I read the whole thing, understood it, dismissed it. Vague or explicit allusions to sexual violence are about as funny/helpful/fair/meaningful/good/logical/whatever as vague allusions to racial violence.
So yeah, free downvote for mentioning it outside of a discussion that actually includes it meaningfully.
That's a shame. Extreme/hyperbolic examples have an important place in discourse. They force you to consider your ideas to their logical ends. In this case it illustrated that a line needs to be drawn somewhere by giving an example of something we all agree is reprehensible.
As far as I can tell, though, you're opposed to mentioning racial and sexual violence at all in conversation. What is the point of that kind of self-censorship? Rape will continue to be rape even if you never read or say that word again.
You seem to think that maintaining a polite level in discourse amounts to be censorship.
Curiously, we never feel the need to make these hyperbolic examples in the highest levels of discourse (be they academic or political), and yet somehow feel incredibly strongly about allowing them on internet sites.
Attempting to evoke violence, sexual assault and child abuse in discourse about something as abstract as the proper rules for radio light interpretation is not a positive addition.
We have plenty of opportunities to actually discuss said topics and no dearth of extreme metaphors to reach for to extend arguments to the absurd. We need not pretend this speech is vital for this community. Eroding the bulwark that protects this low and lazy standard as discourse is a net good for the community.
Perhaps maybe the author should have compared the practice to how Germans correlate re-naturalozed jewish citizens with health care use and reporting them for it, a quiet but severe controversy for that country.
> Perhaps maybe the author should have compared the practice to how Germans correlate re-naturalozed jewish citizens with health care use and reporting them for it, a quiet but severe controversy for that country.
This is where we differ. If we were talking about healthcare and someone brought up that point, I'd stop and think about it for a minute. Just because it refers to something evil and terrifying doesn't make it any less of a good point.
I actually learned something in this back-and-forth about how people perceive offensiveness in public dialogue, and react to perceived that offensiveness. I hope you make an effort to learn something too, and don't just come away with a haughty sense of victory.
> If we were talking about healthcare and someone brought up that point, I'd stop and think about it for a minute.
Riiiiight, but it'd be germane to a discussion about health care (assuming it actually was and was not a cheap shot). "Stranger danger creeps outside schools with cameras because radio = light and therefore basically the same as having your phone notice SSIDs" is a complete non-sequitur.
> and don't just come away with a haughty sense of victory.
Do you think this website has ever given me any sense of value or return? I'm here because I feel obligated to be. Not because I enjoy it or relish these debates. Our conversation and your predictable downvoting were practically foretold 500 years ago during a seizure by someone who saw a comet... that's how lamentably predictable the whole thing has been.
