Again, these are arbitrary words on paper. :) They could be changed or deleted or rearranged tomorrow if we wanted.
How I'm approaching it -- and this is really really important in order to understand why I'm saying what i'm saying so I'm going to draw it out a bit to emphasize it further -- is that we should listen to this story, and consider the details of this incident in terms of the physical activities that occurred, and the context in which it occurred, and come to our own independent judgement as to whether what happened was (1) evil, and (2) what was the magnitude of it (if it was), and (3) was their actual harm done (not imagined harm, not theorized harm, not genericized extrapolated harm, etc.) but real harm, and (4) if whether the very same incident were to occur except that the woman liked it, would we still consider it to be a big deal, and would we still consider it a crime or think it should be a crime.
I clearly am coming down on the side that says that what happened should not have happened, but, oh darn, it's really not that big of a deal and she'll be fine. The guy misread how forward he could be, and/or was drunk and/or she was also drunk, and/or one or both were flirtatious and things went too far. It can happen. It's going to happen. It will keep happening just as long as humans are sexual and have to play the mating dance with incomplete and imperfect knowledge of the other's intentions and desires, and heck, even of their own.
And look, by her own admission, it's not like a case where he dragged her into an alley at knifepoint and violently raped her, leaving her bruised, bleeding, in pain, etc. That is stereotypical rape, and is evil, and I think there's a very large social consensus that that is bad and should be a crime and be punished. We are not talking about that kind of event in this particular case. But some people seem to have the same emotional baggage in mind when they evaluate it. And I think that's a misleading and weak position to be arguing from.
I think I would care much less about this particular case if (1) the guy was not named, and (2) it was not blogged about publicly, and (3) here on HN. I mean at most, this is a situation for her, that other guy, and the legal system (and that, arguably) to deal with. The fact that it's been laundered here makes me want to play Devil's Advocate with the hopes of illustrating what I think are extremely important distinctions that should be considered, but often are not.
I'm not judging the veracity of the story, Mike. All I'm saying is that in the story she told, the guy committed an actual crime. It has a name, and everything.
I understand. And in all of my comments, I've never argued from the position that this was definitely not a paper crime. It may or may not be, depending on what actually happened. Only two people know for sure. And a judge, etc. But I was arguing from the position of whether this should be a crime. And whether this should be made public, and names named, at this point in the game. And my take on both of these points was no and no. Or at least "very probably not" and "definitely no," respectively.
I don't want to live in a society where we care more about whether something is literally legal or illegal, and not more about whether something is right or wrong, and in making subtle judgements and comparisons about how right or how wrong something is, in the grand scheme of things. Ultimately, it should not matter whether something is technically legal or illegal because we can change the laws, and, laws are being changed all the time, and laws are getting bought by special interests all the time. They are literally just words on paper. What should matter is the purpose and intent of laws -- why do we have them? Why should we have them? When do they work well and when are they broken or could use improvement. I think all of these issues are at play in this particular case. And this is way more interesting to me, both as a geek and as a citizen, than whether what happened is literally a crime or not. That's for cops and DA's and judges to decide. But we can, in theory, ultimately decide what those laws should be.
How I'm approaching it -- and this is really really important in order to understand why I'm saying what i'm saying so I'm going to draw it out a bit to emphasize it further -- is that we should listen to this story, and consider the details of this incident in terms of the physical activities that occurred, and the context in which it occurred, and come to our own independent judgement as to whether what happened was (1) evil, and (2) what was the magnitude of it (if it was), and (3) was their actual harm done (not imagined harm, not theorized harm, not genericized extrapolated harm, etc.) but real harm, and (4) if whether the very same incident were to occur except that the woman liked it, would we still consider it to be a big deal, and would we still consider it a crime or think it should be a crime.
I clearly am coming down on the side that says that what happened should not have happened, but, oh darn, it's really not that big of a deal and she'll be fine. The guy misread how forward he could be, and/or was drunk and/or she was also drunk, and/or one or both were flirtatious and things went too far. It can happen. It's going to happen. It will keep happening just as long as humans are sexual and have to play the mating dance with incomplete and imperfect knowledge of the other's intentions and desires, and heck, even of their own.
And look, by her own admission, it's not like a case where he dragged her into an alley at knifepoint and violently raped her, leaving her bruised, bleeding, in pain, etc. That is stereotypical rape, and is evil, and I think there's a very large social consensus that that is bad and should be a crime and be punished. We are not talking about that kind of event in this particular case. But some people seem to have the same emotional baggage in mind when they evaluate it. And I think that's a misleading and weak position to be arguing from.
I think I would care much less about this particular case if (1) the guy was not named, and (2) it was not blogged about publicly, and (3) here on HN. I mean at most, this is a situation for her, that other guy, and the legal system (and that, arguably) to deal with. The fact that it's been laundered here makes me want to play Devil's Advocate with the hopes of illustrating what I think are extremely important distinctions that should be considered, but often are not.