Jokes about prison rape on men? Not a fan.

[Rhea]

Some folks opine that bad people will get what’s coming to them by ending up in prison, victimized by rape. It’s usually delivered as a laugh line.

But I’d like to suggest it’s harmful and wrong to make a laugh out of extra-judicial violence, particularly in the case of the traumatizing and degrading violence of rape.

My personal philosophy is that retribution never helps. It only legitimizes the idea that violence and degradation is okay when you feel “justified.” All criminals feel “justified.” All bullies feel “justified” all of those school shooters and all of those rapists feel “justified.”

I think it is a bad turn for society to give them any indication in any way that all you have to feel is “justified” and you can rape, assault, brutalize, murder.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Looks like someone is woke about rape.

 

[Arctish]

Looks like someone is woke about rape.

Well then, call me woke about rape because I agree with Rhea.

 

[ideologyhunter]

In case my screed elsewhere on this site inspired the OP, I feel the opposite of the OP. Humor is about absurdity. It doesn't have boundaries. An audience member can have boundaries. We all do.
Jim Norton does an extended routine on the Jerry Sandusky scandal on one of his cd's. I find it hilarious. In no way can a discerning adult consider it advocacy. It's about absurdity, in this case an absurdity of horrors. If that stuff offends you, avoid it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Some folks opine that bad people will get what’s coming to them by ending up in prison, victimized by rape. It’s usually delivered as a laugh line.

But I’d like to suggest it’s harmful and wrong to make a laugh out of extra-judicial violence, particularly in the case of the traumatizing and degrading violence of rape.

My personal philosophy is that retribution never helps. It only legitimizes the idea that violence and degradation is okay when you feel “justified.” All criminals feel “justified.” All bullies feel “justified” all of those school shooters and all of those rapists feel “justified.”

I think it is a bad turn for society to give them any indication in any way that all you have to feel is “justified” and you can rape, assault, brutalize, murder.

I think there's a difference between laughing at someone for bringing consequences on themselves and feeling those consequences are strictly 'justified'. I laugh at Wells Fargo and Target for being burned down, but I don't think it is "justified". I think 'justification' reads much like a repackaging of 'excuse'. It implies, to me, that the person who offers the justification would feel entitled to repeat their actions, without further consideration, if they arrive in the same context, as opposed to having to consider in the future how and why the outcome was still bad and how and why to avoid having to do whatever it was ever again.

To that end, I think the solution to the trolley problem is in fact how to avoid getting into that falling problem in the first place. Justification only goes so far as doing things you have a right to do already.

Given that context, I do think it is amusing when someone who fucks over society gets, well, fucked. But it is not justified and we still have a responsibility to prevent such violations from happening. Two bad out outcomes don't make a good outcome, even if the result is no further bad outcomes.

You are absolutely right: everyone is the hero of their own story and people will jump through all kinds of hoops to prove it to themselves. We absolutely need to set aside our desire for revenge. But I can't not feel "good" when I see a child rapist (or killer cop) get their anus prolapsed. I don't get to decide how I feel after all.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Looks like someone is woke about rape.

Well then, call me woke about rape because I agree with Rhea.

It is a slippery slope. First rape, then shanking, then murder. If we can’t take light in the terrible things that happen to people in prison, don’t the terrorists win?

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Some folks opine that bad people will get what’s coming to them by ending up in prison, victimized by rape. It’s usually delivered as a laugh line.

But I’d like to suggest it’s harmful and wrong to make a laugh out of extra-judicial violence, particularly in the case of the traumatizing and degrading violence of rape.

My personal philosophy is that retribution never helps. It only legitimizes the idea that violence and degradation is okay when you feel “justified.” All criminals feel “justified.” All bullies feel “justified” all of those school shooters and all of those rapists feel “justified.”

I think it is a bad turn for society to give them any indication in any way that all you have to feel is “justified” and you can rape, assault, brutalize, murder.

I suspect the urge for revenge is not rational but rather emotional. Killing is terrible revenge because there is no more suffering.

The issue really comes down to the utter vacuum that revenge offers. Showing people that revenge does not help anyone is great but for people with no personal experience with exacting revenge, it all goes out the window when the pain of the offense feels personal. Yes, it is clearly wrong and obviously so. That thougbt doesn't intrude on the emotions until the individual has a bit of experience getting revenge. And for those that try to convince themselves that it was a right decision, practice can make them into monsters.

I speak here with a great deal of personal experience in this subject so I didn't just pull that out of my butt. I was a butcher for ten years in my youth. Most knockers (knocks the animals in the head) become vicious and cruel after a while.

 

[Rhea]

In case my screed elsewhere on this site inspired the OP, I feel the opposite of the OP. Humor is about absurdity. It doesn't have boundaries. An audience member can have boundaries. We all do.
Jim Norton does an extended routine on the Jerry Sandusky scandal on one of his cd's. I find it hilarious. In no way can a discerning adult consider it advocacy. It's about absurdity, in this case an absurdity of horrors. If that stuff offends you, avoid it.

It did cause me to post, but it was not just you - it’s used often and this was just the impetus to have a conversation about it.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I can't fathom the pain, both physical and mental of being raped, whether you're a man or a woman. Either is uniquely awful. In the past I've made the odd joke, but I've reassessed that behavior and decided that I don't want to do that anymore. But then, too, I'm finding in my old age (wink) that I'm not as tolerant of violence as I used to be.

I actually had an unpopular opinion last week on reddit. The topic was a neighbor that caught a registered sex offender again talking to his underage girls. He had the offender on the ground, and kept slapping and punching him, threatening him, his life, and so on, admonishing him never to talk to his girls again. As a father, I get this. I really do. I understand the fear and the anger, but in my mind that didn't excuse the behavior of the dad to the offender. I know it's acceptable to look the other way when pedophiles are hurt, and I can somewhat understand the appeal. I also notice that wishing harm on pedophiles is a common type of virtue signalling in our society. There are better ways to handle it in my opinion.

 

[repoman]

In case my screed elsewhere on this site inspired the OP, I feel the opposite of the OP. Humor is about absurdity. It doesn't have boundaries. An audience member can have boundaries. We all do.
Jim Norton does an extended routine on the Jerry Sandusky scandal on one of his cd's. I find it hilarious. In no way can a discerning adult consider it advocacy. It's about absurdity, in this case an absurdity of horrors. If that stuff offends you, avoid it.

yeah, with broadcasting from before for the most part you had to search out more edgy material, now you can get crazy unwanted stuff on all the feeds of social media you are on when you are not in the mood for edgy stuff.

But Jim Norton for all his other faults is not a misanthropist at all. He is pretty compassionate for a comedian.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Retribution is built-in morality. It's a feature, not a bug - when the retribution is just, that is.

The behavior the jokes are about - i.e., prison rape - is not just retribution for the crimes of the inmates. In fact, it is not even unjust retribution for those crimes - it is not retribution at all, as the rapists do not rape the victims in order to punish them for the crimes for which they were sent to prison.

So, in short: I disagree about retribution. But I agree that prison rape is evil, and is not what they deserve.

 

[Jarhyn]

Retribution is built-in morality. It's a feature, not a bug - when the retribution is just, that is.

The behavior the jokes are about - i.e., prison rape - is not just retribution for the crimes of the inmates. In fact, it is not even unjust retribution for those crimes - it is not retribution at all, as the rapists do not rape the victims in order to punish them for the crimes for which they were sent to prison.

So, in short: I disagree about retribution. But I agree that prison rape is evil, and is not what they deserve.

And rape is a built in reproduction strategy for a lot of species. Doesn't make it right. Is does not automatically drive ought and evolution only produces "good enough for now". You have a much higher bar to pass to justify retributive justice, much more than your revenge boner

The fact is, we can get better outcomes without revenge in the picture at all.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Retribution is built-in morality. It's a feature, not a bug - when the retribution is just, that is.

The behavior the jokes are about - i.e., prison rape - is not just retribution for the crimes of the inmates. In fact, it is not even unjust retribution for those crimes - it is not retribution at all, as the rapists do not rape the victims in order to punish them for the crimes for which they were sent to prison.

So, in short: I disagree about retribution. But I agree that prison rape is evil, and is not what they deserve.

And rape is a built in reproduction strategy for a lot of species. Doesn't make it right. Is does not automatically drive ought and evolution only produces "good enough for now". You have a much higher bar to pass to justify retributive justice, much more than your revenge boner

The fact is, we can get better outcomes without revenge in the picture at all.

I do not have a boner. That is merely you insulting me. But retribution is built-into human morality. When people call for justice for the victims of rape, or murder, etc., what they want is to inflict punishment on the perpetrators. And that is what their moral sense says, that they deserve it. It is moral outrage what they feel, not an intent to rape for fun or something akin to that - nor any kind of sexual impulse, distorted or otherwise.

In other words, it's not merely that humans have an evolve tendency for retribution. It's that part of the specific part of the (evolved, but that's not the use) human mind that is the moral part of the mind, normally makes retributive assessments. Even with their huge and growing power, the Woke will not be able to end retributive justice. They might mandate an end to it, and remove it from the laws, and will say that what they're doing is not retribution. But barring massive genetic engineering to replace humans with something else (which they won't do), retributive justice will stay - even if distorted to some extent.

 

[Rhea]

Even with their huge and growing power, the Woke will not be able to end retributive justice. They might mandate an end to it, and remove it from the laws, and will say that what they're doing is not retribution. But barring massive genetic engineering to replace humans with something else (which they won't do), retributive justice will stay - even if distorted to some extent.

There are pretty large numbers of people who want rehab instead of punishment, and in cases when rehab is not possible, simply removal from public of the dangerous.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Retribution is built-in morality. It's a feature, not a bug - when the retribution is just, that is.

Except it is criminals applying the retribution. That isn't justice. It isn't like the victim or family of the victim is getting a cut. Nor is there any system where said retribution is distributed.

It is merely lawlessness we pretend is retribution. Heh... they'll get their's in prison... just like the guy who is in prison for some minor crime.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I have targeted nukes at my own planet. And joked about it. If it were up to me, i would want to prevent nuclear war. But i still joked about it.

I worked a suicide hotline. I did this exactly because i wanted to stop suicides. But among the hotline workers, we joked about some of the calls.

The missile tech who volunteered on an ambulance had anecdotes that made MTs throw up. Not me, but i was working the hotline at the time. We used to just clear out the break room, swapping stories. But finding humor in a subject is a separate subject from the reality.

Given the opportunity, or authority, or sufficient tasers, i would stop any rape, even in prison, even if the victim was a rapist, a child molester, or one of the Trumps.

However, the idea of someone like Bannon, or Stone, or Trump being in prison, and facing the threat of rape amuses me. Not because of any thoughts of justice, karma, or retribution.
I like the idea of some evil bastard facing the fact that he's fallen so low, that no matter his money, his clout, his political savvy, or his friends, he's now a goldfish in a shark tank. And he done it to his own greedy self.

And that's funny.

 

[Jarhyn]

Retribution is built-in morality. It's a feature, not a bug - when the retribution is just, that is.

The behavior the jokes are about - i.e., prison rape - is not just retribution for the crimes of the inmates. In fact, it is not even unjust retribution for those crimes - it is not retribution at all, as the rapists do not rape the victims in order to punish them for the crimes for which they were sent to prison.

So, in short: I disagree about retribution. But I agree that prison rape is evil, and is not what they deserve.

And rape is a built in reproduction strategy for a lot of species. Doesn't make it right. Is does not automatically drive ought and evolution only produces "good enough for now". You have a much higher bar to pass to justify retributive justice, much more than your revenge boner

The fact is, we can get better outcomes without revenge in the picture at all.

I do not have a boner. That is merely you insulting me. But retribution is built-into human morality. When people call for justice for the victims of rape, or murder, etc., what they want is to inflict punishment on the perpetrators. And that is what their moral sense says, that they deserve it. It is moral outrage what they feel, not an intent to rape for fun or something akin to that - nor any kind of sexual impulse, distorted or otherwise.

In other words, it's not merely that humans have an evolve tendency for retribution. It's that part of the specific part of the (evolved, but that's not the use) human mind that is the moral part of the mind, normally makes retributive assessments. Even with their huge and growing power, the Woke will not be able to end retributive justice. They might mandate an end to it, and remove it from the laws, and will say that what they're doing is not retribution. But barring massive genetic engineering to replace humans with something else (which they won't do), retributive justice will stay - even if distorted to some extent.

Yes. You have a "revenge boner". A lot of people do. In this case "revenge boner" is a pejorative description of the desire to consummate revenge and experience a drive relief. It is a pejorative for any aroused emotional drive. You get "horny" but instead of that horniness to rub your dick, it's horniness to see someone else suffer during an act of revenge. It is a base instinct and one that rational humans should learn to either overcome or redirect.

It doesn't matter where in the brain this conceptual revenge penis lives. It is an evolved drive. It is an evolved drive to serve a purpose, perhaps badly, but "good enough for the Paleolithic". Lots of things were good enough for the Paleolithic. They just aren't good enough for now. No amount of hand waving and wishing will get you past is-/>ought.

You need a goal to get there, and then select the path from (situation) to (goal) that has the best outcome. As Rhea stated, "rehab instead of punishment, and in cases when rehab is not possible, simply removal from public of the dangerous," is a much better model. It just wasn't a model that was useful in the Paleolithic age when humans were more capable than the physical efforts it would take to sequester them, and forcing them to endure what they had inflicted on others was a last line chance at forcibly generating an empathetic understanding of their actions.

There are better models now, more time, more security. The only question is, do you think you can be more reasonable and rational than cave men. I joined these boards when it was still "freethought and rationalism discussion boards". "Letting my revenge boner steer me into revenge" is not a rational process, it is an emotional one.

 

[Politesse]

But if we don't insult, degrade, and mock the terrible suffering of the occupants of the prison system, how will we maintain control of America's remaining slave class? We can't have the freedmen sympathizing with indentured felons, next they'll want to give them rights. It's a slippery slope that leads from protection from rape to absurd demands to end torture, unpaid or underpaid labor, grift, predatory court practices, and unofficial indefinite extension of all sentences due to unemployability and police harassment of ex-convicts leading to almost inevitable reincarceration.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Even with their huge and growing power, the Woke will not be able to end retributive justice. They might mandate an end to it, and remove it from the laws, and will say that what they're doing is not retribution. But barring massive genetic engineering to replace humans with something else (which they won't do), retributive justice will stay - even if distorted to some extent.

There are pretty large numbers of people who want rehab instead of punishment, and in cases when rehab is not possible, simply removal from public of the dangerous.

When they are applying their ideology, sure, just as Christians can go for 'hate the sin, not the sinner'. But in their daily lives, when their ideology is not applied because they're not thinking about it, they will do what human monkeys do: they will go for retribution of those they deem wrongdoers, even if a small percentage manage not to do so when they demand government punishment.

Now, granted, removal from the public of the dangerous is also a common motivation, though usually, retribution seems to be the main one. Just look at people in demonstrations, calling for "justice for Jane/John Doe", or calling for punishment for the perpetrators, etc. What they want is that the perpetrators suffer for what they did, as they deserve. They also may want - but that's not the main drive, not what really gets them outraged - to remove the dangerous from society, though.

As for rehabilitation, that's something that can be added to it, sure. I mean, I have no problem if the perpetrator, in addition to being properly punished, is treated, as long as there is available treatment (as opposed to wasting resources in something that is almost sure not to work). But the punitive intent will remain higher on the agenda. Well, at least as there are humans and are driving things. This might be changed by massive genetic engineering (i.e., no more humans), or by a non-human dictator (e.g., AGI dictator). But other than than, I do not see that changing (fortunately, as it would be massively unjust).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yes. You have a "revenge boner". A lot of people do. In this case "revenge boner" is a pejorative description of the desire to consummate revenge and experience a drive relief. It is a pejorative for any aroused emotional drive. You get "horny" but instead of that horniness to rub your dick, it's horniness to see someone else suffer during an act of revenge. It is a base instinct and one that rational humans should learn to either overcome or redirect.

It is a pejorative description of a significant portion of human morality, and since you do that deliberately, it is unethical on your part to do that. It is also epistemically irrational on your part to fail to realize that this is part of human morality. Humans who are being epistemically rational will realize just retribution is, well, just.

And no, of course, it is not the case that rational humans should learn to overcome or redirect something that is part of morality. Nor will they, regardless of the power of the Woke.

It doesn't matter where in the brain this conceptual revenge penis lives. It is an evolved drive. It is an evolved drive to serve a purpose, perhaps badly, but "good enough for the Paleolithic". Lots of things were good enough for the Paleolithic. They just aren't good enough for now. No amount of hand waving and wishing will get you past is-/>ought.

The 'oughts' do not come from the commands of God. They are part of our mental architechture - which, as it happened, evolved. And I was not trying to get from an is to ought - though I can do that too: it is immoral for you to condemn just retribution, so you ought not to do it. Rather, I was saying that just retribution is an evolved part of the human moral faculty - and a very significant one at that. You can make it go away if you manage massive genetic engineering and replace humans with something else. You can suppress it if you manage to make some AGI-dictator. But short of that, you are not in luck.

You need a goal to get there, and then select the path from (situation) to (goal) that has the best outcome.

The just punishment of the guilty is the best outcome, all other things equal (though not always they are, so sometimes it's a lesser evil to let them get away with evil).

There are better models now, more time, more security. The only question is, do you think you can be more reasonable and rational than cave men. I joined these boards when it was still "freethought and rationalism discussion boards". "Letting my revenge boner steer me into revenge" is not a rational process, it is an emotional one.

Instead of "revenge boner", you should perhaps call it your 'retributive justice moral faculty'. And no, attempting to destroy one of your moral faculties is a bad idea. It's not rational. Or morally acceptable.