Rape is something to be taken lightly?

So you don't think that comparing rape to a high APR by way of a metaphor "mak[es] light of real rape"? Because it does. ( Delete or Edit)

You referred me here from http://getsatisfaction.com/gawker/top... , and I now find your answer is: It's "a simile. Simmer down." --an answer that's both insulting and factually incorrect. Regardless of what your interpretation is of this current thread, the description I posted in the referring thread was neither alarmist nor confrontational, and makes it clear that I understand the author was using the term as an implied metaphor. Can you please escalate this to your supervisor? I'm finding it hard to believe that Gawker's objective for this feedback site is in line with your dismissive and irrelevant reply. ( Delete or Edit)

This is the first comment in this discussion that I remotely agree with.
The Gawker Media rep should have responded to this particular complaint with a little more diplomacy. However; rape, in this context, was neither a simile or metaphor. ( Delete or Edit)

Kind of telling that they are basically shrugging us off, eh? They don't give a shit about their readers or commenters. This is a sorry excuse for "get satisfaction" when we're told that rape jokes are okay and to simmer down, from mods and official reps. It's obvious to me now that Gawker cares only about their page views and ad revenue, not about the people who actually make this site -- the readers and commenters. ( Delete or Edit)

This is not an issue of who's using a technically correct definition of a word. It's an issue of class and professionalism. ( Delete or Edit)

Technically so does the word lynch and holocaust, but we really don't use those when discussing something as tawdry as credit card debt. Their are certain words that are very emotionally charged and a website struggling for readers is probably not the best place to use said words. ( Delete or Edit)

Lynch is an emotionally charged word? To who? Those who have been executed without trial?

Give me a break. I really feel like you few have way too much time on your hands if your delicate sensitivities were hurt by this particular usage of the word "rape". ( Delete or Edit)

If the word is used correctly what is the problem? I don't see how holocaust and lynch could be used in a Consumerist story. But if it's correct, then it works.

I think the way it was used in the story is a lot different than how many people use it by saying "I raped that test," etc. since that is not an appropriate use of the word. ( Delete or Edit)

sahclohn- *EXACTLY* my point. ( Delete or Edit)

So hanzo, you're saying this was a literal use of the word? In the original story, we're talking about an interest rate -- how does this constitute "destroying" or "stripping of posession"? At best, it was hyperbole, and if that's your interpretation, I think it's a valid one --although someone who thought it was an allegory or metaphor, comparing the interest rate to another usage of the word rape, would have a valid viewpoint as well. Which by the way, is the way it's being used in sahclohn's example above.

The issue here isn't whether it was used correctly --I don't think any of the people who raised this issue are grammar police-- but whether its use was appropriate. There are all kinds of words (some have come up in this very thread) that are inappropriate even when used in a grammatically correct sense.

By the way, I'm not one of the people who was "outraged" over this, I just thought it was in poor taste... but Consumerist and Gawker's responses to the situation, were, frankly, a bit shocking/insulting. ( Delete or Edit)

"To rob, strip, plunder (a place)" is a better definition. Oxford English Dictionary is the standard IMHO. "Rape" was used in 1892 in the following sentence "I raped your richest roadstead, I plundered Singapore." This use is obviously not new. ( Delete or Edit)

Ok, so again, sahclohn, how does this fit that literal definition? In the original article the object of "raped" was "Timothy". Not a place. ( Delete or Edit)

I believe that "a place" refers to plunder. But the complete definition was "To rob, strip, plunder (a place). Also used with a group of people as object." So it can be used when people are robbed by credit card companies. ( Delete or Edit)

Frequent Reader:
I will concede that focusing on the semantics is probably a lot of wasted effort that diverts from the actual issue. And moreover, I would even concede that by the OED, "raped" was not technically correct.

As for my response to sahclohn, I was agreeing with the first bit, relating to holocaust and lynch.

That aside, I personally disagree with the feeling of distaste. But since we are talking about feelings, it's all subjective. And arguing subjective viewpoints (especially on the internet) will never result in a "win".

And again, I feel that initial Gawker Media response in this thread was poorly executed. ( Delete or Edit)

"Group of people as object" is not the case in this article.

Further, you do understand that when you say "robbed by credit card companies", that's also not a literal use of the word "robbed", right? It's a metaphor; you're drawing a comparison between a legal (but unfair) practice of high interest rates and the illegal practice of robbery.

In the case of the consumerist article, the author was drawing a comparison between the interest rate and one of the many meanings of the word rape --why are you two bending over backwards just to prove it's one of the extremely uncommon uses of the word? Why does it matter? The most common usage is the one most readers will assume he meant. That being the case, a clarification from the author, or an avoidance of the word, would be an easy solution. If you insist on using the word, you're going to have people who get upset.

There are plenty of examples of this in polite society. There's nothing inherently wrong with a swastika; it's just a symbol, and one that's been in use by a variety of organizations for thousands of years. It could theoretically be used in a decoration pattern just like curlicues, fleurs-de-lis, triangles, etc. But the common connotation that most people have when they see it is the Nazis; because of that, and because the emotional revulsion to the Nazis is so strong, we avoid using swastikas as decoration. ( Delete or Edit)

It was a pleasure speaking with you about this, I always like the opportunity to discuss and revise ideas.

I'll be leaving this site now since the rep has clarified that it's a tech support site. I hope we'll meet again in the gawker forums --on another topic hopefully :) ( Delete or Edit)

I never said that the use of the word "rape" was literal. I just said that it was an appropriate use of the word. The author was using it as a metaphor, saying that the debtor was being "robbed." And if you don't like my first definition, "To take (a thing) by force" can work. The author was using it as a metaphor but whether it is metaphoric or literal, it's still an appropriate use.

Adiós Frequent Reader. ( Delete or Edit)

I also like how people who are upset by rape jokes are supposed to "simmer down", while people who are upset by people being upset by rape jokes are apparently within their rights to go on any sort of tirade that they feel like. ( Delete or Edit)

But comparing the word to words like lynch and holocaust is not ridiculous. Society may use the word, but professional websites should not. ( Delete or Edit)

Hanzo, what you continue not to grasp is that this was not just a random commenter using an emotionally-charged word. I don't care what "society" uses the word rape for, and I don't care if dumb high-schoolers use it on their blogs to refer to other things. My problem is that it was used by Ben Popken, and I expect more out of someone employed as an editor of a professional website. ( Delete or Edit)

No, I grasp *why* you feel outraged and incensed, what I am saying is you're being *ridiculous*.

Yes, it's a professional website. Yes, the editor used the word "rape" in their article.

I'm not referring to some colloquial usage of the word, and this has nothing to do with what the "other kids" are doing. As I've previously pointed out, this was a perfectly acceptable (and accurate) usage of the word. ( Delete or Edit)

Some kid who's paying 24 percent on a credit card hardly counts as "rape."

It's the fact that so strong a word is being used for such a trivial thing.

If he was two hours late making a payment and they jacked his rate up to 36% or closed his account and told him that his balance was due _immediately_ , maybe then the word "rape" while still a bit tasteless might be a tad bit more appropriate.

Oh, and telling people who are offended to "simmer down" comes across as very condescending. ( Delete or Edit)

Except it wasn't acceptable because here and on the website itself at least 20 people or more have explained that it wasn't acceptable. It is not as though we comb through every post trying to find something to be offended at.
Also, if you really need me to tell you who the word lynching is offensive to, then I am totally done replying to your comments. ( Delete or Edit)

While you apparently won't reply to this, and it's thoroughly off-topic..
Please, vivelafat, enlighten me. Just why would the word "lynch[ing]" be so outrageous and offensive? I'm not attempting to play the role of antagonist. I consider myself a well travelled, educated individual; Frankly, I can't see any issue with the term.

As for the 20 or more people who "explained" why it wasn't acceptable, there are a lot of misinformed fools out there. Because you (or others) misunderstand the word as used in this context doesn't make it "wrong". Your ill-informed reaction is "wrong".

And if you posit that you are correct based on "20 or more people" agreeing with you, I recommend you consider just how broad an audience The Consumerist garners. I would wager that you and your 20 or more people are in the extreme minority.

And while being in the minority doesn't make you incorrect, it should give you pause to ponder that perhaps it's you in the wrong. ( Delete or Edit)

Hanzo, in the spectrum of the Consumerist, which I have been reading since it's inception, 20 or more people complaining about the insensitive usage of a word (notice I didn't say incorrect merely insensitive) is rather large. Also the idea that because we are in the minority we may not be correct is entirely against everything the Consumerist stands for. In fact the consumerist sticks up for the little people while big companies (and you apparently) try to get them to quite down because they are too small to really matter.
And you right, I will not explain to you why the word "lynching" is not to be used lightly.
Again certain words, while used well within their defined usuage are not entirely proper for professional discourse. ( Delete or Edit)

vivelafat- I am not for a moment suggesting that you quiet down. And I didn't say that you were wrong *because* you were in the minority, I am suggesting that the fact you are in the minority may be indicative of your "correctness".

As for this being a matter of appropriate sensitivity.. I find this patently absurd. There should be no expectation that using the word rape in this particular context would offend anybody. If the article lead read something like "Timothy, 24, is getting raped and sodomized by a 24% APR.." I might agree with you. Because now it's clearly been cast back under the light of sexual context.

Regarding lynching, after a bit of googling (and a chat with my better half) I think I may know what you are referring to. Frankly, I am appalled. Not by the term, but by the fact that "lynching" should be considered offensive. As I understand it, the ulterior interpretation as a racial threat is pretty well confined to the Southern United States.

Like it or not, this is a big world, and a lot of people speak English both natively and as a second language. Just because a particular region attaches negative connotations to an otherwise benign word does not mean it should be stricken from "professional discourse".

The part I find most baffling is when I lived in the US, I was in a very, very rural part of South Carolina for nearly a decade. Yet, I genuinely had no idea what you were talking about. It really makes me question your credibility to accurately assess the appropriate usage of our fair language. ( Delete or Edit)

We are at an impasse. I will not discuss why lynching is offensive when used casually with you on this board. I am however happy that you did some research on it and came to an answer yourself. It does not surprise me that you didn't know why the word was offensive, your privilege is showing sir or madam.
Also as someone who has lived in several different countries and speaks several different languages I would request that you kindly not lecture me on how big the world is. ( Delete or Edit)

Please don't misinterpret my statement. I had no intent of lecturing you on the size of the world or the dramatic differences from region to region.

My point was simply this:
You stated that lynch was an emotionally charged word. I asked for clarification, which you refused to provide. I attempted to divine just why you interpreted it as an offensive word. I'm merely pointing out that the connotation associated within a particular area of the United States shouldn't equate to it being considered "offensive".

As for where you've lived and the languages you speak: This isn't a pissing contest; even though all discourse on the internet eventually ends in one.

As for my "privilege", I will choose to simply take this as a compliment. Even though the insinuation is quite clear. ( Delete or Edit)

okay that is what a lot of us are asking for. Thank you for your attention to this. It creates a hostile environment on Consumerist and I have the feeling that is not what you want. ( Delete or Edit)

Um...then why does it say "Comster service and support"? And why didn't the other gawker media rep let us know much earlier, instead of ... humoring us? And why does it not say anywhere that it is only for technical questions?

Wow. This is ironic, considering what consumerist is all about, that we're getting the run around. ( Delete or Edit)

Noah, thank you for the clarification, that actually explains a lot of the confusion I've been having (like having to pick a product to submit about :)). This needs to be stated in other places as well. For example, I got here by clicking a link that said "Feedback" at the bottom of the Consumerist page. Obviously if this is a technical support page then you don't want to call it "feedback" since this could be interpreted in so many different ways. ( Delete or Edit)

It is rather amusing that Consumerist is acting exactly like the companies and organizations that they write about with disdain.

EDIT: The Consumerist article that links to this website says, "If you have feedback or questions about Consumerist or any other blog on the Gawker Media Network, there's now a handy Feedback link at the bottom of our front page."

That doesn't sound like they're thinking only of technical issues.

Double standards have always amused me. ( Delete or Edit)

I find it interesting that it's only for "technical support" when the post in consumerist said this: ""http://consumerist.com/5059840/reach-gawker-executive-customer-service""

And it's listed as "FEEDBACK" ... not technical support. Seems VERY shady to me. Seems they are trying to brush these valid complaints off to someone else, or ingore them completely.

Fishy, fishy. ( Delete or Edit)

Agreed, we're already discussing how to improve the messaging here on GetSatisfaction to make it clearer that these forums are for technical rather than editorial issues. ( Delete or Edit)

Noah, you might want to have them change this post's wording: http://consumerist.com/5059840/reach-...

The irony in all of this is that consumerist is supposed to be an advocate site. Until, of course, people have issues with gawker media. Then who cares, right? ( Delete or Edit)

That is HIGHLY IRNOIC considering the entire premise of consumerist. Do their ideals and standards apply to everyone but themselves? How awesome. (sarcasm) ( Delete or Edit)

First, "we"? Are you an employee of Gawker?

Next: Actually yes "you" are asking what readers think.
From Consumerist: "..nice place where you can post questions and comments and watch as Gawker employees and other readers respond."

I also don't know that anyone is getting frustrated. I think by and large the majority of the discussion on this particular topic (and the introduced tangents) has been quite civil. While I can't speak for vivelafat, Frequent Reader or little stripes.. I for one, am not feeling frustrated, upset or even angry. ( Delete or Edit)

I just don't see what part of "get over the issue of leave!" is constructive.

Next time, I will add "directed at Gawker employees only" to the beginning of my posts :) ( Delete or Edit)

hanzo, telling us to "simmer down", and telling us to "get over it and leave" are not civil nor professional and in fact are quite insulting. ( Delete or Edit)

Trotting your issue across two websites and four comment threads is not doing any good either. The lot of you got a response to your concerns. I'm sorry that they're not 100% the answer you're all looking for, so why not show some maturity and move on.

Question asked and answered, enough is enough. ( Delete or Edit)

I'm not suggesting otherwise.

Unfortunately the structure of bria's comment led me to believe he/she was directing that at the peanut gallery.

bria cleared this up with the follow-up comment.

As I previously stated, I think the initial response was very poorly handled. ( Delete or Edit)

I completely agree with you! ( Delete or Edit)

You forgot Jezebel, where you were disemvoweled....... ( Delete or Edit)

I didn't DISCUSS it there, I wrote that message and then immediately apologized to hortense, the jezebel comment moderator because I realized it was the wrong thing to do.

It's so creepy how people I don't know keep track of my moves like that. ( Delete or Edit)

Look above. You got two answers.

And I'm done here. Feel free to continue ranting if you want. Just thought you should know that I'm just as annoyed with the way the four of you are behaving as you are of hearing people tell you "Get over it." ( Delete or Edit)

I am not following you,I noticed it on this thread you nut case. http://jezebel.com/5066565/#c8453397

A thread about Elizabeth Hasselbeck, so inappropriate. ( Delete or Edit)

Oh noessss! MecuryPDX is getting annoyed! We totally better stop because I don't want to annoy anyone with my complaining! ( Delete or Edit)

Barbara:
I noticed, when clicking on your name, that you have called me names on this site and mentioned my name more than once, even on threads where I never posted.

I don't where else to say this, but I hope you were not one of the few people that sent me a death threat. I am sending your name along to the authorities just in case. I'm scared out of my mind and I'm trying to do everything I can so please, I'm sorry if I'm wrong about this. ( Delete or Edit)

I'm not being irrational by wanting to discuss something. I think everyone's trying to be civil here; let's keep it that way, okay? ( Delete or Edit)

Bria, I hope you are reporting each and every user, and I hope each and every user that left VIOLENT THREATS gets perma-banned. Unacceptable. If you don't complain, I will. Is there someone higher up than those I am speaking to hear that will actually respond and answer our questions? ( Delete or Edit)