Kickstarter for PUA guide was labeled “rape manual” and shut down.
Kickstarter is clearly a business, so they can do whatever they want, but did they provide valid justification for their action? We might find PUA repulsive, but it is not rape. It is manipulative, you could argue it is harmful to women’s self-esteem, it might produce high level of “buyer’s regret” but it isn’t rape on it own. As such, Kickstarter justification is invalid.
On consent - given that both parties are reasonably sober (sex with passed out drunk would be rape), that there is no physically forced coercion and/or threats of violence then it is not rape. At the same time you could probably find examples of PUA-isty that would fall into gray zone.
I think you’ve answered yourself – as a business, they can do whatever they want. They don’t want to be seen supporting rapists, but they also do not want to be seen supporting repulsive, rapey guys. So they killed the pledge drive.
Yes, it isn’t that they killed drive, it is the reason the gave for killing it. Shutting it down was a good business decision, especially after feminists kicked it into high gear on social media.
Basically, I object to Kickstarter assigning moral judgment in such unclear case. They should not be in business of issuing morality statements in effect telling everyone else what to think. This is key to my objections.
Had they closed it with “bad for our business” as a reason (or no reason at all), I’d have probably responded with “makes sense”.
Sure, we can imagine any X turning down any Y we like. My question is: how do you construe that as anyone telling you what to do? The business’s choices only reflect on them; Kickstarter’s decision doesn’t preclude you from finding and enjoying this PUA manual. Maybe you would feel some discomfort, to be siding with a guy who got chided, but you aren’t really involved in the situation.
Lets throw slippery slope into the mix. If we accept this case, what will stop corporations from going with “If you do not consume X, you are bad person and should be ostracized”? It isn’t happening now because we assume that corporations cannot make morality-value decisions.
Now-deleted excerpts of the book, posted on Reddit’s “seduction” board, suggested that men touch women or sit them on their laps to establish an early connection, regardless of how the women responded. “Don’t ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances,” the author wrote. “If a woman isn’t comfortable, take a break and try again later.” Basic and non-controversial advice about sex was garnished with repeated admonishments to ignore what women say they want. “Pull out your cock and put her hand on it,” reads one frequently cited passage. “Remember, she is letting you do this because you have established yourself as a LEADER. Don’t ask for permission, GRAB HER HAND, and put it right on your dick.”
…and Kickstarter had the audacity to object to this, not on the appropriate business grounds they are allowed to by Supply-side Jesus, but on MORAL grounds? Don’t they realise they are “telling everyone else what to think” when they do so? In the end, isn’t that the real crime, here?
lesslucid, companies can and do follow existing moral code. For example Kickstarter could have easily canceled it because they don’t want to get involved with R rated material. That would be following existing morals. Instead they went ahead and CREATED moral judgment - that PUA is rape.
Here is neutral example to demonstrate my objection. Kickstarter canceled match-3 game because it has purple nodes, stating that Purple is Wrong!
Wait, why are we throwing a fallacy into the mix? Anyway, here is what’ll stop these corporations in your slippery slope scenario: they would not sell things. Google would publish a list of people who have not bought Google Glass, declare these miscreants to be Untouchable, and their stock price would nosedive. Are you afraid that your friends and family will ostracize you because a corporation said so?
Also: I assume that every corporation makes morality-value decisions. Morality exists in every sector of the economy.
EDIT:
They are telling me to accept that PUA is rape, instead of “its complicated” view that I hold.
Okay… I am now telling you that lizard people run the government. Do you care? If someone believes differently than you, wouldn’t that only affect your belief if you were ashamed to hold it in the first place?
So you think I shouldn’t care that companies are now feeling it is acceptable to make moral judgments? Maybe you are right and nothing bad will come out of it.
Yes, especially in cases where corporations are also information gatekeepers.
Facebook for example spending considerable effort trying to portray people not on a facebook as socially maladaptive and people on facebook but who value privacy as paranoid.
The excerpt I quoted is advocating sexual assault. “Ignore what she says she wants, grab her hand and put it on your dick.” That’s sexual assault, nothing complicated about it. I’m going to go ahead and say I think it’s fine for anyone to condemn that as morally wrong, even if they are a business or didn’t already say it or make it their mission statement or whatever, and in fact, if you don’t think it’s morally wrong, I think there’s something seriously fucking wrong with you.
Where have Kickstarter’s stated “PUA is rape”, given that saying this is the thing you find most objectionable about what they’ve done?
I’ll give you a hint, they didn’t say that.
What they did say, was this:
Third, we are prohibiting “seduction guides,” or anything similar, effective immediately. This material encourages misogynistic behavior and is inconsistent with our mission of funding creative works. These things do not belong on Kickstarter.
Good for them.
Yes, seriously, this is just like arbitrarily deciding that purple is an evil colour. “So sexual assault is an evil action all of a sudden! That’s a very close analogue of saying purple is evil, for no reason!!”
Are you really making that argument? Is that really your position here?
Just read this one more time:
“Don’t ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances,” the author wrote. “If a woman isn’t comfortable, take a break and try again later.” Basic and non-controversial advice about sex was garnished with repeated admonishments to ignore what women say they want. “Pull out your cock and put her hand on it,” reads one frequently cited passage. “Remember, she is letting you do this because you have established yourself as a LEADER. Don’t ask for permission, GRAB HER HAND, and put it right on your dick.”
OK, and maybe this bit again:
…repeated admonishments to ignore what women say they want.
Are you really OK with that? You’re OK with that, aren’t you? You are. Go on, you can tell me. I’ve crawled this far down the rabbit hole, I can take the truth.
