Situations where moral outrage substitutes for a coherent argument

[Opiate]

I'm sure we've all seen this before -- if you haven't seen it, I'm confident saying you just didn't notice it. The central idea is this: sometimes, people don't have a reasonable or cogent argument to defend their position. They just believe the world should be the way they want it. So in place of an argument, they act shocked and appalled that another person could even suggest such a heinous thing. Without ever saying so, the intent is to shame the other person in to submission so they don't or cannot ask "well, okay, you think what I'm suggesting is very wrong and evil. Can you explain why more clearly and logically?"

The idea crosses all political spectrums; conservative religious people often rely on this technique, for instance. But I also see some proponents of civil rights use the same sorts of techniques (please note that this doesn't meant that all civil rights are stupid and bad, just that many people often can't explain why they are for them with any cogency). You can see posters of all political and philosophical persuasions sometimes respond to another poster using this technique: they won't and in many cases can't explain why the person they are responding to is wrong, so instead of even trying they just act disgusted or shocked that the question was even asked.

Have you noticed this phenomenon? Where and how do you most notice it?

 

[Fuzzery]

It's more and more common on gaf these days, makes it hard to have any intelligent discussion in some threads

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Hellooooo abortion.

 

[freeofgreed]

It is common on Gaf but I don't think it's necessarily used as a substitute for a coherent argument. Usually when I see these type of reactions its because the person in question made an argument that was very basic (i.e. something that's already been answered ad nasuem) or ignorant that most people don't even think it's worth giving that person an actual response which doesn't mean they don't have a response, just that they don't feel like giving one out in this particular situation). Partially because they might be trolling or because they feel if that person would be willing to make such a point they aren't worth talking to anymore.

 

[Sai-kun]

this is gonna be a great topic

 

[Opiate]

It's more and more common on gaf these days

Or I'm noticing it more; I can't say which. People will make posts which imply that someone is obviously wrong, and in fact, it's so obvious that they don't even want to take the time to explain to them how wrong they are.

In reality, I think many of these outraged posters cannot explain why the other person is so wrong, so will act like it's incredibly obvious that they're wrong and they shouldn't have to even bother explaining.

Hellooooo abortion.

Abortion is a great example on both sides.

 

[Makonero]

Declawing cats.

 

[The Faceless Master]

racism.

it's so fucking obvious, but it's like people are fucking blind or stupid and it honestly feels like it's not worth fighting for equality or expending so much explaining shit that should be easy to comprehend. it's like Taylor Swift keeping her latest album off Apple Music. why fight with all your heart when you know you'll lose? just go thru the symbolic gestures.

 

[freeofgreed]

In reality, I think many of these outraged posters cannot explain why the other person is so wrong, so will act like it's incredibly obvious that they're wrong and they shouldn't have to even bother explaining.

I don't think this is the case at all. Pretty much whenever I see a poster make a morally outrageous post, it's always something I've seen posted before, and whenever it was posted before several posters have explained why said poster was wrong. It become very frustrating having to explain things repeatedly to said poster. Which is why you see the type of response you detail in the OP.

 

[braves01]

Some dude made a thread about adult homosexual incest a while back, suggesting it should be okay iirc. It seemed like cogent discussion took a back seat to moral outrage up until the thread was finally locked.

 

[ivysaur12]

This happened a lot in the Rachel Dolezal thread when people were asking if this was similar to Caitlyn Jenner. A lot of people were dismissive, but unable to articulate why (not actually comparing the two, just stating an example of the phenomena).

It's a heuristics problem. I don't think it's happening "more" than before, because I don't believe people actually argue differently than they used to, but I do think people often take a position they might not fully understand because it follows a pattern based off of other personally held convictions. That then leads to people getting into an argument where they don't have all the facts/are unwilling to look at all the facts and end up trying to appeal to emotion.

 

[Opiate]

racism.

it's so fucking obvious, but it's like people are fucking blind or stupid and it honestly feels like it's not worth fighting for equality or expending so much explaining shit that should be easy to comprehend. it's like Taylor Swift keeping her latest album off Apple Music. why fight when you know you'll lose?

Yes, I think racism is a great example, too, and I say that as a person who is against racism. Not everyone who uses this technique is necessarily wrong, they just may not be able to explain coherently why they're right.

Some people cannot explain why racism is bad, they just know in their heart of hearts that it is bad, and feel that is substantive enough. The problem is that racism may not be clearly wrong in someone else's heart-of-hearts, so having some actual explanation other than "I just really, really feel it's bad" is very important.

 

[Opiate]

I don't think this is the case at all. Pretty much whenever I see a poster make a morally outrageous post, it's always something I've seen posted before, and whenever it was posted before several posters have explained why said poster was wrong. It become very frustrating having to explain things repeatedly to said poster. Which is why you see the type of response you detail in the OP.

I definitely do. In most cases, people offer very poor defenses for their arguments. Further, the notion that "this is a thing that has been discussed before at some point" is not sufficient grounds to never explain something ever again to anyone else.

 

[Shmuppers]

Hellooooo abortion.

Damn, this is what I was thinking exactly.

I see something similar to what the OP is describing in my discussions with some of my Creationist friends, even when I'm not actually debating with them.

 

[RangerX]

Or I'm noticing it more; I can't say which. People will make posts which imply that someone is obviously wrong, and in fact, it's so obvious that they don't even want to take the time to explain to them how wrong they are.

In reality, I think many of these outraged posters cannot explain why the other person is so wrong, so will act like it's incredibly obvious that they're wrong and they shouldn't have to even bother explaining.



Abortion is a great example on both sides.

No its definitely becoming much more prevalent here. As someone whos very left leaning I'm actually finding it more prevalent on my side of the political spectrum. Just a blanket refusal by some people to argue points that have already been decided in their heads. Yeah abortion is a great example and Nuclear energy would be another good example.

 

[cutmeamango]

I mentioned before, but "arguments" on the internet are just wagers.
And that's why some just throw whatever they got without much reason because they rely on the "winning hand" recursion to a base proposition "X exists and X is bad".

 

[BreezyLimbo]

I would say whenever talking about guns is involved, people tend to appeal to someones pathos and then kinda close themselves.

 

[Fuzzery]

Or I'm noticing it more; I can't say which. People will make posts which imply that someone is obviously wrong, and in fact, it's so obvious that they don't even want to take the time to explain to them how wrong they are.

In reality, I think many of these outraged posters cannot explain why the other person is so wrong, so will act like it's incredibly obvious that they're wrong and they shouldn't have to even bother explaining.



Abortion is a great example on both sides.

IMO it;s actually have been increasing in frequency. I think it's because there have been so many prominent threads discussing civil rights and racial issues lately, and there tends to be a very vocal and outraged majority there.

 

[foxtrot3d]

I would say whenever talking about guns is involved, people tend to appeal to someones pathos and then kinda close themselves.

I once had a person argue that if "we" took away "their" guns she would be raped.

 

[Slo]

Have you noticed this phenomenon? Where and how do you most notice it?

I notice it whenever someone becomes accustomed to hanging out in their own echo chamber, and only hearing their own views sounded back to them.

I notice this a lot with Offended-GAF. Sometimes here standing up and saying you're appalled and outraged substitutes for actually having a coherent thought.

 

[Rentahamster]

Path of least resistance. Typing out an argument in a concise, logical manner is hard. I sometimes succumb to this laziness, but I do my best not to.

 

[DiipuSurotu]

Have you noticed this phenomenon? Where and how do you most notice it?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=910652

 

[Opiate]

This happened a lot in the Rachel Dolezal thread when people were asking if this was similar to Caitlyn Jenner. A lot of people were dismissive, but unable to articulate why (not actually comparing the two, just stating an example of the phenomena).

It's a heuristics problem. I don't think it's happening "more" than before, because I don't believe people actually argue differently than they used to, but I do think people often take a position they might not fully understand because it follows a pattern based off of other personally held convictions. That then leads to people getting into an argument where they don't have all the facts/are unwilling to look at all the facts and end up trying to appeal to emotion.

I definitely agree that it's unlikely to be changing much overall, but it might be happening more or less in different subpopulations.

I think it's at least plausible that this pattern happens:

1) A progressive new social more begins to be discussed
2) Those who are on the progressive side must almost by definition be capable of defending their position, because they are on the outside of social normalcy looking in.
3) If and when this new social more becomes widely adopted in to society, those who hold on to this more no longer have to articulate and elaborate on their position for the position to be adopted.
4) The second or third generation of adopters may never know why this more was adopted because they never had to fight for it in the first place. It just is just how the world works now.

I think racism and the fight for women's equality fit this description pretty well; I suspect the first generation of fighters for racial and gender equality could probably explain why racism and sexism are bad more coherently, because there were a lot of real people with power who did not agree with them. With our generation, "racism is bad" is the default position that is basically never questioned in polite company. I think the consequence could be that people of our generation are less well equipped to defend racial and sexual equality than the generations that came before us.

That's just a hypothesis, though.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

I once had a person argue that if "we" took away "their" guns she would be raped.

I've seen both sides be ridiculous. Those who argue 'they're taking away our guns and freedom in extension', and those who want the 2nd amendment revoked or...whatever they want, and not understanding the consequences of regulating millions of guns either forcibly or voluntarily.

I think racism fits this description pretty well; I suspect the first generation of fighters for racial equality could probably explain why racism is bad more coherently, because there were a lot of real people with power who did not agree with them. With our generation, "racism is bad" is the default position that is basically never questioned. I think the consequence could be that people of our generation are less well equipped to defend racial equality than the generations that came before us.

That's just a hypothesis, though.

You wouldn't be wrong. It's like a social game of telephone.

"Racism is bad because for hundreds of years we have oppressed those who were colored differently from us. In this, it has created a racial systemic society that not alot of people realize exists."
"Racism is bad because for hundreds of years we have oppressed those who were colored differently from us."
"Racism is bad."

 

[freeofgreed]

This happened a lot in the Rachel Dolezal thread when people were asking if this was similar to Caitlyn Jenner. A lot of people were dismissive, but unable to articulate why (not actually comparing the two, just stating an example of the phenomena).

It's a heuristics problem. I don't think it's happening "more" than before, because I don't believe people actually argue differently than they used to, but I do think people often take a position they might not fully understand because it follows a pattern based off of other personally held convictions. That then leads to people getting into an argument where they don't have all the facts/are unwilling to look at all the facts and end up trying to appeal to emotion.

But in the Rachel Dolezal thread literally dozens of posters explained why the two situations were not alike. Not everyone needs to explain why they disagree if several posters already have better than they could.

I definitely do. In most cases, people offer very poor defenses for their arguments.

Well now you're saying two different things. In the Op you're talking about people who don't defend their points at all. Here you're talking about people who do explain themselves but poorly (which is completely subjective, just because you don't find someones explanation satisfactory doesn't mean others don't).

Further, the notion that "this is a thing that has been discussed before at some point" is not sufficient grounds to never explain something ever again to anyone else.

That's not what I'am saying. You said posters don't explain themselves because they don't know why they're wrong. I'am saying that can't be true if they've previously explained themselves.

 

[Necromanti]

I think it's more that many people get tired of seeing the same points argued over and over, especially if they are made in poor faith, and get tired of demonstrating why they are wrong when a little research would go a long way. It takes a lot more time to deconstruct a bad argument than to hastily construct one. In those cases, though, it might be better to simply ignore them and not engage it. The same old arguments will get trotted out for years--decades, even--and while frustrating, there's no point banging your head against a while dealing with those that do not want to humor the possibility that they could be wrong.

 

[Fuzzery]

I definitely do. In most cases, people offer very poor defenses for their arguments. Further, the notion that "this is a thing that has been discussed before at some point" is not sufficient grounds to never explain something ever again to anyone else.

I feel a lot of people who are socially liberal may suffer from this, myself included. They've thought about, and came to conclusions about ideas and problems that most people probably don't get much exposure to. Racial issues may get a lot of exposure and discussion here on gaf, but in the outside sphere? It doesn't come up as much.

You cannot really expect everyone to have a solid, well formed opinion on certain issues, or for it to even matter to them at all, just because you've thought about this issue a lot because you've been exposed to it or even if it affects you on a daily basis.

 

[ivysaur12]

Oh, best example: Any Roma thread ever.

 

[Skellig Gra]

I notice this a lot especially when I go against some of the strongly held beliefs of certain vocal minorities on GAF. I think people are just responding on emotion rather than wanting to engage in a logical debate.

 

[turtle553]

I notice it more in circumstances where people ignore the laws relevant to certain cases and get upset when the law doesn't meet up with what they believe it should be.

My one ban was

Spoiler

saying that the Treyvon Martin/Georg Zimmerman case was decided correctly under Florida's laws dealing with self defense. Another poster got upset and accused me of blowing my father for some reason. Both of us were banned while I was trying to make rational arguments.

 

[ivysaur12]

I definitely agree that it's unlikely to be changing much overall, but it might be happening more or less in different subpopulations.

I think it's at least plausible that this pattern happens:

1) A progressive new social more begins to be discussed
2) Those who are on the progressive side must almost by definition be capable of defending their position, because they are on the outside of social normalcy looking in.
3) If and when this new social more becomes widely adopted in to society, those who hold on to this more no longer have to articulate and elaborate on their position for the position to be adopted.
4) The second or third generation of adopters may never know why this more was adopted because they never had to fight for it in the first place. It just is just how the world works now.

I think racism fits this description pretty well; I suspect the first generation of fighters for racial equality could probably explain why racism is bad more coherently, because there were a lot of real people with power who did not agree with them. With our generation, "racism is bad" is the default position that is basically never questioned. I think the consequence could be that people of our generation are less well equipped to defend racial equality than the generations that came before us.

That's just a hypothesis, though.

Maybe. I think there are good people who want to be good, but might not truly understand the context in which there arguing. Similarly, there are many people who want to be good, but also have a propensity to appeal to tradition, and might not understand the position they're arguing.

Also -- I think we're too easy on people who go "well, not going to argue, that's the hivemind." Argue. Please, argue. We can get into some debate on the hive mind on GAF (which isn't really for this thread?), but I'd much rather people argue even when it's "against" the "GAF hive mind". No one learns if someone who is anti-gay or Trans or a racist feels smug about saying "well, not going to argue with this hive mind of SJW". Might as well try to debate with facts.

 

[Opiate]

Well now you're saying two different things. In the Op you're talking about people who don't defend their points at all. Here you're talking about people who do explain themselves but poorly (which is completely subjective, just because you don't find someones explanation satisfactory doesn't mean others don't)

I'm sorry if that was confusing. When I say "poor argument" I mean "substituting an argument with moral outrage."

That's not what I'am saying. You said posters don't explain themselves because they don't know why they're wrong. I'am saying that can't be true if they've previously explained themselves.

That's possible. I've noticed that the people who are willing to explain why something is wrong do so fairly consistently, or don't add anything at all.

 

[RELAYER]

I think it's more that many people get tired of seeing the same points argued over and over, especially if they are made in poor faith, and get tired of demonstrating why they are wrong when a little research would go a long way. It takes a lot more time to deconstruct a bad argument than to hastily construct one. In those cases, though, it might be better to simply ignore them and not engage it.

How can arguments that withstand decades of deconstruction be so obviously wrong as to warrant total dismissal?

You're essentially saying an argument is so poor, that it need not even be met with an appropriate counter-argument. Yet if the first argument is so fatuous, then counter-arguing against it should be all the more effortless.

The same old arguments will get trotted out for years--decades, even--and while frustrating, there's no point banging your head against a while dealing with those that do not want to humor the possibility that they could be wrong.

This is incredibly ironic given what you just said.

 

[Opiate]

Maybe. I think there are good people who want to be good, but might not truly understand the context in which there arguing. Similarly, there are many people who want to be good, but also have a propensity to appeal to tradition, and might not understand the position they're arguing.

Also -- I think we're too easy on people who go "well, not going to argue, that's the hivemind." Argue. Please, argue. We can get into some debate on the hive mind on GAF (which isn't really for this thread?), but I'd much rather people argue even when it's "against" the "GAF hive mind". No one learns if someone who is anti-gay or Trans or a racist feels smug about saying "well, not going to argue with this hive mind of SJW". Might as well try to debate with facts.

Absolutely, it's a different form of the same thing, really; many of those people likely cannot put forward a cogent argument why the GAF "hivemind" is wrong, so simply imply that we're all sheeple.

 

[Necromanti]

How can arguments that withstand decades of deconstruction be so obviously wrong as to warrant total dismissal?

You're essentially saying an argument is so poor, that it need not even be met with an appropriate counter-argument. Yet if the first argument is so fatuous, then counter-arguing against it should be all the more effortless.

I'm not saying that they need necessarily be "obviously wrong" since I don't want to deal in absolutes (and that there wouldn't be argument at all if it were so simple.) Rather, it's that the standards for evidence are different. Take any arguments about religion, for example. There's an inherent disconnect when one side doesn't accept the evidence used to support the argument made by the other side (whether it be a holy text or changes in DNA as evidence).

 

[Ahasverus]

I think the polygamy/sibling incest topics fall into this.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

I think the polygamy/sibling incest topics fall into this.

Is it really moral outrage though, or is that the argument against it is that it's morally wrong.

Or is that the same thing?

 

[A More Normal Bird]

I'm fond of John Ralston Saul's use of the term "low-level Christian moralising" to describe what passes for economics in most mainstream discussion.

 

[freeofgreed]

I'm sorry if that was confusing. When I say "poor argument" I mean "substituting an argument with moral outrage."

Ah ok I got you.

That's possible. I've noticed that the people who are willing to explain why something is wrong do so fairly consistently, or don't add anything at all.

I feel like this is a bit too anecdotal. You're right in that there are definitely posters who always thoroughly explain themselves whenever they post. But I definitely have seen plenty of cases were posters will explain their positions in some threads but go the "moral outrage" route in others, and I don't think that necessarily means that they can't explain themselves at all. Especially if other posters in the thread have already made the argument, is it really necessary for every person who shares that opinion to have to explain it as well?

EDIT: Also I'm not trying to say that what you're describing doesn't exist at all btw. It definitely does.

 

[Huter]

Also -- I think we're too easy on people who go "well, not going to argue, that's the hivemind." Argue. Please, argue. We can get into some debate on the hive mind on GAF (which isn't really for this thread?), but I'd much rather people argue even when it's "against" the "GAF hive mind". No one learns if someone who is anti-gay or Trans or a racist feels smug about saying "well, not going to argue with this hive mind of SJW". Might as well try to debate with facts.

Yeah, and then you have about 300 posters piling up on you not even trying to make an argument, just acting like they're completely right so they just post insults or gifs.

 

[cutmeamango]

Absolutely, it's a different form of the same thing, really; many of those people likely cannot put forward a cogent argument why the GAF "hivemind" is wrong, so simply imply that we're all sheeple.

Hivemind is different.
It's the observable, combative, often dominant (in terms of discourse) and frequent majority in certain subjects.

No one swings at hives, because taking it down just means you get stung. So you poke and run.

 

[JDSN]

I think its related to people putting unrealistic expectations on the posting habits of others, some dudes just post on wrestling-Gaf or check the board in the mornings to read the world's headlines, not everybody reads the 32 pages of some comment someone made about civil rights, so the more "casual" posters tend to fail to grasp the tone of the board and post the stuff that others see as morally reprehensible when its probably just some carefree random posting.

Obviously its not their fault and its unfair that their comments are frowned upon when there is no malice in there, but I cant say its becoming more prevalent in sub groups or its happening more often, hell I still remember when Evilore banned the Amazon Sales guy because he posted something that was a little too close to advertising, the guy made a mistake but it was futher exacerbated by him not realizing there was a pretty big controversy regarding game journalism corruption two days before.

 

[jWILL253]

The reason why you see some posters react the way they do to certain posts is because not every single position or idea is deserving of a dignified discussion.

For instance, in any thread regarding race, a poster of color (or an empathetic White poster) may not want to dignify posters who are saying things like "Well, black on black crime is way more impactful than police brutality". Even if the example statement were true, it has no place in a meaningful discussion about race, as that statement is more about absolving/displacing blame, rather than having a discussion.

In fact, Opiate, I would go as far as suggesting that we should embrace absurd points for the sake of a debate, can be seen as an insult to one's intelligence.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

I do notice that my brain function went to 100% rage mode when I'm in any topics about pedophilia.

I know it may be something they cant help, but my hate is too strong on the matter.

 

[ivysaur12]

Yeah, and then you have about 300 posters piling up on you not even trying to make an argument, just acting like they're completely right so they just post insults or gifs.

Which then goes back to the whole point this thread exists in the first place? Also, I'm less sympathetic towards anyone who acts as if you're completely unable to articulate your points in a rational way.

A really good example of this is Metaphoreous. He's a poster on PoliGAF and appears from time to time in the OT. He's conservative, but also extremely well articulate and very smart. He's run circles around many who have tried to be outwardly dismissive towards King v. Burwell by providing well-articulated points as to why this is such a contentious case in the first place to dismissive liberals. That doesn't mean I agree (I don't), but it seems a bit disingenuous to claim that it's "impossible" to battle the so-called "Hive Mind" of GAF.

That being said, I'm very sick of people of whom agree with me be openly dismissive towards other posters without actually articulating why they disagree.

 

[freeofgreed]

I think its related to people putting unrealistic expectations on the posting habits of others, some dudes just post on wrestling-Gaf or check the board in the mornings to read the world's headlines, not everybody reads the 32 pages of some comment someone made about civil rights, so the more "casual" posters tend to fail to grasp the tone of the board and post the stuff that others see as morally reprehensible when its probably just some carefree random posting.

Obviously its not their fault and its unfair that their comments are frowned upon when there is no malice in there, but I cant say its becoming more prevalent in sub groups or its happening more often, hell I still remember when Evilore banned the Amazon Sales guy because he posted something that was a little too close to advertising, the guy made a mistake but it was futher exacerbated by him not realizing there was a pretty big controversy regarding game journalism corruption two days before.

Yeah I wish there was a disclaimer in more "serious" threads telling people not to post if they haven't read the thread. Too many times those threads go to shit because someone will make a post then that post gets argued for 2-3 pages then a new poster comes in an says almost the exact same thing and then it gets argued again for another 2-3 pages and so on.

 

[cameron]

Where and how do you most notice it?

Justifying the poor treatment and stripping the rights of convicted criminals/terrorists. The emotional response to crime committed tends to take over. I'm guilty of this.

 

[kirblar]

Yeah I wish there was a disclaimer in more "serious" threads telling people not to post if they haven't read the thread. Too many times those threads go to shit because someone will make a post then that post gets argued for 2-3 pages then a new poster comes in an says almost the exact same thing and then it gets argued again for another 2-3 pages and so on.

Totally agree. The Dolezal thread was a nightmare in large part because people weren't reading the explanations provided multiple times thoughout, and I totally understand people's frustrations/annoyance when people would just keep asking the same question/making the same comparison.

 

[Retromelon]

I was arguing with somebody on youtube about what the age of consent should be and he kept calling me illogical. He didn't want to understand that young people belong to their parents to some extent

 

[Veelk]

I think the problem is bigger than that. People just aren't willing to engage with each other, truly consider their opinions. You frame it in the context of a moral situation, but for me, I see it in any kind of opinion thread. I like to write long essays that reflect my thoughts on any book, movie, game, or show I try. I describe not only what I think and feel, but why I do and how it happened in fairly great detail., but most responses amount to "No, I disagree/Yes, I agree", maybe with some broad, generalized supporting reason for why they feel it (e.g. "It made me feel so happy to see X."). Rarely do posters go into why they feel that way or in what way their view differs, merely stating that it does. Someone who has put deep thought into why they love a show I hate is going to be a very compelling read to me so long as the thought is actually put into it.

Going back to your framework of a moral situation, the conclusions we come to in the formation of opinions are never the most compelling aspect to them, but rather how and why we come to them. If someone were to post how they came to be a racist, for example, the fact that they are a racist would overshadow the entire discussion. People would treat that person as an opponent to be beaten rather than a human being whose personhood you're exploring. And it's even an effective way of dissuading them from those opinions. Attacking their beliefs, or even just trying to shove facts down their throats, is just going to incentive them to be defensive, and it will not allow them to explore the arguments and opinions of others, essentially ensuring they remain racists. I remember seeing a research paper how beliefs become more entrenched the more other people try to forcefully argue them out of those beliefs, and that people are more liable to change if they are simply accepted and discussed without judgement, even vile beliefs (which is a negative judgemental term in and of itself, I acknowledge) like racism.

But as I said, it's just become a point of frustration for me because now when I decide to make a post on any subject, I know only a small percentage of gaf will try to engage with me completely. The only time I really see it being a justifiable response is where deep discussion would distract from the obviously very wrong thing that is happening. Rape, for example. From the GoT season 5 episode, I wanted to make a topic that questions the nature of consent regarding what happens if you don't want to have sex with someone and are repulsed by them, but agree to do it (while having ways out) for other reasons anyway. It's obviously not a pleasant sexual experience for the person in question, but is it rape? I question this because it seems to me that consent is willingly given, it's just for a knowingly unpleasant experience. But in an environment where what I feel is actual rape has been handwaved away by someone in the science department with the words "In the case of a legitimate rape, the body has a way of shutting that whole thing down" (granted, this was a while ago, but suppose this was the environment now), I don't know if it's the time and place to discuss the nature of consent, even if the discussion itself has merit. If I did post it in that kind of environment, I feel it would be met with a flood of 'rape is rape' posts by most users, which might prevent some other posters from concluding somehow "if she agreed to it beforehand, she can't back out now, even if she doesn't like it", which is worth the cost of a nuanced discussion imo. But I feel these are rare instances.

But yes, Gaf has become less willing to engage in complex reasoning and it's very annoying to me in most cases.