The Purple Pill Debate subreddit is a strange little corner of the internet, a place where intrepid Blue Pillers try to logic Red Pillers into giving up their repugnant ideology, and vice versa.
The main problem with this strategy is that Red Pillers don’t really understand logic as you or I do. They’ve got their own version, and it’s pretty … weird, as one recent post in r/PurplePillDebate makes abundantly clear.
The proposition being debated: “If you expect a man to date a rape victim, then you should be willing to date a pedophile.”
Wait, what? The Red Piller advancing this, er, argument tries to explain in more detail what exactly he means:
Rape victims often develop a variety of serious psychological issues, including depression, borderline personality disorder (aka borderline insanity disorder), self-harm, alcohol and/or drug addiction, and PTSD.
People who have these serious psychological issues are at a higher risk of joblessness, homelessness, and divorce. They tend to have unstable and chaotic relationships.
Now, of course it isn’t a rape victim’s fault that they were raped, but that still doesn’t mean that it is a good idea to date a rape victim.
So far, not so good. All of the sources the poster cites as evidence for these claims about rape survivors are behind paywalls, but a quick scan of the abstracts suggest that he didn’t read them very carefully. One of the papers he cites, actually looking at the effects of childhood sexual abuse rather than rape per se, reports that, contrary to the poster’s claims,
there is insufficient evidence to confirm a relation between a history of childhood sexual abuse and a postsexual abuse syndrome and multiple or borderline personality disorder.
That said, there’s no question that rape (or any kind of sexual abuse) can be extremely traumatic, with far-reaching and long-lasting consequences. These can certainly cause issues in relationships.
But every relationship has issues, and there is absolutely no evidence that rape survivors — or the survivors of any other serious trauma — are incapable of having healthy relationships.
At this point, our Red Pill poster goes completely off the rails:
Dating someone who has serious psychological issues is risky. To illustrate how risky it is, would you date a pedophile? Pedophilia isn’t a choice. However, pedophiles have unstable lives and wouldn’t make good romantic partners.
So, if you expect a man to be willing to date a rape victim because “it wasn’t her fault,” then you should be willing to date a pedophile because “it isn’t his fault.”
Wow. There are at least two gigantic problems here. First, of course, is the inherent offensiveness of suggesting there’s some sort of moral equivalency between pedophiles (potential if not necessarily actual predators) with rape survivors (people who have themselves been victimized by predators).
Second, there’s insurrectono’s if-then logic, which is utterly inappropriate when it comes to matters of the heart, where “should” shouldn’t go.
No, Red Pillers, no one is telling you that you are obligated to date rape survivors — or, for that matter, cancer patients, or Billy Joel fans, or indeed anyone in any particular category that human beings fall into.
Indeed, if your first thought upon hearing that someone us a rape survivor is to think “ick, she’s probably all messed up,” guess what?
No one really gives two shits whether or not you’re willing to date her. Because she doesn’t want to date you. Because you’re a petulant asshole with no empathy for other people. And that makes you pretty damn “risky” as a romantic partner.
H/T — r/TheBluePill
@ suffrajitsu
“Theory” is a great example of a word that has both a technical meaning and an ‘everyday’ one. (We discussed once whether the common creationist slogan was used in countries where the word for theory in the technical sense wasn’t also used for hypothesis)
I wasn’t trying to make any comment in regard to the ‘orientation’ debate; I was thinking more generally about the ‘dictionary definition’ thing.
How language evolves over time crops up a lot in law. We still use an old meaning of “malicious” for example, where the word actually means ‘reckless’. (In fact ‘malice’ means a few contradictory things in law, depending on when the relevant law came into being and how the word was used at the time!)
The ‘descriptive not prescriptive’ aspect of dictionaries is important to remember.
If the ‘prejudice + power’ definition of racism catches on then that will be reflected in dictionaries, either as an alternative meaning to the current one or, of it becomes the standard definition, with the current meaning related to ‘orig.’
And if words didn’t evolve then we wouldn’t be able to torture generations of English literature students. 😉
@Tinyants, It’s ok that you don’t want to respond, I had already reached the conclusion that you’re not arguing in good faith.
—
@suffrajitsu
That’s the disconnect then. I was talking about common usage “orientation,” not terminology “orientation.”
So the Red Pillers think that dating a rape victim is like dating a pedophile, because they might both be mentally ill? Then dating THEM is like dating a pedophile, because sociopathy is a mental illness.
Seriously, wtf is wrong with people? Do they blame the victims of child molestors too? That’s like telling a kid “If you didn’t want to be molested you shouldn’t have been at the park where child molesters hang out /playing in the sprinklers, flaunting that swimsuit area.” Rapists and rape apologists have more in common with child-molestors. At least some pedophiles have the decency to know right from wrong and control themselves, which makes them better people than these pieces of work.