Here’s a little one-question quiz to see how much you know about Reddit’s Atheism subreddit.
QUESTION ONE: A woman describes being raped by a “friend” while both were intoxicated (though she doesn’t call it rape). Do the r/atheism regulars:
a) Respond with sympathy and support
b) Attack her and furiously downvote her posts, with the assistance of one of the moderators of r/mensrights, then return to posting and upvoting rape jokes
BONUS QUESTION: True or False: Someone on r/menrights links to her comment as “an example of how and why many people believe that rape is everywhere… because their definition of rape includes every sexual misadventure.” The most heavily upvoted comment in the r/mensrights thread declares that the woman who was raped “sounds like a delusional sheltered teen.”
Yes, the correct answers here are the ones you assumed were correct.
Here’s the woman’s post describing what happened to her.
She gives more details on what happened in other, also-highly-downvoted comments.
One highly upvoted rape joke from elsewhere in the thread:
Hilarious!
Amazingly, despite all the jokes and the victim blaming/attacking going on, the thread also contains some highly upvoted comments lamenting the tendency of people to blame the victim in rape cases. Apparently, when a rape victim is drunk, it’s not rape, even when she repeatedly says “no” and gives in because she’s scared, so it’s fine to attack away, and even to accuse the victim of being a rapist too.
This enables Reddit Atheists not only to blame the victim of rape without feeling guilty, or admitting that this is what they’re doing, while simultaneously feeling self-righteous in their condemnation of religious people doing the exact same thing.
And because their rape jokes are also couched as jokes about religious people’s views on rape, they can feel self-righteous while making them too.
Sometimes the actions of Reddit Atheists cause me to begin to doubt just a teensy weensey bit that “atheists are a community that’s pre-selected for clear thinking and empiricism,” as one commenter in r/mensrights put it not that long ago.
EDITED TO ADD: Thanks again to ShitRedditSays for highlighting this awful thread.
EDITED TO ADD 2: More SRS discussion, courtesy of Holly.
*blink* you have a positive claim, not I – you say the year was anomalous – that is a positive claim, I just take the data as they are – the null hypothesis should be that the year is representative.
If you believe that the questions were not relevant tell me *why* they aren’t – I’ll explain why I think they are.
1: Do you think that attitudes to rape today are the same as 50 years in the past?
If it is different then people will have been raised with different attitudes and recognise different things as rape, changing reported rape rates.
2: Do you think that people are more aware of consent issues now than 50 years in the past?
If people are are more aware of consent issues they are more likely to label non-consensual contact as assault or rape, whilst people who have already labelled events in the past are unlikely to re-evaluate them.
3: Do you think that ideas about the vulnerability of men to rape have changed in the last 50 years?
Men who had non-consensual contact further in the past may not have recognised it as rape.
4: Do you think that crime rates have changed in the last 50 years?
If crime rates have changed significantly then it is poor practice to use a 50 year average to look at current rates.
5: Do you think that there is a generational difference in attitudes to rape (in general, everyone is an individual of course)?
If there is a generational difference then again events further in the past are less likely to be labelled as rape
Finally even if you answered yes I did not say you must accept the null hypothesis, just that you tell me “why do you think the lifetime rate is a better measure of current rates than the rate from last year?”
“But when looking at setting policy (what tamen was asking), using a larger data set is useful.”
Not always – and that is what the 1700 example is meant to show – larger data sets are not always better! More relevant data is better data.
“which you admit isn’t the method in other sciences”
Which I specifically mention is used by other sciences – again unless there is an good explanation for it being anomalous there is no good reason to suggest it is.
” And you seem to think, in this case, it ought to be.”
What? I’ve not mentioned policy at all.
I see, your list of question is worse than it appeared. There were unstated assumptions, and those assumptions aren’t actually the only reasons for the answers. Since the questions weren’t actually honest questions (you had a set of, “right answers”. What if I said no to all of them? What if the rates of crime are different because the crimes which can be committed have changed in number/severity? What if there are fewer/more people, and so the relative value of one crime in the overall picture is different? The explanations you give aren’t the only viable reasons, so you have to defend all of them… have fun).
Now… you have said the null set is that this year isn’t anomalous. Because?
You have other years to compare it to? You have some baseline to which you can say it’s consistent? I say it’s anomalous because I’ve seen no other data set which shows that ratio. So, in the realm of available data, it’s atypical.
Which, as I keep repeating, has nothing to do with the underlying issues.
So, again, why is it so important to you that I/we accept this single year of data as being the norm?
I repeat – because you have no logical reason to. Seriously!
“What if I said no to all of them?”
Then you would be in a much better position to claim the year was anomalous?
“What if the rates of crime are different because the crimes which can be committed have changed in number/severity?”
Then it would be bad practice to use the longer term data?
“What if there are fewer/more people, and so the relative value of one crime in the overall picture is different? ”
You know about percentages, right?
“Now… you have said the null set is that this year isn’t anomalous. Because?”
You have said it is…because?
I have provided reasons (see my answers to the questions) – you have provided none.
And of course I have no need to defend all of them – any one of them would be a good reason to suggest that the longer term data is less representative than the short term data. I note that you’re still trying to dodge the burden of proof – none-the-less I will defend my positions on the answers,
Defending them:
1:SEX-ROLE ATTITUDE CHANGE AND REPORTING OF RAPE VICTIMIZATION, 1973–1985
James D. Orcutt1, Rebecca Faison
The Sociological Quarterly
Volume 29, Issue 4, pages 589–604, December 1988
2:Contest and consent: A legal history of marital rape
JE Hasday – California Law Review, 2000 – JSTOR
3:Gender role conflict, homophobia, age, and education as predictors of male rape myth acceptance
LR Kassing, D Beesley… – Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 2005 – AMHCA
4: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/frequency-of-sexual-assault
(from U.S. Department of Justice. National Crime Victimization Survey. 2006-2010.)
5:Also covered in 3.
What percentage of the people studied were in the 18-21 range or younger? The vast majority of rapes occur before the victim is 25. Rape rates vary extremely based on age. So, a study that has an average subject age of 40-50 has older groups overrepresented vs. younger groups. It is likely that the younger subjects made up almost all of the rape victims in the study. The lifetime numbers bolster this, as older subjects seem to be reporting that rapes occured when they were at the younger ages as well.
Also, you are bouncing back and forth on the issue of forgetting about being raped. You cited a claim about “amnesia” regarding having been the victim of child rape, so quit fucking lying and saying you weren’t claiming people habitually forget their rapes when you named it first among issues of underreporting. Also, looking at just the past year would erase almost all child rape from the study, because the subjects were adults. There’s no reason to presume that those who had been victims in their youth are underreporting more for the lifetime rates vs. those who have been victimized more recently reporting in recent rates. If anything, we should expect that the initial trauma of dealing with the rape might increase underreporting of recent rapes. Underreporting is an issue in all self report studies, but you have failed to make even the slightest glimmer of a coherent argument as to why the lifetime figures should be presumed to have far more discrepancy between genders in underreporting than the recent figures.
The burden of proof was on Tamen, who said, Look at this data which proves what women want to deny.
That was the claim. That was him claiming this single year proves something.
You are also saying it does.
That’s a positive claim. The burden of proof isn’t on us.
And if I said no to all of them… when some of them aren’t subjective (the overall rate of crime is down… simple fact, the abstracts of incidence per 100,000 make it plain). To answer no to that is deny reality.
But you attached a subjective value to a response about an objective one.
The problem here is that Tamen (whom you are defending) is taking the question of one year’s data, and demanding a policy change. Policy changes are not well handled by single sets of data.
Because single years can be anomalous, and it’s why I said the truth of the single year’s data isn’t relevant to my positions. Because this is a policy issue. It’s not, for all that he, and you, persist in trying to make it, a question of the reliability of data.
It’s a question of what to do with the data. For the purpose he’s arguing (making changes to rape prevention policy), a single year (just as with climate change) isn’t relevant. If there was a sudden dearth in rapes of women, it would be terrible practice to say all rape prevention will be focused on making sure women don’t get raped.
It’s not denying the evidence, it’s saying the evidence isn’t useful to what he wants done.
This is what he said: I’ll restate my reason here: When it comes to the risk of being raped now the “last 12 months” figures gives a more accurate picture than the lifetime figures.
There isn’t any way to prove that. It implies that the most recent year is the baseline, and that the baseline will persist.
Since he said that knowing this will, he believes, reduce males being raped, he’s making a prediction that this ratio, is going to be persistent.
The secondary question of who is at risk come into play, since not all women are at the same level of risk, nor all men, Again, what he said he wanted (a rape prevention policy that dealt with preventing male rape) is already what feminism is after… the question of the reports policy function is, to the purpose of this discussion, still not relevant.
And I think that’s where the problem lies. You seem to think I’m dimissing the report, out of hand. I’m not. I’m looking at what Tamen is saying the report ought to be used for, and saying this is a bad use of the data.
I disagree about the burden of proof in this situation for this reason – to claim a year is anomolus there requires something that is making it anamolous – with a sample this size its not really feasabile to claim a sampling problem (though again I’d like to see some peer review on it, which I still haven’t done.). This means that if someone says that a year is anomalous they are claiming there exists additional data – the reasons why the year is anomalous. Claiming that it is not anamolous requires no additional data – do you see why this should be the null hypothesis?
I don’t think any of the answers are subjective, and I believe they make a strong case that the long term data may well be of little value at calulating future rates.
I, honestly, don’t care what you do with the data. Really. Neither you or I are going to be setting policies anyway – and the people that do are paid to look at this shit – I hope they’re well qualified that’s all! 🙂
“When it comes to the risk of being raped now the “last 12 months” figures gives a more accurate picture than the lifetime figures.”
Prove it? Not with the current data, no. Strong reasons within known theoritical frameworks using other data can lend us reason to believe that the short term data may well be more likely to be representative of future data than the long term data. Does that mean it definatly will? Of course not – its just an educated prediction. Just because I have no reason to believe that this year wasn’t anomolous doesn’t mean it actually wasn’t – I am making no truth claims, just claiming that the data we have at the momement supports the model I put foward better than any proposed alternative I’ve seen.
Sure – I’m not going to state what policy decisions should be made from this data – it’s really not my job or area of expertise. I’ll also apologise, I’ve been coming across a bit too aggressively, I’m not normally like that -.-;
Joan, you’re stupid and not capable of reading. The claim isn’t that the year is an anomaly; it’s that there’s no reason to think the year is part of a trend. According to your idiotic reasoning, the burden of proof is always going to be wherever someone says it is; claims of a long term trend were made, there’s no evidence of a long term trend offered. Fuck off or get some motherfucking reading comprehension.
Also, I just read the actual reddit thread in the OP. So now I know why I don’t go to Reddit.
Ok. Wall of texts should be forbidden here.
Stupid perhaps, but I think I can read! (though I do have some developmental issues with reading and writing, but I think I can manage thanks very much)
“The claim isn’t that the year is an anomaly; it’s that there’s no reason to think the year is part of a trend”
Well, yes the claim is exactly that – by saying it’s not part of a trend (as many here have) it’s a claim that it is anomalous, and no evidence is presented to support that. Perhaps you could learn to read as well? Of course evidence was presented to show that the life time rates from the study are less appropriate to use when predicting future rates than the last year rates – which is what I’ve been focusing on, you know if you could read.
Of course we have no reason to think that it’s not part of a trend – why do you think it is?
And see this (or read it, I guess!):
“This means that if someone says that a year is anomalous they are claiming there exists additional data – the reasons why the year is anomalous. Claiming that it is not anamolous requires no additional data – do you see why this should be the null hypothesis?”
If you want to start with a different null hypothesis propose and support it – like I have done. I’m perfectly willing to look at this from a different angle.
Claims that this year is anomolus (yes, its a fucking claim – read the thread, its there both explicitly and implictly all over the place) are based on wild speculation and are supported by no evidence at all. Claims that (you know, what I was actually talking about) the lifetime rate is probably less useful than last years rates is supported both theoretically and empirically.
“Fuck off or get some motherfucking reading comprehension”
Physician, heal thyself.
Oh, and ‘idiotic’ is an abilist term. Please don’t use it.
Stop embarrassing your grade school teachers with your reading incomprehension. I didn’t say it was not part of a trend. I said there is no data presented that indicates it is part of a trend. Different fucking things, you motherfucking incompetent. One of them means that you haven’t presented your case, the other is a negative claim. That you can’t tell the difference speaks volumes of your understanding of the words, but it does nothing to improve Tamens’ and your case.
I saw it, but it was so fucking ignorant I didn’t think you were seriously going to press it. If you insist, however?
Your ‘null hypothesis’ presupposes a trend. You can only say you “don’t need more data” if you actually have data that establishes it as part of a trend. Otherwise, you need more fucking data to conclude that something is part of a trend, because, get this, trends involve more than one fucking data point. The null hypothesis is that there is no trend until more data is introduced, because you need more than one fucking data point to talk about where something is going.
Jesus fuck, are you trying to put on a parody of science, or are you really this fucking inept at it?
No one said that the info presented for one year wasn’t part of a trend. What was said was that info for that one year alone doesn’t tell us much. Which isn’t a claim that that particular year was atypical, it’s just pointing out that absent any other information we have no idea whether that year’s numbers were atypical or part of a broader trend.
I’m trying to be polite about this, but really – you are consistently misreading fairly simple statements, and after a while that becomes irritating.
Learn to read – I never said that YOU said any such thing, oh where’s that copy post button:
by saying it’s not part of a trend (as many here have) it’s a claim that it is anomalous
As many here have. Got that? If its not about you it’s not about you. Seriously.
“Different fucking things, you motherfucking incompetent.”
No fucking shit. Notably the main point of what I’ve been talking about. Once more, learn to read.
You really are a parody of reading – you claim I said that you made a positive claim, when in fact in two god damn places I mentioned it was in the thread, not you. Jesus.
“Your ‘null hypothesis’ presupposes a trend”
No. It proposes that it is representative of the current state of affairs – it says nothing on future trends, or on past data e.g THAT IT DOES NOT SUPPORT A TREND. Jesus, learn to read.
There is then a second argument – that compares the two (single) data points the long term and the short term, but I’ll let you misread them for a bit before I reply.
“Tamen, you cited the 12 months, but why you only cited that number in a study that had lifetime estimates with much different numbers as you sole evidence for gender parity in rape was extremely telling”
Implicit – the more recent data is anamolous. Not that we have no reason to believe ther is a trend
” That such rapes are actually equal in number to rapes of women… insufficient data. Even if true for one year, it’s only one year.”
Implicit – the is anamolous so can’t be extrapolated from
Comparison by pecunium with a anomolus year with a gang war – explicit.
Comparisons with climate change by pecumium – explicit.
“I am supposed to ignore that it’s anomalous.”
Need an explanation?
Positive claims.
Nope, sorry, you can’t just assume that you know what people mean because you think it’s implicit. Also, if some presents data that seems like it might be anomalous, it actually is then their responsibility to show that it isn’t, which is why one year isn’t enough of a data set.
Again, I’d really like to know why you’re so determined to prove that this particular piece of data is part of a broader trend. If you have any information that would support that theory, I’m not sure why you aren’t sharing it.
I’m not trying to prove its part of a broader trend? I have no idea if it’s part of a broader trend? Why do you think I’m doing that?
I’m not sure why Tamer isn’t sharing it either. Surely there must be data for 2009, 2008, etc? If this is a trend, it should be possible to show that by looking at the years immediately preceding 2010.
So you’re just trolling, or arguing for the sake of arguing?
Since that seems like it may be the case, I’m done discussing this with you.
I suppose I should clarify:
1:It has been said in this thread (please fucking read it) that the long term data point would be better than the short term in predicting next years rates
2:Evidence was presented to explain why this may not be the case
3: I make no claim that this means its part of a trend, or that it is the best method of predicting next years claim (well, only in the context of this extremely limited data set)
got it?
Joanofart, before letting you attempt to confuse matters further by arguing over who claims what, let me remind you of some basic statistics 101, since you seem to be forgetting it. A single data point is not valid for any claims other then it acting as a potential descriptor of that year. To extrapolate any further from it is a faulty action. This is but one of the mistakes of Tamen.
Like I said, done. I don’t care for snide people who argue for the sake of arguing, or who’re unwilling to come clean about why they’re arguing.
RIght, and in the same thread it was argued that the other single data point *was good for this* – and even though both are shitty, they other data point is worse.
I apologise for being snide CassandraSays, I’m sorry if I upset you.
I’m arguing because there was (contrary to some claims here) a number of positive claims:
1: That the year was anomolous
2: That the longer term data point is better for trend prediction that the shorter term
I see no reason to believe these positive claims, and repeatedly asked for evidence to believe them – none was provided.
Who made these positive claims? Can you quote them saying these things?
There are examples of the first already posted, I’ll go grab some of the second (three are implicit, 3 are explicit in the ones I grabbed, they’re just above here on this page
You’re talking about your comment here?
http://manboobz.com/2012/01/25/quiz-how-did-reddits-atheist-community-responded-to-a-womans-account-of-rape/comment-page-4/#comment-119710
Yeah, I don’t think that actually shows what you think it shows. Using examples of other types of data to explain to you how the one data point is not enough information to show a trend is not saying implicitly or explicitly that this particular data point is anomolous.