I'll bite. Is hearing or seeing any idea that you have not previously consented to likewise mind rape?
If not, where do you personally draw the line? And, just as importantly, who do you feel should get to decide in the general case?
I'll bite: yes. If you show me images of goatse or mutilated bodies in a war zone without my consent that’s mind rape. Same with bring politics forcibly into the workplace, showing Fox news at the bbq joint while I’m trying to eat or at the gym while I’m trying to exercise, or screaming at me in protest while I’m trying to access family planning services. Whether its appropriate or not depends on set and setting.
Just like women have the right to walk the streets in whatever attire they damn well please without getting raped, I have the right to experience the world without constantly being bombarded by commercial and political mind rape.
> If not, where do you personally draw the line? And, just as importantly, who do you feel should get to decide in the general case?
Consent. Is that such a hard line to understand? If you want to challenge peoples viewpoints go to college or start a poker night with a bunch of philosophically diverse neighbors who like to argue politics. If you want to shove ads down everyones throat, go join an influencer support group.
Everyone else deserves to live free from constant mental assault.
Exactly. Our minds are sacred.
Do men, and lesbian and bisexual women, have the right to walk down the street without seeing a woman dressed in a way they find distracting?
I think you will say that they have no such right. But if so: What makes this form of attention-grabbing behaviour (wearing a skimpy dress) acceptable, and the other form (advertising) unacceptable?
This example highlights that (a) we are, in fact, capable of managing distractions to quite some degree, and (b) in both cases there is another party involved whose interests oppose our own, but whose rights nevertheless also need to be considered.
Billboards on a highway: mind rape.
Advertising is by definition noise. Superfluous. Information I did not ask for. Irrelevant stuff that someone paid money to put in front of me. Information I explicitly ask for is not advertising, it's simply information.
My cognitive functions are inalienable, they are not theirs to sell to the highest bidder, nor are they currency to pay for services with. I have attention deficit disorder. It's hard enough for me to focus without these corporations trying to grab my attention. I consider their attempts to do so a violation of my personal integrity. I consider ad blocking to be justified self-defense. I will literally do everything in my power to avoid looking at ads.
I always try to make sure my online contributions are worthy of the valuable attention of their readers they take up.
> advertising at its core does _NOT_ have to be evil
Advertising has inherent and irreconciliable conflicts of interest that make it worthless to any rational person. They're trying to sell you stuff, it's literally guaranteed that they will be overstating the pros and downplaying the cons. When you want to make an informed decision, the last person you want to listen to is the advertiser. You want to listen to people you personally trust or independent third parties, not the seller who has every incentive in the world to lie to you.
Therefore the existence of advertising is incompatible with a rational society. There is no such thing as "non-evil" advertising. It doesn't inform anyone. On the contrary: it is disinformation, inherently untrustworthy.
Because I don't consent to it. I don't want it. That's all the justification necessary. They violate my boundaries despite the fact I say no.
Interestingly, I agree that it doesn't have to be evil, but in practice it is, so close to 100% of the time that the exceptions are actually not worth discussing.
We aren't talking about a Clockwork Orange type of scneario. You're trivialising real rape when you refer to easily avoidable online-advertising.
Your mind "rape" is in no way or form analogous to rape.
No, it isn't. It's defined in terms of penetration. Both legal definitions and dictionary definitions.
If your argument depends on a word having a different meaning from the dictionary definition, it's your argument that is wrong, not the dictionary.
> My mind is part of my body. I feel violated.
Violation is not rape.
> define rape
> The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
> "the rape of Europa by Zeus."
> The act of pillaging or plundering.
> "the rape of the city by the invaders."
> Abusive or improper treatment; spoiling or abuse.
> "the rape of the land by polluters."
Who knows? Maybe one day there'll be a "rape of the mind" dictionary entry in there.
Well, when there is you can claim your argument doesn't trivialise rape. Until then your claim is baseless.
Seems to fit well for my intended purpose. I see no reason to avoid using the word.
But we are.
(OTOH if that intention is conveyed in p. 37 of an EULA in dense legalese, it seems clearly designed to swamp the user. I'd like to see a lot more attention paid to this in legal circles.)