Internet Lunatics - RadFems, PUA's, MRA's, MGTOW's, etc.

Yes Charlatan, whoosh. The whoosh of facts and evidence right past people who have even admitted to refusing to look at anything that contradicts their blind faith.

 

Your blinders are showing.

 

Yes, I know. I keep getting emails that they're posting replies and I keep finding no matter how many opportunities I give them, they'd rather deliberately refuse to even look at anything that contradicts their religion than learn something new.

 

ZING!

 

You're confusing burdens of proof with valid arguments. Valid arguments are valid regardless of whether proof exists. Logic provides a path from assumptions to conclusions. Absurd assumptions can make for good logic. But that is neither here nor there. Did you know that the burden of proof is contextual? So that different situations have different burdens of proof. The standards of evidence in a court of law differ from the standards of evidence in a peer reviewed journal which differ from the standards of evidence on a playground. So tell me how you think bringing up burdens of proof as though they were absolute is interesting here?

But that's not what anyone here is claiming about your claims. Think about this for a minute before you respond. There is something fundamental that you are misunderstanding about the claims being made by myself and those you would put in my camp. Absorb this: A person can theoretically not believe in rape culture while not contributing to rape culture and while being a good person that everyone loves. Maybe you're this person. I don't know. Still, rape culture exists for any of the reasons outlined in this thread and throughout the documented universe.

You're confusing logic with reality. All logic needs is an axiom or two. Axioms need not be falsifiable or even reasonable to produce logically valid arguments. Unfalsifiable isn't the same as circular. Again, you're co-opting lingo and abusing it.

No. You haven't. Show me one empirical fact that disproves the existence of rape culture. I don't give a shit about RAINN's opinion. And by presenting it as though I should, you're committing a type of "appeal to authority" fallacy, which is ironic given your posts in this thread. Who knows why RAINN came out the way they did? Maybe they just want to avoid incendiary language. Know that their opinion is controversial and doesn't actually deny the existence of rape culture, just the emphasis placed on it.

I'm not clear about how this numbered list is supposed to line up with what I wrote, so I'm going to leave this one alone.

Setting aside for a moment that your understanding of what constitutes logical validity is wrong, perhaps the reason that people are treating your words like bullshit is because you spend a lot of time sanctimoniously accusing people of saying things they haven't said so that you can then combatively call them out. Here's a little insight for you: I don't need to prove to anyone else that you are wrong. I've already proven it to myself. Clearly I'm not alone in this self-reassurance of your wrongness. I know better to waste time trying to prove things to people on the internet when those people aren't open to having their mind changed in the slightest. Proving something to you? Who cares? Why bother trying? Are you really trying to prove things to me? I doubt it. If so, you should drop the sanctimony and the combativeness.

At best, I hope to convince undecided lurkers, and I who knows if I'll ever know if my words here had the desired effect.

I must have been stumbling through this thread, because I can't recall a single thing you said that refuted the existence of rape culture. You can throw out random, cherry picked statistics, or hitch your wagon to a RAINN-y star. But if you think random, cherry-picked statistics or RAINN-stars can refute a widely recognized cultural phenomena, then you're confused.

Duck! I almost just got hit in the face with all the dick waving going on in that paragraph! Haha! Seriously. You are wrong because I said so, because the things I said were full of reasons why you were wrong and you're too thick headed and single minded to even take the time to understand my perspective, let along allow its sugary goodness to seep into the dark, mechanical recesses of your thinking box.

Empirical. Falsifiable. Logical validity. Any number of wikipedia-borne logical fallacy citations. These are all words you've deployed incorrectly to service your argument. You use them to add rhetorical weight to otherwise so-so arguments. I've been there. (To review: Logically valid arguments don't need empirical evidence. Cultural observations are rarely falsifiable. Falsifiability? We can't even agree on terms. How do you expect falsifiability to play a role in this discussion?)

And like I pointed out, your arguments I was referring to against the existence of rape culture are ridiculous because they can easily be used to 'disprove' the existence of any culture that isn't completely universal. Hence, by adopting those arguments, one must implicitly adopt the argument that culture doesn't exist. <<<< This is logic.
--- merged: Jun 6, 2014 6:44 AM ---
By the way, last time doing the point-by-point. I swear.

 

Uh no, what I was talking about was the culture that not not only allowed the girl to be raped in the first place but the one that treated her like dog crap when she was stupid enough to file a complaint.
Why did it take Anonymous to get even the slightest bit of justice and now one of the men who released the information might have to serve the more time than the rapists.
The adults in this case walked away with no consequences.
There are hundred of cases every year of fraternities having issues like this covered up.
They even have insurance coverage just for things like that.
The rapists are not the only problem.
There are people who support them and enable them.

 

You mean like this rape case?
Duke lacrosse case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So does this mean we have a false rape accuser culture? That these young men were vilified even by faculty for something they didn't do?

Or... are some people just assholes? See again, you can have a culture where rape is acceptable, but this is not currently a US situation. You can have individuals who rape, you can have some people in authority who think its not a big deal, you can have someone want to cover it up, but its not a "rape culture" that a majority partake in or believe in. When I was in college they did a rape survey of every female on campus, according to the results basically half (I'm exaggerating, I think it was 20% but this was a LONG time ago) the the women on campus were raped and even walking into a fraternity means you had a unacceptable chance or so of being sexually assaulted in some way. The very liberal college paper had a freeking field day with it. Then of course non-biased people look at the methods. Out of some 35k surveys sent they got back less than 3.5% or so. And this was technically a "scientific" study, not just randomly pulling statements out of someones neither regions about coverups and the patriarchy.

The willingness to grossly over exaggerate the problem on the left in my opinion may be doing more harm than good, because most people never encounter this sort of thing and then start seeing people crying wolf. I was personally in a fraternity, we just about all had steady girlfriends by our junior and senior years, a great many of us ended up marring those girls (I did for one), and many are still together. To my knowledge we had no rapes or assault issues at our parties or in general, and I was an officer for 2 of my three years in the frat. The school itself was very harsh on fraternities for any infractions and would quickly close them for drug, violence or alcohol problems. This happened, especially the drugs and alcohol issues, but never for sexual assault. Now someone who sees the evil patriarchy at every turn would go into "well they were covered up!" mode, which is possible, anything is possible, but illogical. Our campus, and this was 20+ years ago was in full "report everything" mode. Our school was in full "screw the fraternities" mode, in part because they wanted to buy a lot of the properties owned by them. The dangers of being raped were everywhere on campus, with meetings, and fliers and postings, and yet, despite the survey of doom about the evils of frat parties, never did rape seem to come up.

The only cover up I am aware of was when black gangs were driving on campus and gang beating up random college students. I knew two men badly injured form these, one in front of my frat. The police were warning us, but it never made the campus paper. Funny those weren't newsworthy.

 

Are you trying the disprove a general phenomenon with anecdotes? Like "Smoking isn't harmful, because a lot of people smoke for decades and never get emphysema or lung cancer." << That type of thing?

 

I don't see it as a factor of maleness making one complicit, but rather it is an attitude that is found across both genders. Again, while an individual may not take part, it does not mean that a culture doesn't exist (ie bieber and pop culture).

 

Actually maleness doesn't make you part of the culture.
It doesn't even make you complicit.
The point to all of this is that it exists and that it needs to be taken seriously not that every man is a bad guy,.
I'd say the cat who is facing time for releasing the names is a good guy and I'm sure you are too.
It's just that every time I see the news about some poor girl being dumped on the side of the highway with her jaw shattered it makes me realize that we live in a society that is rather hostile to woman.

 

Cool. I just wanted be clear that while some may suggest that because we are male we are complicit, they are not correct. As Bodkin says above, they can go fuck themselves.

 

Relevant.

Can Men Really Be Feminists? - Atlantic Mobile

 

I don't disagree with this at all, but for every one woman that is murdered three men are killed. Either a woman's life is at least three times as valuable as a man's life, or we accept that society doesn't value human life in general.

What bothers me more than our violent crime rate though is our suicide rate, which is three times higher than our murder rate. We have a 24 hour news cycle telling us how out of control our homicide rate is, all manner of handwringing and gnashing of teeth, and not a peep about an epidemic three times as bad.

 

That conclusion is more than a bit of a stretch.

 

I'm thinking there are two different categories of murders. I seem to recall a study which showed that the average murder victim had a longer prior criminal record than the average murderer.

Violent deaths among those deeply involved in criminal activity (predominantly men) get a lot less notice than violent deaths of comparatively innocent civilians (more likely to be women).

Fortunately, we are seeing a lot less of both types of murders than we did 30 years ago.