not specific to rape (even if you think he's wrong, "rape apologist" is certainly not an appropriate label for people disagreeing with you).
"Ted questioned what should be called rape, so he must be against sentencing anyone as a rapist"
This is obviously false as phrased, yet there were various claims that essentially boil down to this. Some people seem to think that any discussion of gray areas (or terminology) is in itself harmful - they want to represent things as simple black and white. But that attitude is dishonest; gray areas do exist. There seems to be little substance to the claims that Ted would have actually said anything unacceptable about this, other than that he discussed gray areas at all.
"Whatever the details of what Ted actually said, the discussion was derailed after his posts, so he's guilty"
So Ted's posts did not help the feminist crowd push their agenda. Regardless of whether this "derailing" is true, and who was to blame for it, this does not justify Valerie Aurora's and Matthew Garrett's attempts to intentionally harm Ted's public reputation. I hope nobody seriously thinks it's OK for them to attack Ted and label him a "rape apologist" just because he's not helping them push their views.