Donald Trump likened backers of international trade agreements to rapists on Tuesday. “The Trans-Pacific Partnership is another disaster done and pushed by special interests who want to rape our country, just a continuing rape of our country,” he said. “That’s what it is, too. It’s a harsh word: It’s a rape of our country.”
It wasn’t the first time he’d used the word that way. He accused China of rape last month: “We can’t continue to allow China to rape our country,” he said. “And that’s what they’re doing. It’s the greatest theft in the history of the world.”
But looking at how Trump uses the word rape, and whom he accuses of it, reveals a pattern. He uses it to demonize his political targets. At the same time, he seems to lack empathy or understanding of what rape actually is.
“They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists,” he said last year about Mexican immigrants. He defended the statement by citing a Fusion report that an estimated 80 percent of Central American women coming across the border are raped. “I use the word rape and all of a sudden everyone goes crazy,” he said last July.
“Donald Trump has no problem throwing the word out,” said Lisa Bloom, a civil rights attorney. “I think he lacks seriousness when he uses the word. I think that’s offensive to rape victims and to women.”
Back in 1989, when five New York teenagers — four African-American and one Hispanic — were accused of beating and raping a white woman jogging in Central Park, Trump launched a massive PR campaign against them. He called them “crazed misfits.” They were in the park “wilding,” he said. He took out newspaper advertisements advocating for the death penalty to be used on the boys, all of whom turned out to be innocent.
When alleged rapists are members of a group Trump likes, however, he is more sympathetic. In 2013, in response to the Pentagon’s annual report on sexual assault, he tweeted: “26,000 unreported sexual assults [sic] in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?”
Trump has gleefully brought up the various unproven allegations of sexual assault against Bill Clinton, at one point asserting that the former president was guilty of rape and calling Hillary Clinton an “enabler.” “She was an unbelievably nasty, mean enabler, and what she did to a lot of those women is disgraceful.”
Trump himself has been accused of rape and sexual assault, although none of the accusations has ever been proven. One accuser dropped her 1997 federal lawsuit. Another lawsuit, alleging that in 1994 Trump raped a 13-year-old, was filed last week. Trump’s ex-wife Ivana accused him of rape, though she later said it was “not in a literal or criminal sense.” The two divorced over Trump’s “cruel and inhuman treatment” of his wife.
Bloom has called those allegations credible. “I think anybody would consider it important if someone had been accused — in his case three times — of rape or attempted rape, and all of them in the context of court proceedings,” she said.
When Ivana Trump’s accusations resurfaced last year, Trump Organization special counsel Michael Cohen was dismissive: “You’re talking about the frontrunner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as a private individual who never raped anybody. And, of course, understand that by the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse,” he said. That is not true, and he later apologized.
When Trump’s friend Mike Tyson was convicted of rape in 1992, Trump proposed that he should be allowed to pay millions of dollars to rape victims instead of going to jail.
Trump has denied reports this week that Tyson was invited to speak at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. One person who will be there, though, according to Bloomberg, is former Indiana University basketball coach Bobby Knight, who once said: “I think that if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it.”
i guess the authors do not know the definition of rape. there are other uses of the word than sexual assault. but i guess the PC crowd doesn’t want to hear it!
This is simply not news. It is opinion about the proper use of a word. Almost all words have metaphoric as well as legal meanings. Trump is a criminal guilty of real crimes . He is also a liar whose lies and crimes deserve exposition. This kind of semantic quitting is the least effective challenge to his popularity. As to the word ‘rape’. There are many political and historic writers who have used rape as a metaphoric description of taking pleasure/money/power/resources by violent force and coercion. That is what the TPP would do and that is why the word is accurate. Colonialism has always led to actual and metaphoric rape, murder, and theft and the TPP is corporate colonialism. The injuries will be real and rape is by no means too strong a word.
Just look at the first five letters of the word “colonialism” …
So even if not a rapist, he’s still an abusive man in regards to women…I guess enough women have read 50 Shades of Grey…
This guy really doesn’t know what he is talking about. Physically he is there, but mentally he is sleeping at home.
Way to go, Intercept. More free publicity for Donald Trump. His campaign thanks you. The free coverage provided by you and the rest of the MSM have enabled his low-budget but winning run for President. Your continued support by granting him free publicity is most welcome.
Actions speak much louder than words,and the demoncrats actions are as evil as anyone’s in history,including the shrub and his rethuglicans.
The shite is getting thicker and thicker.
To call you a binary thinker would be an gross overestimation.
Political Correctness of the rails here.
I get it, you hate Trump. Don’t feed the PC monster doing it, it just makes the world a more miserable place in the end.
His use of the word is correct you ultra narrow definition of it is not.
In other words grow up.
What would your definition of rape be, then? Because if I’m not mistaken, any dictionary is going to list it as an act of forced sexual contact between.
It’s not that we’re being politically correct, we’re just being correct. If it was anyone from the DNC you’d be going insane right now. What would your honest reaction be if Obama were to issue a press release today saying “America needs to rape China. We’re going to personally rape every single currency we can.”?
“Because if I’m not mistaken, ” …
But you are mistaken. Others have posted dictionary definitions that do not involve sex.
There seems to be a real lack of quality news analysis these days. People may have to expand their parameters to alternative media. It tends to broaden the discussion to hear alternative views even if you don’t always agree with them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uItBw_2iOog
We don’t know TheDonald hasn’t been raped.
We do know Hillary has covered for Bill’s sexcapades since the old days.
But we need a woman in the White House!
Yeah, a whorehouse madam. Al Capone got his start with 2-bit whorehouses.
(A 2-bit whore costs $0.25)
Hillary Clinton has been running a whorehouse for Bill Clinton and she’s poised to become the boss.
But back to the unproven allegations …
“unproven allegations of sexual assault against Bill Clinton,”
did I emphasize that the sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton are “unproven”?
and we all know Abu Graib “was due to a few bad apples” …
and the NSA spying “is not illegal” according to a former gov. lawyer …
I think Betsy Reed is just the best editor imaginable. What a coup for TI to have her inside the organization.
It’s just a tactic; perhaps he learned it from his fellow New Yorker:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/01/boris-johnson-lies-no-10
A sampling of thoughts for anyone interested in not wading through comments.
“The Intercept is showing encouraging signs of becoming a properly sophisticated media outlet.”
“this piece seems more appropriate somewhere in the universe of a new york daily news ”
“and calling accusations against clinton “unproven” before launching into…”
“Reporting on your feelings about a word someone used is nothing more than bullshit.”
“I realize that Naomi is young and obviously has not yet mastered what would have been part of a higher education 100 years ago.” [ouch]
“This piece is another sad attempt to turn TI into The Guardian.”
“This is shit. If TI cannot do better, I think I will take a break for a while and read something else.”
This is TI’s fourth headline in a week containing the word “Trump”. Never mind that every article is critical, the important thing is that the name is out there–over and over and over again.
Can we please have some free advertising for Jill Stein and other third party candidates? PLEASE?
Good point, but they have to do something nasty to get here.
Even that doesn’t work. The DOJ wants to extend their email investigation of the Secretary of State’s Office of the USA for 27 months. Too bad you can’t get your payday loan extended like that. Elizabeth Warren remains mum.
What did you think? That these people are engaged in voluntary community service?
All are crooked, but Hillary is the ultimate.
Neither does the bible.
Bill Clinton has finally got around to screwing his wife. Possibly Lynched her. Whatever little protection she had from DoJ he has stripped her of. Now first Bernie and then my friend Donald will take turns proving this article wrong.
Not to worry, though. Comey certainly understands the value of discretion. I see a lucrative job offer from Goldman Sachs.
Comey is not BLM folk like Holder. He will do his duty.
He did it wo her blessing?Yeah,sure.
Nice work by the authors to take the focus off the TPP and reinforce the Democrat electoral strategy of portraying Donald Trump as a misogynist. This is an excellent example of how the media helps divert attention from boring policy by pressing the right hot buttons. The Intercept is showing encouraging signs of becoming a properly sophisticated media outlet.
Didn’t bother with the title of the story, did ya, Benito?
I don’t like to boast, but I (almost) always read the title of an article before commenting.
Note to The Intercept:
This piece would have been better if it had been framed as a report about Trump’s many rape accusations. That’s the value it’s contributing, since nobody else in the media is touching it.
I’m guessing the rape-talk intro was merely intended as a segue into the main topic, but as you can see, everyone’s taking it as the main point. Obviously you are not functioning as the language police or the PC police.
All you commenters below:
Read the article again. It say nothing about “offense” to women or rape victims or trigger warnings or hurting peoples’ feelings. It’s about Trump’s illiterate, immoral, so-incompetent-it’s-not even-hypocrisy approach to the rule of law.
And the rule of law has ALWAYS been the focus of this blog.
Read it again yourself.
The authors are using the restricted meaning of the word as the only correct interpretation. The sentence I quoted is but one proof of that.
It is very easy to get carried away with what a bad person Trump is, but it is not necessary to attack the language in order to get the point across.
Clintons and Obombas real approach to the law leave Trumps alleged in the dust.
He has had no opportunity to either follow or reject the rule of law yet,while the other two are serial abusers.
the sorry state of our political class is reflective of a general decay in our society along many dimensions. one of which is the media and the birth of places like the intercept – who still practice journalism – yet this piece on trump does not seem worthy of what you are attempting to do. leaving aside my general opinion of both he and hillary which is reflective of the aforementioned decay- this piece seems more appropriate somewhere in the universe of a new york daily news – why is it that certain facts in the case about bill clinton seem to be off the radar screen of “journalists”- it is very apparent that his lifestyle from his time at oxford to his poor choice of rich “friends” like epstein would be a topic of deep interest – yet bias or a narrative begins to creep in. i feel a great sense of betrayal with the decline of the media in the context of our constitution and the rights afforded to it- the only private sector afforded such a right and for a reason- a reason of seeking balance, truth and thus justice – not simple hit pieces that reduce the journalistic dignity that the intercept seeks- this simple piece diminishes what you actually are trying to enhance.
Donald Trump understands perfectly well what rape is.
It’s what the Democrats have done to our country for the last 7+ years and what the Republicans did to the world the 8 years before that!
***TRUMP 2016***
…because “voting is the best revenge”
Just for the record, that strong word is not restricted to the limited use you apparently believe it is (or should be):
NOUN
1 The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will: he denied two charges of attempted rape; he had committed at least two rapes
1.1 archaic The abduction of a woman, especially for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with her: the Rape of the Sabine Women
2 The wanton destruction or spoiling of a place or area: the rape of the Russian countryside
VERB
[WITH OBJECT]
1 (Especially of a man) force (another person) to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will: the woman was raped at knifepoint
2 Spoil or destroy (a place): the timber industry is raping the land
….but agree overusing any strong word diminishes the impact of its meaning.
What is running for the presidency like in the USA? How many of the presidents in the last one hundred years have been men of the highest integrity and moral standards? You can not answer the first question but with a minimum of research you can answer the second. The correct answer is none. My third question is why does America demand generally such dark characters to run the nation? The same dark cast lays over the Congress and the Supreme Court. Whatever answers may come to mind you should now know why someone like Donald Trump can not possibly use the vocabulary you would prefer, why at times you see him as a racist or a bigot or a sexist. You like many people prefer an imaginative picture of the USA much like advertisements. One which is heart warming and meaningful rather than the reality which is frightening, dark, sinister, foreboding, ominous . . . The American people regularly shut their eyes and vote for generally gangster minded people of whom none could portray this better than Hilary Clinton. In 1993 the Democrat party could have nominated Bob Kerry, a much finer man than Bill Clinton –of whom many bad things are true. Really the American people are not coerced into choosing criminals for President. But they do and they do so knowingly. There is something about the bad guy that draws them to him. Lots of people like Hilary Clinton. A lot of bad things are true of her as well. Speaking of rape Hilary took a real satisfaction in getting a rapist of a under aged girl off the hook when she knew he was guilty.
Bob Kerrey the murderer of civilians who got the MoH? for it?
A pos hell bitch clone in mans dress.
this is worse than japan’s rape of don king. he’s still better than hillary, though. and calling accusations against clinton “unproven” before launching into…unproven claims about trump shows a little bias. let’s just accept that they and their families are all sleazy scumbags and focus on foreign policy or something.
I miss the days when TI only published articles every few days or so, because they were (more often than not) high quality reports by investigative journalists who tackled real issues.
Reporting on your feelings about a word someone used is nothing more than bullshit.
You guys totally just raped Trump’s campaign with this article. Trump is gonna rape away Cohen’s position after this. And Bobby Knight really got raped by the media for saying that.
Prohibiting words or metaphors isn’t going to stop violence. (Legalizing, taxing, and regulating prostitution may be effective, similar to the War on Drugs. Yeah, I know, it offends your morals.)
So which is a worse literary crime: hyperbolic metaphor or taking statements out of context to make PC political hay?
I would argue that the second offense is by far worse.
The first offense is used to engender loyalty among those that already agree with the speaker. It takes the logical relationship of a metaphor to the extreme and then pushes a touch more.
The second offense is a personal attack designed to create ambivalent or even malevolent feelings among those that are not yet decided. It uses a logical fallacy to create specific feelings. While effective in the short term, over time, it often marks the speaker as an illogical hothead.
I realize that Naomi is young and obviously has not yet mastered what would have been part of a higher education 100 years ago. I blame the current state of our educational system, which stops with grammar in high school and does some rhetoric in college, but never actually teaches practical use of logic. Rhetoric without logic often backfires. That is what is missing in this piece: logic.
This whole, pathetically silly piece, along with much of the discussion BTL, constitutes an attempted rape of the English language and its rich diversity of meanings.
I’ll try not to soil any of your safe spaces when I puke.
The last line is comical: How dare the Republicans invite Bobby Knight, who once used the r-word somewhat provocatively?
This piece is another sad attempt to turn TI into The Guardian.
I stopped reading The Guardian when they made up news where there was none by intentionally misquoting Obama. The article is still uncorrected. This is the sick pile of…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/29/barack-obama-drug-addiction-health-problem-not-criminal-problem
LOL! I see what you did there.
Nicely done.
The word rape is often used as a metaphor, and we should strive not to do so anymore. It’s too upsetting to victims of sexual assault, and it’s not unreasonable for us to be considerate of them.
That’s what the right doesn’t get political correctness. They’ve demonized it when all it really means is saying “Excuse me” instead of “F*** off” when getting off the subway.
Don’t say the word “demonized.” It might trigger memories in satanic-abuse victims.
Don’t say “Excuse me.” It sounds like you want to be pardoned.
Don’t say “correctness.” It promotes being right over being sincere.
My point is this: being polite is certainly laudable, but F*** off with policing the English language because of “upsetting” people. Where would it end?
“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc [the State], and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.” (‘Orwell: ‘1984’)
>Don’t say the word “demonized.” It might trigger memories in satanic-abuse victims.
Hey look everybody, this guy still thinks the Satanic Panic stuff was legit.
Which guy?
You know many guys named Maisie?
You couldn’t deduce a facetious tone from my faux-alarmist comment?
Or perhaps you couldn’t understand the words “My point is this: being polite is certainly laudable, but F*** off with policing the English language because of ‘upsetting’ people. Where would it end?”
I’d say ‘read my comment again,’ but I have my doubts you even read the whole thing in the first place.
What nonsense. The list of terms that are or may be hurtful to victims of various assaults and indignities is infinitely long. Who gets to decide which victims are sufficiently special to deserve protection by the language police?
Let’s let business decide. They were nice enough to change rapeseed to canola. Businesses will usually try to use language that offends the least number of potential customers. Seems like a good policy.
A quick perusal of the comments reveals that Vic Perry is the only sane one here. 4Chan must have given their Assemble! signal for this article.
You are the arbiter of sanity as well as god of acceptable words? You must be very busy.
Consistency demands that you condemn this article for being upsetting to victims of sexual assault. It is far more so than the simple use of the word “rape” with a meaning other than sexual assault.
You and he can vote together for your hell bitch.I read they have cohabitant voting booths for the interested.
I don’t think that’s a nice thing to call Jill Stein, dahoit, but congratulations on typing a post without the word “Zionist” in it.
I think we can all agree that hyperbole is worse than Hitler.
A strange thing I notice around these parts: people thinking “the dictionary” is a stable entity that predates language usage rather than reflecting it.
I think the comments indicate that people think the word is used as the dictionary describes. Who knows where you got the idea that they think the dictionary predates language usage. That does require an unusual belief about the origin of language.
The choice of the word “predate” was poor on my part.
Anyway, I should be all realpolitik to try to win the all-important argument, and mention too that “the dictionary” tends to rank definitions in terms of prevalence: the specifically sexual nature of rape comes in #1 every time. I should embrace “the dictionary” since it supports my case in this thread.
TPP, NAFTA and other secretly arranged trade deals, yes, I understand what he means. Apparently, this article writer wants no analogies, but fact is the same we are a weaker nation due to “rape” or our economy. Or another analogy that is understood::: Hey babe let me take you outback and wreck your economy so bad you cant buy anything for a month. You are part of the complacent ones, happy being treated like mushrooms. here I’ll clarify analogy. Keep you in the DARK, feed you SHIT. or lie to you and not tell you anything. Get it? You all must be related to Hillary Obama
Here see we the meaning of a word purposely restricted from its accepted range of usage in order to attack someone who deserves it. However, it is also an attack on everyone else who uses the word properly.
I used the word (properly) in a comment on this forum not long ago; the criticism of DT, if valid, would apply to me also. I reject that, and I claim that good journalism requires the skillful use of language. This is shit. If TI cannot do better, I think I will take a break for a while and read something else.
What makes you think that range is acceptable?
There is no reason why a word that means an extreme form of sexual assault cannot be used in other ways, too.
Are you misquoting Trump? Did he say “their rapists” or “they’re rapists” with respect to – “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists,” he said last year about Mexican immigrants.
Further consideration of this – https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4dt5ap/wow_he_actually_did_say_their_rapists_not_theyre/
Your comment is a telling example of the kinds of questions Americans will be fighting over to answer correctly when Trump is president.
Indeed. We will assemble around our glowing screens, consulting, debating, splitting hairs.
“What did The Orange Oracle say? What did he mean? Are we at war with Eastasia?”
and on reddit:
“Is it OK for me to rape a Mexican rapist?”
It’s stupid to use rape as a metaphor & it’s stupid to defend the use of rape as a metaphor.
By the way, it’s also stupid to use the words “whore” or “prostitute” to describe people who betray others.
These are stupid metaphors – stupid as analogies, stupid rhetorically – for similar reasons.
Most of all, nobody needs these metaphors to make their points. You don’t need cliches, especially ones that make you look like a dork.
Want a story? Dumb, smug, who-cares-about-anyone-poorer-than-me liberals are right now rejoicing in Trump’s use of the word “rape” to describe the utterly awful TPP. They are rejoicing because maybe, just maybe, they can get everybody on board with TPP by recasting opposition to it as some kind of frat boy gang rape.
Thanks for assisting them, Donald. Way to go, hero.
-“By the way, it’s also stupid to use the words ‘whore’ or ‘prostitute’ to describe people who betray others.”
Most times when I see ‘whore’ or ‘prostitute’ in the context of politics, it means someone who will do what you ask them to for money.
Well it’s not the politicians I’m worried about, it’s the whores and prostitutes.
Yes, their being compared to politicians in any way is quite an insult to sex-workers.
Exactly. And it takes a certain jerk-male perspective to use (mostly female) sex workers as their synonym for “betrayal of trust.”
To repeat: It doesn’t mean betrayal of trust – it means someone who will do what you desire for money.
That politicians are untrustworthy ‘prostitutes’ is peculiar to them, and not about any qualities inherent to prostitution.
I think it does mean betrayal, but never mind.
If it’s just about “someone who will do what you desire for money,” look at the word we use for hired KILLING – the word “mercenary” – and ask yourself why it doesn’t seem to carry the same sting as being called a “whore”.
You could refer to mercenaries as whores. Wage-slave doesn’t mean ‘slave,’ and isn’t meant to insult slaves – and it isn’t taken that way.
okay whatever, I don’t know what the appeal is of verbally sexualizing crap policy & behavior, but have fun with that
Okay, ‘bye, then! Same time tomorrow?
“Wage-slave doesn’t mean ‘slave,’ and isn’t meant to insult slaves – and it isn’t taken that way.”
I did say I was done, but I have to say —–> have you discussed this word usage with any actual slaves in order to find out whether they feel insulted? You seem a bit confident about the point.
Considering that most people understand that they work for a “wage” but nevertheless only describe themselves as “wage-slaves” if they are emphasizing the semi-involuntary nature of the arrangement, I have my doubts that the inclusion of the word “slave” is meant as a neutral comment on the condition of being a slave.
I agree the word ‘slave’ isn’t meant as a *neutral* comment in the phrase ‘wage-slave,’ for the connotation is meant to say that having to do the job is LIKE slavery in certain ways, but it is not meant as an insult to slaves – nor is it meant literally. And I don’t think any actual slaves would find language-misusage one of their top priorities, even if I did meet one and spark up a chat with them.
As for the rest, seeing as you love dictionaries so much, one definition of prostitute is “a person who willingly uses his or her talent or ability in a base and unworthy way, usually for money”, and ostensibly this definition is independent of any sexual connotation.
One reason it is particularly striking for a politician (or soldier-for-hire) to be called such a thing is because there’s no way they would have to be (which is not to say some actual whores don’t love their jobs); their occupations don’t at all necessitate prostituting themselves out to corporations and so forth – in fact their integrity depends on them not doing so.
Hillaryous;Now its the Johns who are the only criminals,not the women breaking the law.
Its like giving drug dealers a pass and arresting the buyers as the issue.
Actually I assumed that was his intention. He’s smarter than he lets on… If anything, he was to heavy-handed with his language and let that give away his intent. Don’t let that stop you from writing as spokespeople for the establishment, though. Kaching kaching.
I’m glad to see so much blowback from this somewhat pathetic piece of partisan propaganda. Defending that sexual predator Slick Willie or his enabler wife is a clear tell as to what some people will accept as normal and acceptable to promote their political goals.
gee, am I allowed to think Trump & Bill & Hillary all stink?
They have plenty in common; idiots choose a favorite amongst them.
I’m not a Trump supporter and anyone at this level of the Game are stinky but HRC does seem to be the slinkiest and more important the most dangerous stinker.
This style of attack on Trump is almost universal in the MSM and it does show desperation and panic among Clintonites who have nothing positive to sell the public about their stinky beast.
Good points from the sunni side of the street.
Wow,you can be logical when you get rid of your ideology.
Traditionally, the word “rape” means ” to take by force.” i.e the Rape of Nanking or the Rape of Iraq. It is the radical feminists who have bastardized or politicized the meaning of the word rape to the point where it has a somewhat dubious meaning. For example, why is Julian Assange still wanted for rape charges? The Assange rape story is ambiguous to the point of being ludicrous .
Instead of arguing with these people about what the word rape means, we usually just smile and nod and wait for them to go away.
https://www.amazon.com/Rape-Nanking-Forgotten-Holocaust-World/dp/0465068367
“Traditionally, the word “rape” means ” to take by force.”” Yes, this is a quote from the above……
As in the old west, when a man said of a guy who stole his horse, “He raped my horse.”?
As in the 30s when Dillinger was a well-known “bank rapist”?
Well, no, actually, idiot, I guess “traditionally” the word “rape” did NOT mean merely “taking by force.”
You might want to actually check the origins of the word. For hundreds of years it meant exactly what Si1ver1ock stated. You might not like the truth, and you probably do not like what he said, but that certainly doesn’t change the etymology of the word itself.
For what it is worth I don’t necessarily agree about the radical feminist agenda, but the word usage is undeniably accurate.
Lots of words used to have different meanings.
We are decades past the time when rape has NOT had a mainly sexually-related meaning.
Phrases like “the rape of the environment” are still current, and it is doubtful that people anywhere seriously consider it to mean non-consensual phallic thrustings into the hillsides, trees, rivers and air.
Actually, what is current are the conversations you find in this particular Google search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=rape+of+the+environment&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=rape+of+the+environment+metaphor
So, take your pick. Have THESE (rather boring!) conversations, or find a different metaphor already!
I don’t find people trying to police the English language very impressive, personally. Way too uptight.
So avoid the police. No need to go pull their noses just to make a pointless point.
They’re not real police. Why should anyone obey them?
zzzzz
Hey Vic, is that really your ass in your hat?
Or did you borrow one …
ha ha ha, do you have an argument though?
“do you have an argument though?”
Well, you need to present one first. A convincing one, I mean.
See?
Michael Wilk said this below
TheDonald is going to be right sometimes just because of the shear number, and variety, of positions he claims to hold.
Nothing of substance may be attributed to Donald Trump.
Zionist word steins.
So would it be “The Theft of Nanking” ?
No, they gave it back (though a bit reluctantly) so borrowing would be more appropriate.
Wait, they did make a mess of it before returning it though, maybe “The careless stewardship of Nanking”?
As loathe as I am to agree with a subhuman savage like Drumpf, in the context of rape being defined as a violation of the victim, his argument regarding the T.P.P. is actually accurate. Rape is not about sex. It’s about exerting power over the victim, with the body and psychology of the victim suffering the damage.
The T.P.P. has been described by critics as N.A.F.T.A. on steroids, effectively nullifying the United States Constitution and the laws thereof in favor of large business interests. This means that a corporation under the T.P.P. can sue the United States to eliminate minimum wage laws, child labor laws, workplace protections, benefits, environmental protections—you name it. And if a corporation doesn’t like laws protecting homeowners from having their property seized, say goodbye to your home because if Wal-Mart wants to pave over it to build another of its big-box monstrosities, you’re just gonna have to scoot, and to hell with whether you are adequately compensated or are unable to obtain another place to live. Under the T.P.P., national sovereignty and civil rights and liberties are nonexistent.
Now, don’t get me wrong: Drumpf is lying his ass off when he says he opposes the T.P.P., and so is Clinton when she says she opposes it. Either one of them would be a disaster as dictator implementing this horror show on behalf of Wall Street. But one of the benefits of the Sanders campaign is that public opposition to it is out in the open to such a degree that the two major parties’ presumptive nominees feel compelled to at least give lip service to our concerns. ‘Rape’ as defined by the violation of the victim is appropriate in this context. That is was used by such a vulgar, uneducated monster is irrelevant.
The TPP is terrible, but please find another word.
Please grow up, redefining a word into narrow definitions to suit your “refined” sensibilities then censoring others who are using the word correctly, though not by your ultra narrow definition” is a fairly juvenile thing to be doing.
However if you do indeed consider yourself a grown up please feel free to take you PC BS and shove it where the sun don’t shine.
Exactly.
Do you point your truthometer at the boob tube when Trump ,speaks?
Don’t worry. Mr. Trump will have a thorough education on the word rape:
http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/
@ Mr. Froomkin and Ms. LaChance
It is early in the thread, but there seems to be an evolving consensus that you guys are way wide of the mark on this one and that this is horrible journalism. Regular readers of TI expect something better than this, and particularly out of Mr. Froomkin.
Nobody here would ever apologize or minimize rape in either sense of the word. But there is a meaningful and appropriate distinction to be drawn between the two in its most common understanding and usage.
You do your credibility no favors whatsoever to conflate the two, exclude one to the singular usage of the other, or quote lawyers like Ms. Bloom who appears to think anyone who uses the word in any sense other than the first is somehow diminishing the seriousness or criminality of a rape victim’s experience.
If you want to write a piece about how Donald Trump is a hypocrite with regard to women’s rights or rape in the first sense, particularly he’s been accused of precisely that, then that’s one thing. But this barely polished turd in the journalistic punch bowl should leave you both highly embarrassed and you might want to consider deleting it or cleaning it up with an update.
It wasn’t about Trump using one definition, its that he uses the word to demonize political opponents often and examples were given with both definitions which shows his understanding of the word is based on how it affects him or protects his interests.
“Trump has gleefully brought up the various unproven allegations of sexual assault against Bill Clinton, at one point asserting that the former president was guilty of rape and calling Hillary Clinton an “enabler.” “She was an unbelievably nasty, mean enabler, and what she did to a lot of those women is disgraceful.”
“I think he lacks seriousness when he uses the word. I think that’s offensive to rape victims and to women.” Lisa Bloom
I wouldn’t care if he was just some guy but as someone who could be the POTUS, I would have to be an idiot not to care.
I think he lacks seriousness when he uses ANY word, as he’s an upbeat showman.
Besides, he’s got to keep his unfavorables higher than Clinton’s, or she might lose – and the establishment doesn’t want that any more than he does.
Now, Clinton – she’s serious. Seriously self-serving and corrupt! But her carefully scripted words are as grim as the proverbial reaper, that’s for sure.
I don’t see a problem with Trump’s use of vivid language. I see a problem with his phoniness.
Why would anyone expect to take what a person running for president says seriously? I mean, especially a man. We should take Trump as seriously for president as we do sitcom fathers as role models for the American family. People are so uptight nowadays.
Everyone knows the man candidate only looks bad as he does because he’s under the spell and control of the she candidate’s unnatural ambitions. He’s doing her a favor by being a jerk to help her win of course.
Its like he’s moving the furniture, he’s cleaning the basement, he’s seeing whats wrong with the car – all so she could be happy and get the job she wants, the job he wants her to have.
How could it be any other way?
I don’t think Trump is under her control, he’s just on the “same side” (the establishment), while pretending not to be. And it’s most of the entire system that wants Clinton as president, not just her and Trump. Her way is being paved before her by everything in this charade. Indeed she should (and would otherwise, if not for Trumps cartoonish villainy) be ashamed to show her face anywhere, considering what a vile and utterly disgusting corporatist warmonger she is – so, as you say “How could it be any other way?”
@ Candace
I don’t understand your point. Donald Trump is a misogynist prick. He has been accused of rape of the former variety repeatedly. That is newsworthy. It is not entirely inaccurate to level the same accusation at Bill Clinton, the inaccurate part being the assertion Bill Clinton is guilty of rape when he was never convicted of that particular crime.
There is/was evidence, if I remember correctly, at the time Bill Clinton’s abusers (multiple not Monica Lewinsky) that Hillary Clinton was part of the decision-making process that sought to demonize/delegitimize those women’s accusations (or are sexual abuse allegations only to be taken seriously by all women who don’t accuse Bill Clinton of sexual predation). That also is newsworthy.
Donald Trump using the word rape correctly under one understanding and definition, while using it frivolously in another is not necessarily newsworthy. Neither does the former correct usage prove he is “unserious” nor is it or should it be “offensive” to victims of rape, unless of course there are those who think it is appropriate to try and limit the usage of the word rape to only its sexually violent predation understanding and definition. In which case fair enough.
Really? You didn’t understand that I was commenting on your attempt to lecture LaChance and Froomkin on a point they didn’t make?
I’m so very surprised.
The truth bothers you.How sad.
I wouldn’t say I am bothered that rrheard is full of it, really.
“turd in the punch bowl”
Nice metaphor you dropped there …
This is one thing that I found unprofessional:
Various unproven sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton …
Well, the allegations against Bill Cosby are unproven, too, and similar in number.
Bill Clinton hangs out with convicted serial child sex abuser, Jeffrey Epstein, who hired Dershowitz to defend him against child rape, the same thing The Dersh is accused of doing, but that is just an allegation with mountains of evidence …
TheDailyBeast has this piece of journalism.
Hillary Clinton is doing what she has always done for other women; let Bill fuck them …
There are at least 2 commonly understood and easily distinguishable definitions and usages for the word rape:
Here’s my problem with articles like this: it appears that there are some in society who believe there should be only one definition and permitted usage of the word rape and that is in the first dictionary definition sense of forcibly and without consent violating another human being in a sexual way.
I have nothing positive to say about Herr Trump, but he is clearly using rape in the commonly understood and accepted sense set forth in the latter definition and usage.
So my question is, why write articles like this using Trump’s use of the word rape in describing China and economic issues (which I disagree is inaccurate on the merits given the neoliberal global elite have no problem with China’s actions except to the extent China is profiting at the expense of others who would like to be profiting similarly (or “raping” some nation or its people as the case is and may be)?
Moreover, here’s what I find “unserious” and disturbing, that you would quote somebody in the profession I am a member of who clearly understands this contextual and definitional distinction in the usage of the word rape:
How exactly could using the word “rape” in the sense of “an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation” in the context of an economic argument/assertion, be offensive to rape victims, unless of course there is a movement to ensure that “rape” has only one commonly understood usage and definition.
I simply don’t get it, or the point of this piece, at least not the way you’ve argued it.
I fail to see how China or any other trading partner plundered, violently seized or abused the USA in any way, so I am offended when someone uses the term OUT OF CONTEXT to get attention and it is offensive to me.
I didn’t say China did “rape” anybody, particularly in the neoliberal global environment which is precisely why I said:
China “rapes” other nations in the exact same way America does, economically speaking. Although I’d say America has China’s act beat hands down, at least historically and for a bit longer anyway.
Tribalism masquerading (poorly) as intellectualism a.k.a. the specialty of the Beltway Liberal . methinks the authors should read Glen Greenwald more and Hillary’s press releases less.
Not a particularly potent criticism of Trump. ‘Rape’ is often used as a way of describing an invasive violation and a theft that is unconscionable (the dictionary has as one meaning of the word “an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation”).
Trump is a showman, and he’s deliberately using language to make himself look like a straight-talker. He should be criticized for being a huckster selling snake oil, not for his theatrical performance of “telling it like it is” – which is, like Obama’s pretense of being reasonable and philosophical, actually pretty good fakery. (Hillary, of course, can’t act at all – so her performance is utterly without charisma and is largely uncomfortable to behold, since her exposed personality is as repulsive as her corporatist and warmongering policies.)
I personally believe this election is a farce, an establishmentarian charade, with Trump in reality trying to help Clinton win by being an ‘opponent’ with higher unfavorable ratings than her (which only he could do) – but if you are REALLY concerned about Trump winning you should focus on how he is cleverly reaching out to disgruntled Bernie fans RIGHT NOW – by saying the economy is rigged, how infrastructure needs revamping, etc. – while Clinton is looking down her nose at Sanders’ supporters and simply demanding they to fall in line without another word. (They should of course in truth turn to Jill Stein, and ignore both Trump and She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed.)
Although these accusations seem very serious, I don’t see why the headline says that Trump doesn’t seem to understand what rape is. He sometimes uses rape as a metaphor, like many people do, but using a word metaphorically doesn’t mean you don’t understand it. I get that he has a bad record on women’s rights, and it’s absolutely clear that he demeans women as a group over and over, in very public ways. He clearly is interested in looks more than anything else in his sexual partners. He’s sexist and he takes advantage of women. And there are some reasons to think that he may have committed rape and escaped because of his wealth. These are all more serious charges than the claim that he doesn’t understand what rape is. But I’m still wondering why the headline says he doesn’t understand the meaning of rape, which doesn’t seem proved by the evidence and isn’t the most important issue anyway.
Can anyone explain to me, either why his using rape as a metaphor means that he doesn’t understand what rape is, or what other evidence there is for thinking he doesn’t understand the meaning of rape?
Randall,
I’m guessing you’ve never been raped, in the physical sense, against your will?
Years ago I called out a colleague in a CEO group who said he was “raped
at the car dealership”. At the first break I took him aside and asked him if
he had ever been raped and he said “No”. It only took him a few blinks of
an eye to realize what he said was offensive to anyone, male or femaile, who
had been raped. A few years later I was sitting with a prominent CEO
of a Silicon Valley tech company who said, when describing a sales presentation,
the phrase “rape and pillage”. People who have been lucky enough to
escape the trauma of physical/mental rape have no business using the word/phrase in any context in this modern world. There is no walking this
one back for Trump, or for anyone.
to promote
That definitely deserves an answer. You’re right, I haven’t been raped.
I agree your two examples are offensive things to say. In your example #1, your male colleague said he himself was raped without realizing that he might be talking to people who, unlike him, had been raped “in the physical sense”, and that was a bad choice on his part. #2 is especially offensive if the CEO used “rape and pillage” in anything like a positive sense — you don’t say whether he did, but it seems likely to me that a lot of these male executives do. The issue of what it means when they do that, and how to respond, is worth an article in itself.
One thing that the Intercept’s article doesn’t quite put its finger on is the way that politicians use talk about rape, in the physical or metaphorical senses, to stir up emotions and angry policy in a way that benefits the politician’s own career but isn’t particularly good at eliminating rape. Lots of politicians do that, not just Trump. But it’s worse when a politician like Trump, who has a record of his own sexually-minded invasions of women’s space, goes on to promote his own career by talking about how rape is bad and casting himself as helping to save us from rape. I wouldn’t have seen this clearly without reading your comment — the Intercept article didn’t do well at expressing the issue. And I still think the article’s headline wasn’t on the mark, but we’ve now moved into more important subjects.
There are plenty of people, Trump supporters in particular, who would look at the conversation you and I are having and say “All this is just political correctness, Trump’s being real.” They see the way Trump talks as being serious about rape, and they think raising concerns about how the word can be used and who can use it is just a kind of posturing irrelevance. They’d say that, after all, they know rape is bad, and all of Trump’s comments presuppose that rape is bad, so what’s the problem? Part of the answer to that is that rape has a great ability to keep on going even while people continue to say “Oh, we all know that’s bad”. As long as people like Trump, or like the CEO in your example #2, can get away with speaking in the hypocritical way they do and allow themselves and their audience to keep feeling like decent opponents of rape, rape will just keep going. There are currents of hypocrisy on rape that are affecting our culture. To be serious in opposing rape, you have to hold yourself, and the people you talk with, to a stronger anti-hypocrisy standard when the subject of rape comes up. So I would say it’s not really just about language (“politically correct” language or whatever). It requires being aware of the tendency for people to think, in one way or another, that “What raped people go through is really not such a big deal where my life is concerned”, and to reorient yourself to change that somewhat and be more helpful about the problem.
A few questions I had for you, since I’m still thinking this through:
1. Your comment talks about rape “in the physical sense” and later speaks about “physical/mental rape”. When you say “physical/mental” rape, do you mean there’s a kind of mental rape that can happen even to people who aren’t raped in the physical sense, or did you mean something different?
2. Since only a small percentage of people in this country have been physically castrated, is it wrong for those who haven’t to use words like “castrate”, “neutered”, etc. in a metaphorical way?
3. I’m not sure how strict you mean to be about the point that people who haven’t been raped have no business using the word in any context. If you really do mean that the word “rape” should be used only by those who have experienced it, it seems that might make those who haven’t been raped less likely to be in a position to be helpful.
So I’d be interested to hear what you think on these things.
Also, I think it might be a problem in a way if a man or woman who actually has been raped “in the physical sense” advances their political career by talking about rape and promoting emotions and policies that end up not actually helping to eliminate rape. So the problem isn’t just that only rape survivors can talk about rape, it’s also that we shouldn’t let awareness of the problem of rape be redirected for harmful purposes like in politics.
The Intercept seems to have gotten a dose of Salon Headline Syndrome.
SJW oversensitivity trumps the devastation caused to workers, male and female by obscenely greedy multinationals and their sought after trade hegemony, abolishing democratic accountability.
Rape of a sexual sort is horrible, so are these secret trade deals.
So it is not “an outrageous violation”?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rape
Not spoiling” the lands and the environment, nor “pillaging and plundering them”?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rape
Calling the TPP “rape” doesn’t really seem like an overstatement. I mean, it involves the rape of the environment, in an established usage of the term. And I mean objectively speaking if a mom has a choice between getting gang-raped by five ugly men or finding out her kid has lost 10 IQ points to the lead smelter on the outskirts of town, which do you think she’d pick? You’d never see so many women lined up to have the worst night of their lives, that I feel morally certain of.
It comes from The Clinton’s War on Women. Either the stories are true or not true. A lot of the women seem credible and tell essentially the same story. Bill Clinton’s illicit sexual activities go back to his time as governor in Arkansas. Hillary was in charge of bimbo eruptions during Bill’s presidency. They set out to deliberately destroy the credibility of Bill’s accusers and there are a lot of accusers.
We don’t know what Bill’s role will be in the White House. Maybe the Press can tell us if Hillary ever gives another press conference. As far as I know, Hillary hasn’t given a press conference since the beginning of the year. Maybe she doesn’t want to answer questions about her email or other scandals, fine but. why is the Press complicit in helping Hillary hide out?
https://www.amazon.com/Clintons-War-Women-Roger-Stone-ebook/dp/B0145FKGK4
This is absolutely ridiculous to blame Hillary or Bill for Trump’s stupidity. The witch hunt on Clinton back then was as stupid as it is right now, a waste of tax payers money and a political stunt designed to get any stupid Republican in the White House so that they can put conservative judges. That is what this whole election is about. Remember that whole scandal with Bill was led by Dennis Hassert , a child molester. This whole scandal hoax on Hillary is all designed to get a republican in the White House. Trump is the stupidest and most volatile, racist candidate, the republicans could ever have-but they will take him because of the judges.
Holy moly;Witch hunt?That should of been over a while ago with the witch in jail,instead shes the demoncrat POTUS candidate.
Its warlock(alleged) hunt instead,on Trump.