But is there some particular reason to attack a silly cartoonish thing he didn’t say, in preference to the genuinely creepy stuff he did say?
Yes to both.
Is trying to minimize the creepiness of an already creepy statement (that contextually still implies the same thing) any more helpful to the discussion?
I have no words as to how much I am aghast at this “dad”. 6 months is not enough for this doubly so when kids busted for weed get much more time.
While I don’t call for or condone for internet justice I am not gonna feel bad for him if any happens to this guy.
actually it does matter!
First, no one should ever be attacked or ridiculed for something they did not mean or intend. That is not meant to say that they are not still held accountable for the actions. But for instance there is a difference between 1st degree murder and manslaughter. One is done with intent, the other is unintentional. Both are punishable because of the end result, but not the same thing.
Second and more important in my book is that we can interpret this as another jackass 1%er who wants his kid let off the hook for their deplorable behavior and not held accountable for their actions; however, we can also see this as a father who loves his son and wants him to get leniency and not have his life ruined for one mistake, regardless of how awful the mistake is.
Its the jack Sparrow exchange:
Norrington: One good deed is not enough to redeem a man of a lifetime of wickedness.
Jack Sparrow: Though it seems enough to condemn him.
Again…I am not the judge or jury here. I am speaking solely in regards to how this article is interpreting and portraying the father here. Parents love their children, regardless of how much others may view them as monsters. A parent defending their child is not in and of itself something to condemn this man as a monster as well.
Well, the apple did fall close to that tree.
But the statement as you propose it is minimally less creepy. The father still reduces a rape to an “action”, like taking a step or drinking a soda.
Because it is an action. is it deplorable, horrible, and sickening…yes. But it IS an action.
It’s almost as if context and framing matters in communicating ideas.
He called it an “action” in order to normalize rape, to make it seem like anyone would do it having been given the chance. That’s horrible.
I can’t understand why you think that’s any better than what someone else might think of the phrasing.
I’m not going to continue to argue the point, Clearly there is a “set in stone” mindset here. Assumptions made about what someone means by their words is a dangerous game as a whole. The facts are that what his son did is an action. and the context and nuance between what he means by saying “action” does in fact matter. It does not mean his son is not guilty. Nor have I said the dad is completely innocent here and we should all feel bad and take pity and have empathy for his plight.
I’ve simply asked “Do we know what his meaning is?” because no it is not 100% clear what his meaning is. And context and meaning matter in communication. AGAIN, does it excuse it as acceptable, not necessarily. But condemning him for something taken out of context isn’t acceptable either.
Feel free to continue as you wish.
I would say it would be an uncharitable reading to think he meant it that way. Maybe there are plenty of people out there who don’t feel like he deserves a charitable reading.
I don’t know how many of the people who read this story are going to write a dissertation on it. Maybe walking away thinking, “What the fuck is wrong with that creep?” is a sufficient takeaway and a complex analysis of why what he said was wrong isn’t all that necessary.
Knowing the family I don’t believe it’s an outlandish reading though.
It’s not being unfair to the family, the questionable action here is assuming that the other reading is any more charitable, makes them appear any less monstrous.
You can do whatever you wish but good persons don’t frame rape as the father did.
He’s protecting his kid but through the worst possible approach, through trivializing the rape. Do you think the people so incensed don’t know what he’s doing?
What do you think telling us this is supposed to accomplish?
When he dehumanizes himself, his son, and the ACTUAL VICTIM IN THIS MATTER and trivializes rape, there’s nothing more honorable going on.
That’s why these “helpful” clarifications seem questionable and not in the best of intentions.
Geez. He sounds like a guy who would raise a rapist…
I could be wrong, (and if I am I apologize) but I’m parsing @quorihunter’s posts as more of an attempt to understand what’s going on in their heads, as opposed to excusing it. Which says more about @quorihunter’s generosity of spirit in giving them the benefit of doubt than it does about this family.
I’m not so kind. I can acknowledge, in some sort of vague way, that a father might go through all kinds of cognitive dissonance in defense of his son. But I cannot in any way comprehend nor excuse the father’s lack of empathy for the woman.
I do get uppity when someone “helpfully” tone trolls. I don’t pretend some sort of “moral high ground”.
Comment still taken
Is us not empathizing with the rape dismissing family of a rapist really the true crime here? I understand what’s going on here, but that’s especially why we’re mad.
It only gets more maddening when you understand and cover all the areas where they could not be garbage humans.
You can protect your kid without press conferences/statements where you downplay all rape, for all victims. You can not downplay the rape your son committed… Preaching to the choir here.
I’m just saying there’s not any nuance to be found.
I agree in that he may fully be in cognitive dissonance mode here. And while I cannot condone it either, I can at least understand it. As a parent, I cannot judge someone for defending their child. It just is different when it is your child…and no one can fathom what your mental state is and rationale.
I can however state if it were one of my two sons, I’d already have beaten them to a pulp for having done this, and then probably stood up and told the court “Throw his a$$ in jail for the max…that’ll teach him what I clearly didn’t”