Why such an age disparity in likely voter demographics?

Post Reply New Topic

In what universe can overstating a problem by a factor of almost 10 be considered "nitpicking"? How many "college-aged" women go to college? The highest number of reported (i.e. alleged) rapes at a US college in 2014 was 43 at Brown University. Brown has roughly 9200 students. Assuming all 43 allegations were accurate, that all 43 allegations were made by women, and that roughly half of the student population are women, that still means that a college-aged woman studying at brown is 2 and a half times safer than the average college-aged woman in America.



So when you said "generally agreed", what you meant was "agreed upon by a small percentage of journalists". How incredibly straightforward and not at all misleading of you.



The data is fundamentally flawed. It is literally impossible to extrapolate to the wider college population from either study.



I don't believe in your god, sorry. Best save the dogma for the cult meetings.

Randomly jumping a girl when she's walking alone at night? It happens but the majority of rapes are committed by men known to the victim.They certainly have gotten a lot of press attention. The women in the most danger are those who won't get any press attention. Those who live in the countryside, etc.

A hypothetical scenario for you. A marital rape occours in rural Missouri. Do you think it's going to turn into a big media storm? Who do think is in more danger? A college girl or the hypothetical battered wife in rural Missouri?

What I'm saying is that there are many rape cases that go unreported so even if there are more rapes reported in college, that doesn't nessessarly mean there's more rape in college, it could mean that a rape incident is more likely to be reported in college.

I'd say the women who are unable to report are in far more danger.Ok so we've got one statistic regarding the general population and one statistic specific to college.

The college specific one seems to be a much lower percentage but I'll admit you said the college specific one was more conserative so these two statistics probably can't be compared in the ame frame of reference.

Because we were discussing whether or not rape is a serious problem in environments where talk like Trump's "locker room talk" is common. If 2.5% of women are raped in said environment, that looks like a problem to me.


I have linked several relevant articles and can link a litany more. Greek-life rape claims are an almost weekly occurrence. You're free to believe that they're all just made up, but considering the barrage this is not only an issue among a "small percentage of journalists."


This is the data the US Justice Department operates on. It is also the figure anti-feminists generally use to "disprove" the CDC's larger 1-in-5 general population assessment. If you feel the Justice Department's figure has flaws, take it up with them or point them out. As it stands, it's the most conservative attempt at measuring the problem.


Oooh, edgy. YouTube-level politics talk 101: compare everything that disagrees with you to a religion.


True, and this is part of my point. At the college age, what is the male social circle for most girls? The guys they hang out with on Friday/Saturday night. This can be a club or it can be a fraternity. Fraternities have much higher rates of sexual assault than generic clubs. The reason seems to be a combination of: the types of men they attract playing off each-other, their secrecy allowing them to get away with more, and their social knitting being tighter based on the "brotherly" atmosphere.


It's probably not, no. This is mostly a class issue, said wife in rural Missouri has little chance of being a future leader of the country. Also, unfortunate as it is to say, she's not likely to be as pretty as the college girl because youth is so strongly associated with beauty. That also attracts press attention.


I don't know whether rape in colleges or in the rural Midwest is more common, so I can't really give an adequate answer to that. Also there's the question of population size versus proportion here.


This is true. But social shame and fear that people will think you're lying applies to college girls as well. So, I don't know that college-aged girls have significantly greater reporting than otherwise. If you can show that though, I'm all ears. What I do know is that the data shows campus rapes are focused mostly around one set of groups.

That's not to say "rape culture," to use the much-maligned but I think accurate phrase, is just an issue of Greek life. Donald Trump is not in and was never in a fraternity. This discussion started on that because "you just grab her by the p****" is often being described as a "frat-bro-type" statement by both Trump's defenders and detractors, and that's fair. I've heard comments like that from tons of frat bros. What I'm saying is this is no defense, especially considering that environment is one that frequently does produce what he claims to have been just joking about.


Yeah, it's based on crime reporting vs. anonymous survey. They're two very different measurements and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

I don't think they will be. It's just not practical.

A little while ago there was a small panic about the Xbox Kinect spying on people and sending everyone's image/voice to Microsoft. It's technically possible for the Kinect to do this but Microsoft doesn't have anywhere near enough staff to listen to millions and millions of conversations. That's just not practical.

True that we all walk around with smartphones in our pockets. It would be technically possible for the microphone to be activated without your knowladge and transmit your knowladge but no organisation in the world would have enough stafff to listen to billions of conversations. It's just not practical.

I don't think people are spying on us every day. They're not making recordings of us. But if something is already recorded than someone can use it. Are we all going to be recorded with TV cameras like Trump? No. At the time he was the star of The Apprentice. The reason why he was surrounded by TV cameras was because he was a TV star in a TV studio. That type of thing won't happen to ordinary people.

I don't think the camera man was trying to spy on him but for whatever reason he was recording and than years later this surfaces. How could this happen to us? The most likely scenario would be stuff we posted on Facebook or other social media sites. Us common people use them and stuff on Facebook gets recorded for years and years.

Now I'm not saying the government is spying on your Facebook. Employers might be. They might pass you over for a job if your Facebook posts show that you have noncomformist ideals.

Who else would spy on people? Anyone who's trying to dig up dirt on someone, espeically if they're a prominent public figure. Most likely these would-be sluths won't follow them around with cameras recording them, instead they'll trawl through existing media including TV recordings, newspaper articles and interviews.

Please don't think I'm a conspiracy theorist. Everyone has some hated politician they'd like to shed some bad publicity on. Most of us don't have the time or resources to act on that desire. This is not evidence of a conspiricy because a conspiracy would require organization from a central source.

Trying to discredit public figures or trying to weed out noncomformist job applicatants isn't a conspiracy, it's a bunch of individuals acting by themselves with totally different motives. That is not, by definition, a conspiracy.

For us normal people I'd be more conserned about missing out on job opportunities or having some old Facebook post brought up should one of us ever decide to run for local office.A secret can be kept with due dilligance but we all have ungaurded moments.I do.Yeah, only the stuff you make public, which could include comments you made on other posts or political stuff you liked.No I don't mean for getting fired, I mean for not getting hired. They would only fire you in extreme circumstances but it doesn't take much to not get hired.

In that case they wouldn't talk to you about it, they would just not call back. They wouldn't tell you why they didn't call back. If one of us didn't get hired due to a Facebook post, we would never know that was the reason.They will never pass a law giving employers access to stuff you posted in private but no law is needed to give them access to stuff you posted in public, they already have access to that.

How do you propose to get that number down to 0%?

If the percentage in college was lower than outside of college, would it be right to concentrate rape-prevention efforts on colleges?True, and this is part of my point. At the college age, what is the male social circle for most girls? The guys they hang out with on Friday/Saturday night. This can be a club or it can be a fraternity. Fraternities have much higher rates of sexual assault than generic clubs. The reason seems to be a combination of: the types of men they attract playing off each-other, their secrecy allowing them to get away with more, and their social knitting being tighter based on the "brotherly" atmosphere.[/quote]Do we have any way of knowing what percentage of male college students are in a Greek Fraternity? Why condemn colleges if the majority of students stay in a normal dorm, not a frathouse?Good point, I hadn't thought of that. My idea was that the hypothetical wife wouldn't report because she's financially dependent on her husband but that works too.This is true. But social shame and fear that people will think you're lying applies to college girls as well. So, I don't know that college-aged girls have significantly greater reporting than otherwise.[/quote]Like you I can only speculate but I was under the impression that colleges have a predominently liberal culture that would side with the victim.

Politics aside college age girls tend to be young and pretty and as you said, "this also attracts press attention". I would suggest that it also illicites sympathy. Outside of the perps both men and women might be more sympathetic to a pretty face (which is the majoty of college age girls).I see. So you're not condemning college as a whole.I think "frat-bro-type" is a good way to describe what he said

Do you mean there is no defence for doing it or no defence for joking about it?

Why are we blaming an environment that Trump was never in?

Now you're moving the goalposts. We were discussing the accuracy of the statistics you claimed were accurate - despite the overt and detailed disagreement of the very people who gathered the data. In most circles, it goes without saying that one rape - just one - is a problem. To assume anything else on the part of anyone involved in this discussion would be, frankly, an abhorrent perspective to cleave to.



Editorials are not evidence of anything but the opinions of the writer, are no substitute for statistical data and are almost universally motivated by financial gain, as well as by the politics of both the publication and the author. If you want to understand data, look at the data.

The reason I haven't responded to your "relevant articles" with a corresponding gigantic list of articles that disagree, is that I'm of the assumption that you already know this. After all, the alternative to assuming so would mean that responding to you would be a gigantic waste of time.



I'm not interested in agenda-driven interpretation of data. I'm interested in the raw numbers and what they represent. In addition, citing the Justice Department's use of them as being supportive of the data is a circular non-starter.



Oooh, unqualified ad hominem. The debating equivalent of smearing your faeces on the wall and calling your opponent a sh*tmeister.

I'd be surprised if that were possible, but the social climate raising awareness about this issue should reduce it.

To give one example from the scenario we're discussing: now there's a lot of pressure on fraternities to abide by greater openness, which has led to slightly more internal policing for fear of having their charter revoked by campus administration, something that's happened to several fraternities that were serial violators in the past few years. For example, at a college I used to go to, I remember a sorority that a girl I was friends with was in put on a rape prevention seminar in concert with a fraternity.


I don't think it would be, no. But that's where this discussion started, on a society-wide scale. I think the discussion should be introduced to the wider society, and comments like Trump's show that it must be. And thankfully, it's being discussed. It's not being brushed under the rug.


There actually are stats on this college-by-college and in the American population as a whole, 2% of Americans in the latter case. I'm not aware of any that give a broad view of how many of college-aged American men are in them as a whole, though. So the most specific I can be is "it's a significant minority"; it was a majority before student loans became widespread, letting in a lot of less well-off students, but they've been on the wane for the last few decades. They're holding out better in mid-level state schools than the old Ivy League strongholds, surprisingly.


I don't see anyone condemning colleges as a body. In fact, some college administration has been at the forefront of efforts to combat the problem. "Our female students get raped" is a PR disaster that any admissions office would want to quash. Before it was a major public issue, that was by not taking it seriously. Now, it's putting pressure on the groups where it's common.


Yeah, that's also an issue.


They traditionally do, but this has produced a lot of backlash. A small pool of false claims have led to many girls fearing being lumped in with those. The instinctive reaction to many campus rape claims, as seen in this very thread by another member, is disbelief. So, they'll often keep their mouths shut rather than getting involved in a long and drawn-out legal harangue.

I wouldn't be surprised, for the record, if reporting were slightly higher on campuses than in rural areas. That'd make sense, though it's also pretty tangential. Especially since the level of machismo in many parts of rural American culture can also produce a pretty toxic environment on gender relations.


Sure, I don't see anything to disagree with here.


No, I haven't seen anyone do that. If there is, I vehemently disagree with them.


I mean "it's a frat-bro-type statement" is no defense for it.

Doing it is obviously worse than joking about it, and there's increasing evidence that Trump did. A major role model, someone running for President, joking about it is also a problem though.


We're not blaming it, we're discussing it because it's frequently being referred to as the kind of statement that'd come out of that environment. Which it is.


I claimed they were one set of statistics that are frequently backed up and also frequently disagreed with. I made no statement as to their accuracy, that'd be a question for the CDC. Also, we were discussing Donald Trump. It's you who launched off on statistical minutiae.


So they're reporting on Greek-life rape for... financial gain? By god. It's a conspiracy. A newspaper wants to make money, which obviously means they're just making up all these incidents they're reporting on.

Do you or do not deny that rape in Greek life is a frequent problem? News stories, which are not "editorials" by the way and if you looked you would see that two of the three I linked were from the "news" section, about someone raping someone at a frat house are omnipresent.


So, the CDC gives one figure. The Justice Department gives a much more conservative smaller figure. You're attacking both as "agenda-driven." What figures do you have, and what is your sourcing on them?


You're the one who referred to my position as "a religion" rather than addressing the data. That is, by definition, an ad hominem.

The "statistical minutiae" was "launched off on" by yourself, on page 2, with the suggestion that "the most conservative number" is 1 in 40. You used that 2.5% as the basis for your "rape culture" assertion. I demonstrated that the worst-case scenario of the college with the highest incidence of reported rapes per student was 1% as a direct response to that "conservative number".

Remember, the point of objection here is your claim that there are a "tremendously disproportionate amount of rapes" in frat houses. You've neither supplied supporting data for this claim, nor countered the figures I cited.



You're clearly not well-versed in the art of crafting strawmen. They're not supposed to be this transparent.



I don't form conclusions either way, sans compelling evidence.



Editorials are determined by the board of any given publication, based solely on whether or not they deem it relevant or useful to make their readers aware that a specific position is that of the publication or the author of an article. An item appearing in the "News" section of a publication has zero guarantee of objectivity.

Now, whether or not an article is 100% free of subjective reporting, either via narrative construction, framing of information or simple outright bias, there is no useful data to be gained from a news piece that is, at its core, reporting that a person claims to be the victim of a crime. The plural of "hearsay" is not "data".



I "attacked" neither. That comment was directed towards the argument about "anti-feminists" that you slipped into that paragraph. I specifically mentioned that citing the Justice Department's use of the data was a "circular non-starter."

The Justice Department is not the source of misinterpretation of the CSAS study, nor is it the source of the data. You were attempting to use the Justice Department data to both control for, and legitimise, an inaccurate representation of the CSAS data - which is inappropriate, statistically speaking.



I referred to your use of a dogmatic phrase that has its roots in a faith-driven ideology as religious. There was no data in the quoted text. It was, by definition, a criticism of your opinion and beliefs rather than your character. But thanks for providing a great example of tu quoque.

The first person to mention even the "1 in 5" number was you, actually. I discussed fraternity rape, you asked for my source and then irrelevantly said "if it's the same sources claiming 1 in 5 women are raped, check your sources."


So you're basing your stat on a sample size of one college's numbers in one year. This does not sound very scientific.

The Justice Department's figure is an aggregate of rape claims of all college-aged women, meaning its sample size is much larger.


I'm not aware of a study on it. But there are news stories literally every week against X person raping Y girl after Z frat party, and most campus rapes are Greek-life related. This means, yeah, the disproportionate burden of campus rape falls on those groups.


You've already formed the conclusion that news stories about campus rapes are irrelevant because they're "agenda-driven." And the Justice Department's and CDC's stats are irrelevant because they're also "agenda-driven." It's questionable what you wouldn't reject as "agenda-driven."


This is irrelevant. What's relevant is the frequency of news stories regarding rape charges at Greek houses. As many fraternities have outright had their charters revoked due to repeat offenses here, the media conspiracy seems to be addressing an actual issue.

Again, you can dispute the validity of the charges. You can assume the women making them are all lying, though I doubt you'll get very far with that. What you can't really assume is that they don't make a disproportionate number of campus rape charges, which to me as someone who thinks the majority of these women (for a variety of reasons) are telling the truth, would mean a disproportionate amount of campus rapes take place there.


I fail to see how citing crime reporting stats, which are the basis for the 2.5% claim, is a "circular non-starter." Christina Hoff Summers and other critics of the feminist movement take issue with the CDC's claim because it's based on anonymous survey and cite the Justice Department's figure instead.


Having just looked at the CSA study: the CSA's figure is the CDC's 1-in-5, just at the campus level rather than the general public's, and arrived at similarly. The Justice Department's figure is 1-in-40. They're arrived at using entirely different methods.

I can understand the confusion, considering the Department of Justice also commissioned the CSA study initially. But their statistics bureau is the source of a different and more conservative figure, conducted through internal research rather than outside commission.

The Time article linked above goes into the various figures and their sourcing pretty thoroughly.


I'm using the Justice Department data to demonstrate that even the most conservative figure given demonstrates a serious problem. This has nothing to do with the CSA's data, and I invite you to send your criticism to the CDC which uses this figure.


"Faith-driven ideology" is not synonymous with "people who disagree with me." I think a situation where even 2.5% of women on campus are raped, where there are institutions that make this easy and protect offenders, is fairly describable as "rape culture." Rather than responding to this statement that was already made, you trot out "blargh it's just a religion."

Well consent can be withdrawn at any time thus voiding the forms. One needs to film every sexual encounter and make duplicates, one for you, one for her, and one for your lawyer. Probably best to make backups in case something happen to the original. That'd be the only way to determine if the sex was consensual

Oh you busted me, I usually run around grabbing women by the genitals! Please don't report me!
Whose definition? Are you some kind of fortune-teller? Wow, why do we even need detectives when we have you?
Trump did not imply by any means that it was unconsensual, and the fact that he said that if you are a rich celebrity you can do it means that they don't mind it. He was saying that in that case women are more willing to engage in sexual acts with you. Which we already knew, by the way.

Normalizing what, talking about consensual sex? Do you report a friend, if he talks about a sexual encounter he had?

How do you know? You don't, you have no evidence. If there were evidence, he'd go to jail.

This is because you keep saying that it's sexual harassment. Trump's whole point was that women are more willingly to sleep with you if you are a rich celebrity. And even if it weren't, it'd be preposterous to sa it was unconsensual without any evidence.
And it is not a false equivalence. If talking about sexual encounters one had should be avoided because if favours rape, it is also true that a somone might feel more inclined to rape because a woman dresses or acts is a certain way. In my view, these are both limitations of freedom and if someone rapes it is only his fault.

Or sisters!

What I said above about women dressing in a provokative way.

I mean that after a date, at night, they come to your place, that is already a good clue. And sure there will be other signals too before you make a move.

But if Bill Clinton was found innocent, it could happen to Trump too.

I mentioned 1 in 5 in the context of it being a fallacious claim, not as statistical evidence to support a position. 1 in 5 is about as far from "statistical minutiae" as it gets.



I'm basing "my stat" on the appropriate data for that particular statistical fact. I specifically used the highest example per capita that I could find in order to demonstrate that the very worst case scenario of reported - not proven - rape allegations on college campuses was significantly lower than the national average. If we included all reported rapes from all colleges and compared them vs the national average for every single year in the last 3 decades, the actual statistic would be much lower.



Precisely. That's why I compared the college with the highest incidence of reports per capita to the national average, rather than e.g. a suburban rape hotspot in the city of my choosing.



Once again, news stories do not qualify as data. Without statistical data, your conclusion is based on opinion, not facts. Further, at no point did you specify that you were comparing frat houses to college campuses in general. You mentioned them in reference to something which took place outside of a college, so it's logical to infer that you were actually speaking in general terms.

This is yet another shifting of the goalposts, especially as you've already directly stated that you're discussing "environments where talk like Trump's "locker room talk" is common". It would be entirely disingenuous to claim that there is an implied "but only on college campuses" inherent to that statement.



That's another misrepresentation of my position. I said they're statistically irrelevant. You're creating a veritable straw army.



Considering I clarified the fact that you misunderstood my meaning in the post you're now responding to, I believe it appropriate to simply point out that you're being wilfully dishonest here.



When we're discussing the veracity of statistical claims of "tremendously disproportionate" occurrences, news articles that provide zero statistical data are absolutely irrelevant. Your conflation of this argument with your own earlier strawman nonsense regarding a "media conspiracy" is no more than doubling down on a fallacy.



What I can assume is innocent until proven guilty. If you don't agree with that basic tenet of due process, that's a whole other matter.



And I've already explained why this is not consistent with your earlier statements. You started from a position that suggested rape is "tremendously disproportionate" in "environments where talk like Trump's "locker room talk" is common" and that such behaviour is "at its absolute most common" in frat houses. You haven't demonstrated a causal link between "such behaviour" and a high incidence of rapes. In the context of the narrative surrounding Trump's "locker room banter", that's of paramount importance.

In order to preserve the validity of this narrative, you need to demonstrate that 'alpha bravado signalling' is a causal factor - assuming, of course, that your goal is to minimise the number of rapes occurring rather than arbitrarily preventing behaviour that you personally dislike.



What you clearly fail to do is understand the difference between what I actually state and what you presume to infer from said statements.



Likewise here. I explicitly stated that the Justice Department data could neither be used to control for, nor legitimise, the CSAS study. You yourself have just explained one of several reasons why this is the case.



The confusion was yours, but I believe we're actually on the same page, broadly speaking, so I guess it's rather moot.



The only objection I have regarding VVCS is when it is falsely cited as reporting a "2.5% rape" figure when it actually reports the number of "sexual assaults". 2.5% would still, therefore, be a grossly inflated statistic for the number of campus rates typical to college campuses.



And I'm pointing out that the Justice Department data shows that the severity of the problem is far greater off-campus than it is on-campus.



Quote where I suggested otherwise.



Even putting aside the dogmatic notion that is "rape culture", you're still misrepresenting that 2.5% stat as "rape" rather than "rape and sexual assault".



I could very easily respond to this statement thusly: "A false dichotomy and a strawman walk into a bar..."

However, I feel that would be letting you off the hook somewhat, so let's deconstruct your narrative and see where it leads us. I'll start by quoting the post you're referring to.



As you can clearly see, I provided a response to the "statement that was already made". You can also see that, rather than stating that "blargh it's just a religion", as you so eloquently put it, I alluded to the fact that claims of "rape culture" in the US are the domain of ideologues of a particular bent, that I don't share that ideological bent and that I'm not looking to convert today, thanks.

If you're going to misquote and mischaracterise, I urge you to do so with a great deal more subtlety and grace than you've demonstrated in this thread. Also, I find it deeply ironic that you object to rhetoric and hyperbole, considering your own style of posting.

A claim I had never made, so it's irrelevant.


In a single given year.


Some of those rapes of college-aged women are off-campus, sure. That makes up some of the statistic. Though it's usually not in the suburbs.


It is a fact that stories about fraternity rapes occur on an almost weekly basis.


I said a disproportionate number of rapes occur at frat houses. If you wanted to take that to assume I was speaking in terms of the general public, sure, you can. But I was speaking in proportion to other scenarios in that demographic bracket, which is where most of the anti-Greek-life stuff rests.


I mentioned them in reference to a statement that's often being compared to, and justified based on similarity to, their culture. I mentioned them to point out why this is a really weak defense.


Yeah, these are an environment where his "locker room talk" is common. They're the #1 group it's being compared to. So, I brought them up. I was not comparing rape numbers by elderly businessmen like Trump to rape numbers by college-aged jocks, I don't know the stats on that and would be surprised if there are any.


The statement was that a disproportionate number of rapes occur in these environments, end of. Statistically, I'm pretty sure that is only the case in the college-aged bracket.


A barrage is statistically irrelevant?


Cool, we're assuming deceit now. This is awesome debate conduct.

For the record, you explicitly referred to the CDC's and Justice Department's data as "agenda-driven."


I assume based on statistical likelihood. Some rape claims are false, usually by narcissistic women who lack a real sense of shame. Even more rapes are unreported, for fear of being lumped in with the former. Based on that, I have to assume the number is at least roughly accurate, give or take some. Based on the above, give more than take.


Yes, Greek life being one such environment.


Yes. Of environments where that "locker room talk" is common, Greek houses are the ones where rapes occur the most. I assume they don't occur particularly often at, say, the local Shriners, generally a group of all-male drunken businessmen who may or may not talk like Trump.


The psychological phenomena of desensitization, and both behaviors having the same cause. These environments take in men who are more willing to talk like this, and in some cases, actually behave like this.


Which is cool, but I have said the CSA's study is one interpretation of the data. It's an interpretation that some studies have backed up and some have taken issue with. The Justice Department, which I've continually referred to as it's the most conservative estimate, uses a different set of data arrived at in a more easy-to-verify way.


This, for the record, is true. Trump's statements described sexual assault rather than rape proper, however, and the two are closely related.


It shows that rapes are slightly more common off-campus than on-. Based on where most rapes are committed, largely in impoverished areas where most of the population is not college-bound. Among the college population, Greek life makes up the vast majority of cases.


An institution where rape is normalized and offenders are shielded is, I think, fairly described in that way. Whether certain people feel it's "dogmatic" due to disagreeing with them or not.


An institution where rape and sexual assault are normalized and offenders are shielded is, I think, fairly described in that way. Whether certain people feel it's "dogmatic" due to disagreeing with them or not. Better now? Because it's not like the gap between sexual assault and rape isn't simply a difference of degrees.


Hence: "this ideology that disagrees with me is a religion," shown in the "convert" comment and the fact that you are responding to a previous statement where you referred to it as a "god."

I believe there is good reason to describe the situation as a "rape culture," based on the fact that institutions exist where that behavior is normalized and shielded. If you have some different standard by which something would be described as such, be my guest. But do not be condescending and write off disagreement with your oh-so-enlightened self as an act of faith.


"I don't believe in your god" is such a vast mischaracterization from "it's a religion." Oh my god. Such a huge difference between these two statements.


I can be snarky. What I have not done is written your views off as a leap of faith instead of engaging with them.

Now, if this kind of behavior is the norm on this board, I'm out. I have a searing headache as-is and do not need this kind of shitposting adding to my stress levels. I was hoping for somewhere I could discuss autism, something that tremendously shapes who I am. But due to co-morbid OCD, I basically feel an instinctive need to respond to everything. This turns into drawn-out debates, due to fear of others' misrepresenting ideas unfairly making a given set of positions look bad. It basically means forums in general are probs a bad idea for me though, they all cause me stress headaches.

The old like screwing with the young; the young don't like being screwed with by the old. Hence, disparity

If the bounds of this conversation are to be "things that Pravda directly claimed", we're going to have to ignore a whole wealth of useful information. What you did claim, is that my introduction of the 1 in 5 myth was "statistical minutiae". What is relevant, is that you were incorrect.



If I were to choose a different year, and a different campus, it would not be the very worst scenario of reported rape allegations per capita on campuses in recent history. Your objection is nonsensical.



What conclusion do you expect me to draw from the fact that you've taken my example of an extremely bad choice of control group as being representative of anything beyond the context I mentioned it in?

The overwhelming majority of rapes of college-aged women are off-campus. A college-aged woman who enrolls is statistically safer than a college-aged woman who does not enroll.



It is a fact that rape sells newspapers, generates ad revenue through clicks and is considered to be a marketable commodity. You might even say that there is a "rape celebration culture" in many a news room.



If that had been your immediate response to my inquiry, that would have altered the course of the conversation,



Defence of what? Behaviour you don't agree with? Without offering a causal link between "locker room banter" and a higher incidence of rape, there's no basis for your complaint.



Which you have to admit completely undermines the comparison. There are multiple factors that distinguish the circumstances surrounding a frat house rape from those surrounding a private conversation between two "celebrities" in the back of a tour bus - the most important one being that the latter didn't include any rape.



Statistically you're sure of something you cannot provide statistics for? If you can, produce them. I've already demonstrated that the number of reported rapes is statistically lower on-campus. If you can show that, for example, 90% of those reported rapes involved frat houses, we may be able to find some accord. That would genuinely be useful.



Of news articles? Yes. Of verified data? No.



No, we're presuming. I provided the basis for my conclusion on the balance of probabilities. Assuming would require a complete lack of supporting evidence.



For the record, I did no such thing. What I explicitly stated was "I'm not interested in agenda-driven interpretation of data. My explicit reference was to the Justice Department solely, and in the context of it not being supportive of data that it did not collate.

What you explicitly referred to, in the context of interpretation of data, was "the figure anti-feminists generally use to "disprove" the CDC's larger 1-in-5 general population assessment". It is in response to this that I offered my opinion of agenda-driven interpretation.

I am now inclined to reassess my presumption and suggest that you're simply struggling to understand the difference between what I've actually said and what you interpret that to mean.



Statistical likelihood is a meaningless phrase in the absence of statistics. We don't have any useful data on things like unreported rapes. What we do have is data on the number of successful prosecutions of accused rapists, the number of reported allegations of rape, etc.



Precisely. "One such".



You're back to making claims that have no evidentiary basis regarding the incidence of rape at frat houses. You've come full circle without providing a single piece of supporting data. You've also yet to provide a causal link between "locker room banter" and rape, which I believe to be the essential point of this discussion.



Psychological Desensitisation has not been shown to have an effect on either antisocial or prosocial behaviour. With regards to violent human behaviour it describes a hypothetical phenomenon of repeated exposure causing diminished response; a hypothetical phenomenon that has not been successfully demonstrated via experimentation.

There are actually some fascinating studies on this subject. I highly recommend seeking them out if you're interested.



As a point of order, the CSAS study I'm referring to is the Campus Sexual Assault Study directed by Krebs and Lindquist who felt compelled to go on record in order to debunk the misapplication of its findings. It's the source of the 1 in 5 myth which, in turn, is responsible for the witch hunt environment on college campuses in the US.



Trump's statements described his opinion of some women's willingness to allow the rich and famous to do whatever they want. To provide some perspective, the first part of the conversation that we're privy to is Trump relating a story of how he failed in an attempted pursuit of an unnamed married woman. This was the only time that he describes an actual incident that actually took place in the real world - a bid to earn the consent of someone who turned him down. The rest is childish, cringeworthy status-signalling. It may be crass and ugly, but it does not constitute a crime.

Whether or not there was an actual failure to acquire consent in an actual incident involving Trump and an actual woman is a matter for the courts to decide.



Show me the statistics. All of the references link back to the CNN article by John Foubert which contains a dead link to his "study" which allegedly proves his claims. The study referenced is his "Behavior Differences Seven Months Later" which classifies "persuading your partner not to use a condom" as "sexual assault". His 300% claim in the article is, likewise, based on a deliberate conflation, first by classifying such things as persuasion as "coercive sexual assault" and then by classifying sexual assault as "rape".

The study also relies heavily on a nebulous application of the IRMA in order to demonstrate that his program is effective at changing attitudes of male college students (which is, in fact, the focus of the study). In short, the entire paper reads like someone trying to justify their vocational existence. Its conclusion can effectively be summarised as "I have the solution to the massive rape crisis everyone is going on about so give me money".



It is patently absurd to describe any institute that has specific provisions which condemn rather than condone rape as one which "normalises" rape.

Your continued insistence that referring to the feminist mantra "rape culture" as dogmatic is a genetic fallacy being applied to any of your arguments is beyond tiresome. I am applying that term very specifically to that phrase, and that phrase alone. Its use is unique to adherents of a specific ideology, who have failed to provide an objective definition that has any useful function and who are incapable of considering the possibility that it may not be true. It is the very definition of dogma.



In what possible sense can 47 out of presumably thousands of sexual encounters be considered "normalised"? Even if 2.5% of women on college campuses were raped once per year, it would be stretching the bounds of reason to describe rape as a normal occurrence.



It's dogmatic because it meets the the criteria required to describe it as such. Ironically enough, your continued stubborn defence of a dogmatic principle serves only to reinforce my point.



Are you asking if your strawman has improved due to the addition of a jaunty hat, or are you asking if your assertion that a small percentage of people behaving abnormally are representative of normalised behaviour is in any way strengthened by the above? Either way, the answer is a resounding "no".



No. Hence invoking a faith-based tenet of said ideology as an answer in and of itself does not constitute an argument. You may as well be quoting scripture. That you've chosen to anthropomorphise the ideology in your strawman highlights its role as a deity. Ideologies do not have agency, they have agents.



In the words of Barbara Kay:

"Indeed, the more closely one follows the increasingly hysterical volleys of rhetorical fire back and forth on this issue, the more apparent it becomes that those who speak of a rape culture don’t understand what the word “culture” actually means. To result in a “culture,” a phenomenon must be widely accepted as the norm. It is culturally normal in some countries for women to be virtual chattels, governed by patriarchal standards of honour; to be married against their will; to meet blame from their kinsmen and indifference or even hostility at law enforcement and court levels when reporting sexual assault; to be shunned as unmarriageable — or worse — for the “shame” of having been raped, and so forth. There we can legitimately speak of a “rape culture.”

Here, where women are socially and legally equal to men, official sympathy for rape victims at every institutional level has created a climate so overwhelmingly sympathetic to female victims of sexual abuse that the emerging cultural danger is injustice to falsely alleged perpetrators. We are gripped by a baseless, but pandemic, moral panic in which significant collateral damage is beginning to pile up."



So your response to my observation that you are misquoting and mischaracterising is to selectively interpret what was meant by the observation, apply it to a cherry-picked example and feign outrage at the suggestion of impropriety? This is becoming alarmingly meta.



And, outside the confines of your imagination, neither have I. Neither fact impacts on the irony. What you have done, however, is relied on more logical fallacies than I've personally observed in a single thread on PPR, and we're only on page 4.



If by "this kind of behaviour" you mean "eviscerating poorly-supported claims and p*ss-poor arguments, and steadfastly refusing to accept misrepresentation of one's position", then yes, that's pretty much a normal response. If you're referring to your straw-interpretation that reflects only what your imagination poured into it, I suggest you refrain from constructing them in the first place.



That's entirely your business. I have no comment to make on the matter save that, and this.