Sexual Assault Victims are now "Survivors"

Hoboo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

How many were at risk of imminent death? Facts and statistics please.

I'm not saying they did not experience horrible violation and all that comes after that.

I take issue with the misuse and abuse of the term "survivor" following the #metoo movement.

It is not an accurate term.

Meanings of words change. Marriage is another example.

Captain Obvious

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Like the Jews in the Nazi concentration camps I guess?


This term is loaded but it's used routinely now in US media to describe victims of sex assault since #metoo. This tactic was taken up here with the Catholic Church as well. Victims were "survivors" or something like they were going to be killed.

I know it's a cruel and deeply hurtful, damaging thing but "survivor"???

What is wrong with you?

Billy Mays

Imagine getting riled up about the victims of sexual assault being described as survivors

seamus

Wibbs wrote: »

That's pure supposition S. The stats on both are opaque to say the least.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Source please.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-men-are-more-likely-to-be-raped-than-be-falsely-accused-of-rape

"Supposition" is playing it down to make the pretense that both are equally uncertain.

They're not. What we do know is that the proportion of men known to have been raped in a given year outstrips even the number of men brought to court on rape charges.

The number of false claims is barely even a blip in any statistics.

The only way the statement would be untrue or opaque is if there were thousands of false rape claims every year just hanging out there, that nobody is talking about.

looksee

Maybe you should take this discussion to the English forum, you will have the term explained to you there.

dav3

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

How many were at risk of imminent death? Facts and statistics please.

I'm not saying they did not experience horrible violation and all that comes after that.

I take issue with the misuse and abuse of the term "survivor" following the #metoo movement.

It is not an accurate term.

No we're not doing that, you need to educate yourself. People are wasting enough of their own valuable time as it is replying to you.

Kermit.de.frog

looksee wrote: »

Maybe you should take this discussion to the English forum, you will have the term explained to you there.

I think everyone knows the meaning of the term "survivor".

Further most don't buy it which is the strange thing about it.

By the left wing media using the term over and over it debases and cheapens it until no one bats an eyelid which does not achieve anything in the end.

Hurrache

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Like the Jews in the Nazi concentration camps I guess?


This term is loaded but it's used routinely now in US media to describe victims of sex assault since #metoo.

Don't know where you've been but it's a term used a long time before MeToo enraged you.

Massive facepalm to the mass murder comparison analogy though.

RustyNut

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

looksee wrote: »

Maybe you should take this discussion to the English forum, you will have the term explained to you there.

I think everyone knows the meaning of the term "survivor".

Further most don't buy it which is the strange thing about it.

Who appointed you to speak for most people?

Kermit.de.frog

Hurrache wrote: »

Don't know where you've been but it's a term used a long time before MeToo enraged you.

Massive facepalm to the mass murder comparison analogy though.

Not really.


I have won the argument already.

They have no argument based on fact - only misplaced group-think emotion.

sbsquarepants

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Further most don't buy it which is the strange thing about it.

You seem to be making the fairly common mistake of confusing what "you" think, with what "most" think.

Of all the things I've seen people get their knickers in a twist over, this has got to be one of the most pathetic I think

seamus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think everyone knows the meaning of the term "survivor".

Yes, everyone except you, apparently.

lawred2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Like the Jews in the Nazi concentration camps I guess?


This term is loaded but it's used routinely now in US media to describe victims of sex assault since #metoo. This tactic was taken up here with the Catholic Church as well. Victims were "survivors" or something like they were going to be killed.

I know it's a cruel and deeply hurtful, damaging thing but "survivor"???

ah ffs Kermit

sbsquarepants

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I have won the argument already.
.

Good lad - you sure showed them survivors victims!

Now, what's next on the agenda

Grayditch

This is a sh1tty thing to use to troll.

Kermit.de.frog

The argument is already won. Nobody can supply a fact based argument - it's all emotion.

The term "survivor" is not applicable here except to the most horrendous cases where the person's life is at risk.

Yet the term is thrown around applicable to all apparently. This debases it and it is done on purpose.

super_furry

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Not really.


I have won the argument already.

They have no argument based on fact - only misplaced group-think emotion.

Great well done, Mr Spock, your Vulcan powers are strong. You can make a nice little badge for yourself too something like 'Chief Rape Argument Winner' and settle in for a nice day of telling people who have been raped, sexually assaulted just how they should act and the exact language you're allowing them to use today.

jp101

From the Cambridge Dictionary

Survive - to continue to live or exist, especially after coming close to dying or being destroyed or after being in a difficult or threatening situation:
Examples
The baby was born with a heart problem and only survived for a few hours.
These plants cannot survive in very cold conditions.
None of Shakespeare's plays survives in its original manuscript form.
The family are struggling to survive on very little money.
The front passengers were lucky to survive the accident.
The chairman of the board succeeded in surviving the challenge to his authority.


The use of the term seems perfectly reasonable to use in this context.

Hurrache

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I have won the argument already.

seamus

Well done Kermit. You sure showed those rape victims who's boss.

If there's anyone who's been getting too big for their boots, it's rape victims.

Go home there and tell your Mammy what you did, she'll be so proud.

I think you should go for the "survivors" of the Magdalene Launderies next. Sure, when were they ever at risk? A bit of hard work never hurt anyone.

They definitely have notions about themselves and need to be taken down a peg or two. I believe in you, Kermit.

Kermit.de.frog

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Good lad - you sure showed them survivors victims!

No. Just the posters trying to defend the use of a patently absurd term.

Hurrache

You've just outed yourself, Kermit, as the worse human being on boards.ie at the moment.

Kermit.de.frog

If someone can tell me why - based on the factual meaning of the term - all sexual assault victims are survivors then I'll gladly apologise.

Because that is what the media is doing at the moment.

I'm not wrong. The term is not applicable - only in a case where someone's life is at risk.

Sonics2k

survivor
səˈvʌɪvə/Submit
noun
noun: survivor; plural noun: survivors

a person who survives, especially a person remaining alive after an event in which others have died. "he was the sole survivor of the massacre"

the remainder of a group of people or things. "a survivor from last year's team"

a person who copes well with difficulties in their life. "she is a born survivor"

Seems like a fairly good use of the word to me.

RustyNut

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If someone can tell me why - based on the factual meaning of the term - all sexual assault victims are survivors then I'll gladly apologise.

Because that is what the media is doing at the moment.

I'm not wrong. The term is not applicable - only in a case where someone's life is at risk.

They either survived their abuse making them survivors or they died from the affects of their abuse as a lot did, shame on you OP for just being a dick.

Riskymove

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If someone can tell me why - based on the factual meaning of the term - all sexual assault victims are survivors then I'll gladly apologise.

see point 3 of definition below

Survivor
noun
1.a person or thing that survives.
2.Law. the one of two or more designated persons, as joint tenants or others having a joint interest, who outlives the other or others.
3.a person who continues to function or prosper in spite of opposition, hardship, or setbacks.

sbsquarepants

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No. Just the posters trying to defend the use of a patently absurd term.

Well done so. Keep up the good fight.

It's important work you're doing, you have my utmost respect in your endeavours!:rolleyes:

Tombo2001

Kermit.De.Frog

Have you considered doing a 'Best of' from all the threads you have started, or a 'Greatest Hits'?

There have been some real nuggets in there, spanning a fairly diverse range of topics but nonetheless with some consistent themes across those 353 threads started by you - particularly around your dislike of the 'metoo' movement.

Kermit.de.frog

RustyNut wrote: »

or they died from the affects of their abuse as a lot did

How many? Have you got a percentage?

I want to deal in facts, like most people, not emotional arguments.

The term is clearly incorrectly used yet posters don't want to acknowledge that.

To be fair a couple of posters have eluded to fact it is used as an emotional tool.

One eyed Jack

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If someone can tell me why - based on the factual meaning of the term - all sexual assault victims are survivors then I'll gladly apologise.

Because that is what the media is doing at the moment.

I'm not wrong. The term is not applicable - only in a case where someone's life is at risk.

It’s applicable by the very way in which you define the people you’re talking about Kermit - sexual assault victims who have survived being sexually assaulted. It’s you who wants to tack on the qualifying criteria that someone’s life had to be at risk in order for them to be defined as a survivor of their life having been at risk. It’s a completely different context based upon two different things a person is deemed to have survived.

You really don’t have anything to apologise for as far as I’m concerned, you just don’t like how the language is used, neither do I. It’s really not something to get worked up over though IMO.