Has anybody else noticed this?
There’s a ton of overlap between media coverage of the recent SlutWalks, and their implications, and the way the media usually handles waterboarding.
Mostly, the right wing media (specifically, Sean Hannity) just won’t let this story go. I’m not sure if it’s because it gives them an excuse to air, ad nauseam, footage of mostly-liberal women dressed like sluts or what, but over a month after the inaugural SlutWalk in Toronto, it’s still receiving a fair amount of coverage.
The other big similarity is in how discussions of the topics always go:
1. Agree on premise
2. Pose loaded, sneaky question that negates premise
3. Ignore important facts
4. Go to commercial before real discussion
For example:
1. “Victims are never to blame for being sexually assaulted.” “Agreed.”
2. “HANNITY: No means no, we all agree, but here’s the question: is there advice to the women in our life that reduces their risk, and are we allowed to talk about it? For example, a woman walking through a bad neighborhood late at night?”
3. In most rapes, the rapist knows the victim and can’t even remember what the victim was wearing after the fact.
4. “Thanks for joining us!”
The second question is a tricky way of saying that women are less likely to be raped if they don’t dress like sluts, and therefore they shouldn’t dress like sluts. Which is a lot like saying you’re less likely to get struck by lightning if you don’t go outside, and therefore you shouldn’t go outside.
The question used to “defuse” the other side also negates the agreed upon premise, revealing that the host, who posited the premise in the first place, doesn’t actually agree with it.
On the waterboarding side, you see something remarkably similar:
1. “Torture is wrong, and we should never do it.” “Agreed.”
2. “O’REILLY: But, do you think that people who object to any use of coerce interrogation, anything at all, really believe that their theory trumps human life or is it just posturing?”
3. In most cases, “enhanced interrogation techniques” fail to produce new, actionable intelligence.
4. “That’s all we have time for.” “HITCHENS: What? We haven’t even got our trousers off.”
The second question, again, is super-tricky. By his own logic, O’Reilly might as well have said “torture” because you could turn right around and ask him the same question. By removing any standard of treatment for enemy combatants and suspected terrorists, (Keep in mind that these people have not been convicted of anything.) you not only violate the U.S. Constitution, but risk forfeiting the moral high ground that defines America. It isn’t just theory: it’s law.
Again, the question used to “defuse” the other side also negates the agreed upon premise, revealing that the host, who posited the premise in the first place, doesn’t actually agree with it.
Moreover, and Christopher Hitchens (who actually underwent waterboarding, unlike both Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, who have only repeatedly promised to do so but never followed through) points this out: you can’t make a general practice out of an exceptional case. Those cases being the rare instance in which a woman’s outfit actually increases the likelihood of her being raped and the ticking time bomb scenario.
Ultimately, you’re left with hosts trying to moderate discussions on important issues in what they claim to be an intellectually honest fashion, when, in reality, they’re doing anything but.
“When a woman is dressing in an immodest way, in a proactive way, she’s got to think about what is she saying by her dress?”
I’m not a woman, but I feel pretty confident that she’s probably not saying, “Rape me!” Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter what she’s saying, though, because rape is illegal. Similarly, it doesn’t really matter what a terrorist is or isn’t saying. Torture is wrong. Period.
Zach Wahls is a columnist for the Daily Iowan. He is a contributor to the Student Free Press Association.
Please join the conversation about our stories on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, MeWe, Rumble, Gab, Minds and Gettr.