To answer your questions:

>OK, so let me get this straight. Only actual, literal sexual assault survivors can joke about it and have their jokes justified as gallows humor?

I never said only, did I? I said that in this context, it would be gallows humor.

By definition, gallows humor is joking about a grim situation that the person making the joke finds themselves in. A rape victim joking about rape in that way would be an example of gallows humor.

>However, you can joke about concentration camps, and that's gallows humor, despite not having actually been sent to one?

Yes, because I am Jewish, if that was not clear from the context, and the possibility of being killed for being Jewish isn't a remote fantasy, as you know full well. 2 of my great-grandparents died fighting, grandpa on father's side went to Berlin and back. That doesn't matter for my argument, though; what matters more is that the Pittsburgh shooting happened here and now.

Joking possibility of being killed for being Jewish is an example of gallows humor when you are a Jew and that possibility exists for you.

>you can joke about Nazis when Nazis are still very much a thing?

You can always joke about the Nazis. This doesn't have to do with them being a thing or not. It has to do with who is the butt of the joke.

The fine print to "jokes at someone's expense = bad" is "...when someone is defined by characteristics they didn't choose". Rape victims didn't choose to be raped. Jews didn't choose to be Jewish. People don't choose who they are attracted to, or what color their skin is.

But being a Nazi is a choice. Joke away.

Whether something is a thing or not a thing has to do with whether what you say will be perceived as a figure of speech or an actual concern, that doesn't really factor in here.

>But I think you're overlooking some key things here. When examining humor it's crucial to understand not only the topic being joked about, but the target or butt of the joke.

To the contrary, that was exactly my point from the very beginning :)

>If I say, "so-and-so is a shitty person; he probably rapes gerbils in his spare time" then that is a pretty bad choice. I wouldn't say that. But it also is pretty impossible to frame that as even an implicit or unconscious endorsement of rape.

Well of course, because gerbils being raped is not a concern. We're on the same page here.

>The rapists aren't under the illusion that what they're doing is enjoyable.

They enjoy the power. They aren't raping out of obligation, after all.

>Other forms of rape are probably more about a lack of empathy and/or communication. Partner 1 understands that unwilling sex is bad, but has deluded themselves into thinking that sex is really what Partner 2 wants.

Potato potato, and it's incredibly common.

And if they clearly don't want it, then the rapist thinks they should, so it doesn't matter.

I know at least two women who's been raped by their spouses over extended periods of time off the top of my head. Many more who were raped / sexually assaulted at some point.

Rapist Brock Turner's father complained that his son getting justice is a "steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action". That's how these people see it - it's "just some action" to them.

Jokes like "9 out of 10 people" help perpetuate this view.

Do we still need the help of Captain Logical Consistency? :)