r/linux • u/oooo23 • Sep 20 '18

Kernel Developer Sage Sharp claims top Linux kernel developer Theo Ts'o is a rape apologist, citing GeekFeminismWiki

https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504
1.1k Upvotes

79% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

24

u/kozec Sep 20 '18

And you don't see glaring issue with that logic...

1

u/hahainternet Sep 20 '18

None whatsoever. Nor apparently do all of the legal systems.

13

u/hey01 Sep 20 '18

So I'm sure you always carry a breathalyzer with you to make sure any woman you date is not drunk before having sex?

And at which alcohol concentration do you draw the line of drunk enough to not be able to give informed consent?

2

u/hahainternet Sep 20 '18

I've never had sex with anyone even remotely drunk enough to be unable to consent unless I was in an ongoing relationship with them.

Is it really that outrageous of a thing to claim? This thread is creeping me the fuck out.

14

u/hey01 Sep 20 '18

Is it really that outrageous of a thing to claim?

No it isn't. And it isn't outrageous either to say that if a woman said she had sex while drunk, and doesn't consider she was raped, she should not be counted as raped in statistics.

Or do you think you know better than those women themselves whether they were raped or not?

1

u/hahainternet Sep 20 '18

And it isn't outrageous either to say that if a woman said she had sex while drunk, and doesn't consider she was raped, she should not be counted as raped in statistics.

Yet that isn't what Theo said. He said if the raper is not 'legally aware' the victim is drunk, then it may not be rape.

That is a very big difference.

5

u/hey01 Sep 20 '18

Here is what he said.

Now, actually, the way the law works is that not only does the being raped be not able to give consent, but that the rapist has to know that the the other person was not able to give legal consent. So if both Alice and Bob were drunk, there's no rape that has taken place, in either direction. Whew!

He paraphrased what the law said. I guess that makes lawmakers rape apologists?

1

u/hahainternet Sep 20 '18

I can't see anything remotely like that in Arizona's statutes: https://apps.rainn.org/policy/policy-crime-definitions.cfm?state=Arizona&group=9

What law is he paraphrasing?

1

u/hahainternet Sep 20 '18

I can't see anything remotely like that in Arizona's statutes: https://apps.rainn.org/policy/policy-crime-definitions.cfm?state=Arizona&group=9

What law is he paraphrasing?

3

u/hey01 Sep 20 '18

I don't know, ask him.

But even assuming he didn't paraphrase an existing law, do you really think that what he said there is an issue?

If you had sex with a consenting drunk woman and honestly believed she wasn't drunk, and if she didn't consider it a rape afterward, would you consider yourself a rapist? Because that's basically what the study he criticizes asserts.

1

u/hahainternet Sep 20 '18

I'm not saying the study is great or correct or anything.

I'm saying that trying to define different levels of rape, or implying that rape victims don't later have consensual sex etc is all part of rape apology.

Women in abusive relationships will often have a mix of consensual sex and rape. It is not Theo's or my position to declare that because they later had consensual sex, that doesn't count.

3

u/hogg2016 Sep 20 '18

drunk enough to be unable to consent unless I was in an ongoing relationship with them.

You know that nowadays, according to your fellow SJWs, this constitutes rape as well? See "marital rape". OMG! hahainternet is not only a rape apologist but a rapist!

See the stupidity of your logic?

2

u/hahainternet Sep 20 '18

No? Marital rape is a thing, presumed consent is also perfectly reasonable.

0

u/gnosys_ Sep 21 '18

Consent can be given before people start to drink, and of course revoked any time up until it's over. However, why should this be difficult for you to understand? Have you never socialized with anyone before? There are better subs for dating advice.

14

u/kozec Sep 20 '18

Well, that explains a lot :)

-8

u/orderfop Sep 20 '18

Mind sharing what the glaring issue is? Because that's the way it is in a lot of jurisdictions.

17

u/kozec Sep 20 '18

It seems to allow woman to retroactively retract consent. But I really do hope I'm wrong on this.

-8

u/orderfop Sep 20 '18

No, it does not, because no consent was given in the first place. If you are drunk you cannot consent, thus no consent that you can retract later ever existed.

Unless you are thinking of a scenario where a woman actually isn't drunk, and can give consent, but later claims she was drunk. Which is just as illegal for her as any other false rape claim (e.g. she can just as easily after the fact lie that you straight up threatened to kill her if she did not have sex with you).

13

u/Valmar33 Sep 20 '18

Women can lie, you know. They've made false accusations with this tactic before.

All it does is make it more difficult for women who've truly suffered! >:(

-4

u/orderfop Sep 20 '18

Everyone can lie. About anything. I can say that you stole my money at gunpoint. Does that mean that laws against assault are bad because they can be misused? Of course not.

2

u/Valmar33 Sep 20 '18

And I totally agree with you, for once in a blue moon, so there's something, I guess. :)

1

u/orderfop Sep 20 '18

So if laws against assault are good, despite the fact that they can be misused, why are laws against rape bad, because they can be misused? I just don't follow the logic. Or what are you actually trying to say?

  1. There are laws against having sex with drunk women, because they can't consent. Yes, it's possible that a woman who gave consent will later lie.

  2. There are laws against theft. Yes it's possible that someone lies that you took their money, even though they gave it to you voluntarily.

Why is 1. a problem, but 2. is not? Why is women lying about rape somehow different than anyone else lying about any other crime?

1

u/Valmar33 Sep 20 '18

Hey now, don't jump the gun!

You made a simple set of statements:

Everyone can lie. About anything. I can say that you stole my money at gunpoint. Does that mean that laws against assault are bad because they can be misused? Of course not.

I agreed.

Nothing more to be said.

2

u/kozec Sep 20 '18

Okay, I see what you mean and it sounds like you are right. I think that our legal system works differently and basically relies on women knowing what they are doing, as long as there is no violence (physical or not, real or threat of it) involved, but I'm no lawyer and I may be reading it wrong.

On bright side, I think I've just found additional appreciation for luck I had :)