One thing that I noticed that people very rarely do in Debate is warrant why rape is bad.

One thing that I noticed that people very rarely do in Debate is warrant why rape is bad.

Why? It is curious if one ponders it actually.

One should think that an ethical stance so ubiquitous would be the easiest thing in the whole world to warrant.

Yet they seem to take it for granted and expect us to.

Well, I can do that too. I can expect that people will not be logocentric, will entertain the rhizomatic approach as well as the hierarchical, and be cautious not to fall in to Bad Faith.

But I am not every one, am I?

And neither are they.

If our opponents cannot warrant according to what ethical principle they are arguing, how do we know their motives? What is their agenda? If they walk in to a room full of people that have drawn the same conclusion, out of either genuine caring or fear, do they hope to use this to gain Power?

How would they and their judges behave in a situation of anarchy? Would they stick to their ideals, out of genuine caring? Or would they, either in the overwhelming absence or presence of fear, surrender those ideals to mere animal brutality? With all due respect to animals, of whose lives we should not judge.

Or do they mean to say that warrants in debate are unimportant? I should think that the only REASON that people ever speak of “room to negate” is that the debaters want to expose the intentions of their opponents. Because absolutely any thing can be negated. The deeper question is of the clash; what do we gain by clashing ideologies?

If your motive to protest the “rape culture” is to condemn rapists, are you not up-holding it? As demonstrated previously, it is this same spirit that is violent in Nature that at least sub-consciously justifies the thing it condemns.

This is an important life lesson to learn in less (un)popular cases. If I tried to condemn capitalism by selling Marx tee shirts and exploiting workers, would I be effective? Probably not. Similarly if the hidden impulse is either cruelty or power on the part of our respected opponents, then surely any thing that they have to say of the absent rapist is just a projection of these same impulses. They would be guilty of Shadow projection and scape-goating. I should think that that is MUCH worse than what ever intent the fellow they are condemning had. After all, they have no objectivity regarding his or her intent; if we looked at a photo-graph of him, we would only see the projections of their own devils muddled with ours. No justice can be serve in such a fashion, right? After all: If he is morally de-generate as they claim, he is all ready a lost Soul. To be rehabilitated: Possibly. To be reformed: Maybe. But he is surely then of weak character, no? What is the TRUE threat here? The true threat comes from our opponents, who CONDEMN THE STRONG. We at least are of fairly strong character, but we do not lord, by virtue of that same strength per chance, our strength over the weak in a bullying way. If WE are to feel guilty for THEIR infractions, because to admit that we do not WISH to become the bullies that they suggest we ought to be would be to admit to a Guilt that they impose, then WE are at risk of moral decay. And as Nietzsche warned this is the greatest danger: That the Strong might topple and become Weak.

Why should I feel guilty for the infractions of an other? It is not my place to judge. Yet one develops a guilty conscience when one sees a performer such as Brinn using her skills in incrimination at the moment that she yells “I do not WANT this”. Is this a logical argument? No; its effect is purely affect. But this is manipulative, and it occurs beneath the threshold of consciousness. A schizoid split occurs. Guilt develops for some thing that was not done. In retaliation Indignation says: That Guilt is unjustified! And so Indignation seeks solace against an oppressive Guilt. Indignation looks for a source of weakness in Guilt. It finds it in the thought, too profane for conscious assimilation: Per chance “he” did nothing wrong. Perhaps she miss understood him. Perhaps WE miss understood him.

Guilt re-taliates. Guilt says: How dare you condone his actions? And what was at first a pure and innocent heart pro-claims: Alas! I am guilty! Yet of what?

Finally, in the weak but innocent (the innocent but weak) the psyche snaps. Indignation says: I shall be Guilty of that with which Guilt charged me! I shall violate! And of course this compromise assuages both parties. Guilt has been justified where before and all along it was insecure; it knew its place to be unjustified. Now the deed is in its name. And Indignation has conquered Guilt by having Affirmed what Guilt condemned. An internal war is assuaged. The only obstacle now is external. But the great tragedy is prevented. The individual has not committed suicide, to the tragedy of his loved ones. He has simply committed a crime. Where an other’s struggle begins (that of the victim, or survivor if you prefer the masculine term) there one struggle ends. The individual has conquered in that moment of penetration a deep internal struggle, attaining healing for one’s trauma, and can now calmly testify to the Court. “She deserved it”/“she provoked me”/ “she did not say no”… All of these are mere niceties. No one will know what the pour soul endured to arrive at that point of neurosis. One treats these subjective assertions with the same derision as when the paranoiac says “He was really plotting against me”, the murderer says “you should have seen the look in his eye”, or the lunatic says “every thing is made of cheese”. The rapist of all neurotics perhaps is the last remaining mad-person that we can poke with sticks and feel not so much as a prick in our conscience; he is no voodoo doll, even though he carries of course a part of our Souls: That part we do not wish to see.

So what truly is the genealogy of rape culture? It must be liberalism. This harsh progressivism that was condemned as a mental disease because it projected its own devils upon the world and took no responsibility when those devils took a carnal form, setting no example of accountability for the scape-goats that received these foul spirits. If any thing then what we call “rape rhetoric” is condemned to hide our own moral short-comings; between our opponents and the individuals that they condemn, the LATTER at least can justify one’s own actions. The former has yet to provide a warrant.

Dm.A.A.