Rolling Stone Article on Rape at University of Virginia Failed All Basics, Report Says - Polidicks

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47469461]Honestly? Big journalism is fucked and we can't reform it. Time magazine, and other equally large publications are running "ad stories". Ads that are entirely indistinguishable from stories. Yes, it's a much bigger issue. Much more important. Tell me, how are you going to do it or are you just going to sit in your armchair and tell the only movement attempting ANYTHING like this that they're idiots wasting their time?[/QUOTE] Has anyone actually tried anything? I don't know if anyone has done anything. Imagine if everyone had this "it's fucked beyond repair" attitude, no one would get shit done. Idk maybe this is just wishful thinking but ~100,000 letters to congress will get their attention.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47469461]Honestly? Big journalism is fucked and we can't reform it. Time magazine, and other equally large publications are running "ad stories". Ads that are entirely indistinguishable from stories. Yes, it's a much bigger issue. Much more important. Tell me, how are you going to do it or are you just going to sit in your armchair and tell the only movement attempting ANYTHING like this that they're idiots wasting their time?[/QUOTE] I think that journalism is fine in things with no real political spin on it. I still read time magazine when they're reporting on anything related to science or technology, and Scientific American is still one of my favorite magazines

[QUOTE=butt2089;47467025] And what about the culture of making rape jokes or references, is the supposed "feminist hysteria" not just a counterbalance to that?[/QUOTE] there's jokes and references in terms of the holocaust, slavery, bestiality, etc. when did this "holier-than-thou" attitude spring up to propagate the idea that one social atrocity is objectively worse than the other?

[QUOTE=stupid10er;47469924]there's jokes and references in terms of the holocaust, slavery, bestiality, etc. when did this "holier-than-thou" attitude spring up to propagate the idea that one social atrocity is objectively worse than the other?[/QUOTE] Feminism maybe?

[QUOTE=Agoat;47467569]Something interesting to note is that young men are doing worse and worse in schools these days. Unrelated to rape, though.[/QUOTE] Blame standardized education and schools turning classrooms into test-taking factories. It's part of the reason why the vast majority (if not every) "ridiculous school suspension/punishment" article you see on Facepunch deals with a male student.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;47470070]Blame standardized education and schools turning classrooms into test-taking factories. It's part of the reason why the vast majority (if not every) "ridiculous school suspension/punishment" article you see on Facepunch deals with a male student.[/QUOTE] They obviously need ADHD medication to calm them down

[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47468663]There already is, filing false police reports is illegal. Making laws against false rape accusations specifically could backfire and make rape victims less likely to report their rape because of worry that it would be deemed false.[/QUOTE] It's my understanding filing a false police report carries far less of a punishment then actually being charged with most crimes, and more to the point doesn't (fully) take into consideration the crime which is being falsely reported. Not to mention, innocent until proven guilty applies to both parties; if there isn't enough evidence to either convict the accused of rape, or the accuser of making it up, then they both go free.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;47469475]Has anyone actually tried anything? I don't know if anyone has done anything. Imagine if everyone had this "it's fucked beyond repair" attitude, no one would get shit done. Idk maybe this is just wishful thinking but ~100,000 letters to congress will get their attention.[/QUOTE] Alright. You're a congressman. You have 100000 angry letters from constituents. You have 10,000,000$ from a lobbiest firm. Who are you really going to side with? Yeah. That's why letters mean shit all.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;47470255]It's my understanding filing a false police report carries far less of a punishment then actually being charged with most crimes, and more to the point doesn't (fully) take into consideration the crime which is being falsely reported. Not to mention, innocent until proven guilty applies to both parties; if there isn't enough evidence to either convict the accused of rape, or the accuser of making it up, then they both go free.[/QUOTE] Social stigma also plays into it, don't forget. Being known as "that girl who lied about Mark raping her" among family and friends would be devastating. Nobody would ever trust you again, because hey, she said that he raped her and he didn't, why would you trust anything else she said?

[QUOTE=dilzinyomouth;47466584] with regards to the author of the article in question, its such an egregious fuck up on multiple levels that I don't see how it could have been a "mistake". Its almost as if she penned complete bullshit knowing that in the current social climate it would be a cherished piece and no one would question it.[/QUOTE] If you knew anything about the issue you would know that the statistics are completely unreliable because the majority of rapes are never reported in any way that makes it into DOJ statistics.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47471289]Alright. You're a congressman. You have 100000 angry letters from constituents. You have 10,000,000$ from a lobbiest firm. Who are you really going to side with? Yeah. That's why letters mean shit all.[/QUOTE] lol you have a ridiculously skewed view of the world

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47471388]If you knew anything about the issue you would know that the statistics are completely unreliable because the majority of rapes are never reported in any way that makes it into DOJ statistics.[/QUOTE]This ignores the point that the awareness of such matters is far greater than it was 30 years ago, the definitions have become far covering, and victims are encouraged far more to actually report what happens to the police. Three major factors that would cause an increase in reported incidents. And the numbers still have fallen.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47471388]If you knew anything about the issue you would know that the statistics are completely unreliable because the majority of rapes are never reported in any way that makes it into DOJ statistics.[/QUOTE] How do you know if a majority of rapes aren't reported if they're never fucking reported

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;47471679]lol you have a ridiculously skewed view of the world[/QUOTE] So writing letters to your congressman overcomes lobbying? Or do you want to get specific and explain why my skewed view is wrong rather than just continue to assert you're right

[QUOTE=itisjuly;47467962]Time to start #JournalismGate ?[/QUOTE] Rolling Stone's reporting has been shit for years; remember this is the magazine that the [I]author[/I] of article tried to imply that the Boston Bombers were led into terrorism by the "horrors of capitalistic america" and the "american dream gone horribly awry" rather than say, that the mother and uncle of the suspects were hardline fundamentalists who hated being stuck in America and were also batshit crazy. This is the magazine that falsified stuff during the ACORN mess, when all they had to do was objectively cover the fact that republicans were literally lying about Obama's involvement. They probably need a good legal spanking to remind them they report the news, not create it nor judge it prematurely.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47471883]So writing letters to your congressman overcomes lobbying? Or do you want to get specific and explain why my skewed view is wrong rather than just continue to assert you're right[/QUOTE] Like I'm just going to have to say that it's silly to think that the majority of congressmen are corrupt as shit. I watch a lot of liberal media and most of it is "This politician is corrupt and congress is shit" and even I think that what you said was daft. I could be wrong. Every single congressman could value $10,000,000 over 100,000 potential votes. I can't prove to you which congressman would take 100,000 letters seriously and which would use it to wipe their ass with.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;47471679]lol you have a ridiculously skewed view of the world[/QUOTE] Nope; what he's talking is literally de rigueur in washington. [URL="http://www.amazon.com/This-Town-Parties-Funeral-Plus-Americas/dp/0399170685"]try reading you some books sometime[/URL]

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;47471953]Like I'm just going to have to say that it's silly to think that the majority of congressmen are corrupt as shit. I watch a lot of liberal media and most of it is "This politician is corrupt and congress is shit" and even I think that what you said was daft. I could be wrong. Every single congressman could value $10,000,000 over 100,000 potential votes. I can't prove to you which congressman would take 100,000 letters seriously and which would use it to wipe their ass with.[/QUOTE] How about you look at lobbying numbers then? Then you could see that almost every politician takes these bribes. It's almost universal. Sure, some don't, some are good people I'm sure, and the ones that do take bribes aren't doing it maliciously I'm sure, that doesn't mean the american political system is capable of being changed by a voter, a thousand, a hundred thousand, or a million people. It's an incredible systemic issue, couple that with a media that doesn't even tell you the whole truth even when they try, and you really think a nation can just fix that? Hey, I want to be wrong about that more than anything else. I want to be wrong when it comes to that. I just don't see how you can really ignore the reality of the situation where so much money pours into government through these methods that are 1) perfectly legal 2) historically acceptable 3) not something that can really be stopped by the average voter. A vote to stop lobbying would be met with more money than you can wrap your head around. Corrupt as shit isn't how I would put it. They're just following the way the system works.

[QUOTE=nickohlus;47471807]How do you know if a majority of rapes aren't reported if they're never fucking reported[/QUOTE] Because we have this thing called the CDC. They study this stuff when they aren't dealing with Ebola and shit. [URL]http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm?s_cid=ss6308a1_e[/URL] [editline]6th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;47471715]This ignores the point that the awareness of such matters is far greater than it was 30 years ago, the definitions have become far covering, and victims are encouraged far more to actually report what happens to the police. Three major factors that would cause an increase in reported incidents. And the numbers still have fallen.[/QUOTE] There is no nicer way to put it: If you honestly believe that sexual assault isn't really a problem because "Awareness is up but DOJ numbers are still down", you're just willfully dense. The problem is huge, it happens to huge numbers of women per year, and the barriers to obtaining justice are so huge that even WITH increased awareness very few women are actually willing to go to the police.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47472017]There is no nicer way to put it: If you honestly believe that sexual assault isn't really a problem because "Awareness is up but DOJ numbers are still down", you're just willfully dense. The problem is huge, it happens to huge numbers of women per year, and the barriers to obtaining justice are so huge that even WITH increased awareness very few women are actually willing to go to the police.[/QUOTE]No one said its not a problem, but its not the epidemic where a woman will just get raped walking across campus like its made out to be. You are blatantly ignoring the evidence showing this. So the reality is you're either willfully ignorant or maliciously misrepresentative. You don't get to make things up, toss facts out the window, then pretend your argument holds water, it will not stand.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47472017]Because we have this thing called the CDC. They study this stuff when they aren't dealing with Ebola and shit. [URL]http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm?s_cid=ss6308a1_e[/URL] [editline]6th April 2015[/editline] There is no nicer way to put it: If you honestly believe that sexual assault isn't really a problem because "Awareness is up but DOJ numbers are still down", you're just willfully dense. The problem is huge, it happens to huge numbers of women per year, and the barriers to obtaining justice are so huge that even WITH increased awareness very few women are actually willing to go to the police.[/QUOTE] That study is complete and utter bullshit when used in this context. In order to use it in this context, you would have to have an opening question of "Have you been raped? Have you ever reported being raped?", without any context or definition given. I bet a LOT of those respondents would put No in both columns. You can't use this as proof that women are "scared to report rape", because it doesn't prove they understand ALL of the situations which are considered rape, and it doesn't account for situations people might not personally consider rape, even though it is by definition. For example, both my ex and I are technically guilty of "rape", because she would repeatedly wear me down asking and be unhappy until I would give in on those occasions where I wasn't necessarily in the mood. And I had done the same thing a few times as well. But neither of us would ever say we were raped by the other, because we just wanted to make each other happy. A better survey for use in this debate would be one that found out how many people failed to report a rape they should have, rather than the total amount of sexual encounters technically considered "rape".

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47472159]That study is complete and utter bullshit when used in this context. In order to use it in this context, you would have to have an opening question of "Have you been raped? Have you ever reported being raped?", without any context or definition given. I bet a LOT of those respondents would put No in both columns. [/QUOTE] Because the CDC does junk science? Uh, no. This is about as unimpeachable a source as you're ever going to find. Even if the numbers were [I]half[/I] as bad as the CDC finds, this is still a massive problem. If you're really not willing to believe them, you might as well be Jenny McCarthy. [quote]You can't use this as proof that women are "scared to report rape", because it doesn't prove they understand ALL of the situations which are considered rape, and it doesn't account for situations people might not personally consider rape, even though it is by definition. [B]For example, both my ex and I are technically guilty of "rape", because she would repeatedly wear me down asking and be unhappy until I would give in on those occasions where I wasn't necessarily in the mood. And I had done the same thing a few times as well. But neither of us would ever say we were raped by the other, because we just wanted to make each other happy. [/B][/quote] You are seriously drifting into Todd "Legitimate Rape" Aiken territory here. Please tell me you're not trying to suggest a large portion of women that answer "have you been raped?" with "yes" probably haven't [I]really[/I] been raped. [quote]A better survey for use in this debate would be one that found out how many people failed to report a rape they should have, rather than the total amount of sexual encounters technically considered "rape".[/quote] Well, you could start with taking that DOJ number for rapes that actually make it into police reports, and dividing that into the CDC's results for how many women actually experience it per year...that might give you a starting point... What the hell is up with all the denial around this issue? Are you guys just butthurt because feminists on Youtube say mean things about your games or something? Jesus. Fuckin imagine if you had a one-in-five chance of anything as bad as sexual assault happening to you in your lifetime. Significantly worse if you're a racial minority. You'd be pretty mad too, especially if you were surrounded by a bunch of people telling you you're just overreacting and most of the occurrences of this horrible thing weren't "legitimate" anyway, and that if it happens to you you're probably complacent in making it happen. It's called empathy, bro. Give it a try sometime. It's really not that hard. I am really, genuinely concerned that you seem to think that way.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47472309]Because the CDC does junk science? Uh, no. This is about as unimpeachable a source as you're ever going to find. Even if the numbers were [I]half[/I] as bad as the CDC finds, this is still a massive problem. If you're really not willing to believe them, you might as well be Jenny McCarthy. You are seriously drifting into Todd "Legitimate Rape" Aiken territory here. Please tell me you're not trying to suggest a large portion of women that answer "have you been raped?" with "yes" probably haven't [I]really[/I] been raped. Well, you could start with taking that DOJ number for rapes that actually make it into police reports, and dividing that into the CDC's results for how many women actually experience it per year...that might give you a starting point... What the hell is up with all the denial around this issue? Are you guys just butthurt because feminists on Youtube say mean things about your games or something? Jesus. Fuckin imagine if you had a one-in-five chance of anything as bad as sexual assault happening to you in your lifetime. Significantly worse if you're a racial minority. You'd be pretty mad too, especially if you were surrounded by a bunch of people telling you you're just overreacting and most of the occurrences of this horrible thing weren't "legitimate" anyway, and that if it happens to you you're probably complacent in making it happen. It's called empathy, bro. Give it a try sometime. It's really not that hard.[/QUOTE] You're trying to extrapolate data from the survey that you can't given the data. You can't be 100% certain that each and every respondent knew the legal definition of rape, and you can't be 100% certain that they would feel the need to report minor instances (such as coercion from a partner), because that's subjective. You're assuming that 100% of the people knew at the time that it was rape, and that they would have wanted to report it. You can't assume that from those statistics.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47472392]You're trying to extrapolate data from the survey that you can't given the data. You can't be 100% certain that each and every respondent knew the legal definition of rape, and you can't be 100% certain that they would feel the need to report minor instances (such as coercion from a partner), because that's subjective. You're assuming that 100% of the people knew at the time that it was rape, and that they would have wanted to report it. You can't assume that from those statistics.[/QUOTE] You don't think your personal criteria for reporting rape would be fairly high? If anything, the respondents probably underreport. Also, there isn't that much room for error when the interviewers actually break it down into very specific acts. The blanket "Have you been raped" question was just the starting point to a long series of specific questions about what has and hasn't happened to people. Also, the numbers are so huge that there aren't really any methodology questions that can make it stop being a freakin' epidemic. Even if you err to the conservative side (statistically, not politically), it's never going to go away or fade into the background. No margin of error makes it go away. I know the sheer scale is tough to get your head around. It blew my freakin mind when I first read it. But no amount of denial will make it stop being a real thing that happens to huge numbers of women.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47472392]You're trying to extrapolate data from the survey that you can't given the data. You can't be 100% certain that each and every respondent knew the legal definition of rape, and you can't be 100% certain that they would feel the need to report minor instances (such as coercion from a partner), because that's subjective. You're assuming that 100% of the people knew at the time that it was rape, and that they would have wanted to report it. You can't assume that from those statistics.[/QUOTE] You are being incredibly pedantic and are deliberately missing the point.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47472414]You don't think your personal criteria for reporting rape would be fairly high? If anything, the respondents probably underreport. Also, there isn't that much room for error when the interviewers actually break it down into very specific acts. The blanket "Have you been raped" question was just the starting point to a long series of specific questions about what has and hasn't happened to people. Also, the numbers are so huge that there aren't really any methodology questions that can make it stop being a freakin' epidemic. Even if you err to the conservative side (statistically, not politically), it's never going to go away or fade into the background. No margin of error makes it go away.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that my personal criteria is the perfect criteria. I'm just pointing out that you can't really use this data to extrapolate that particular statistic. There would need to be a more specific, and in-depth survey done with the express purpose of figuring this out. It can be done. I'm not saying that we don't have a problem with our sex culture. I think we need a lot more education on it. But I don't think the "epidemic" is as large as people make it out to be. I also think it's going to vary by environment (population density, average income, etc...). I just think there needs to be a lot more research done before we can declare true statistics on this.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47472445]I'm not saying that my personal criteria is the perfect criteria. I'm just pointing out that you can't really use this data to extrapolate that particular statistic. There would need to be a more specific, and in-depth survey done with the express purpose of figuring this out. It can be done. I'm not saying that we don't have a problem with our sex culture. I think we need a lot more education on it. But I don't think the "epidemic" is as large as people make it out to be. I also think it's going to vary by environment (population density, average income, etc...). I just think there needs to be a lot more research done before we can declare true statistics on this.[/QUOTE] There is really no shortage of in-depth research out there, not just from the CDC. Believe it or not, a lot of time and effort gets spent researching rape across a large number of government agencies and NGOs. [url]https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims[/url] [url]https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf[/url] [url]http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf[/url] It's really not invented out of nothing. This isn't the Heritage Foundation churning out the research. It's government agencies and very well-respected organizations. These people know exactly what they are doing. Let me ask you one thing: Do you think industrial CO2 emissions contribute significantly to climate change? This is pretty much the same thing. The science is right there, and it's commonly accepted. People are angry [I]because[/I] the science is legitimate. If you really think all those researchers working for the government can be foiled because "Well, people misreport and things can vary", as far as I'm concerned that puts you in with the climate deniers in terms of willful ignorance. That would make me very sad, because I've never gotten the impression that you're the kind of person to just ignore good data. Hell, even disregarding all the adult and college rape stuff...just look at the numbers for child sexual abuse. It's staggering, and none of it can be explained away as drunken probably consensual college sex.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47472574]There is really no shortage of in-depth research out there, not just from the CDC. Believe it or not, a lot of time and effort gets spent researching rape across a large number of government agencies and NGOs. [url]https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims[/url] [url]https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf[/url] [url]http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf[/url] It's really not invented out of nothing. This isn't the Heritage Foundation churning out the research. It's government agencies and very well-respected organizations. These people know exactly what they are doing. Let me ask you one thing: Do you think industrial CO2 emissions contribute significantly to climate change? This is pretty much the same thing. The science is right there, and it's commonly accepted. People are angry [I]because[/I] the science is legitimate. If you really think all those researchers working for the government can be foiled because "Well, people misreport and things can vary", as far as I'm concerned that puts you in with the climate deniers in terms of willful ignorance. That would make me very sad, because I've never gotten the impression that you're the kind of person to just ignore good data. Hell, even disregarding all the adult and college rape stuff...just look at the numbers for child sexual abuse. It's staggering, and none of it can be explained away as drunken probably consensual college sex.[/QUOTE] See, THIS is what I'm talking about. THIS is something I can look into and draw a solid conclusion from. I can't do that with the CDC report you cited. This gives more detailed data. As for global warming, I haven't drawn a conclusion yet because I haven't researched it enough. I'm not going to trust Rush Limbaugh or Fox News' numbers, but at the same time, I won't trust "theplanetisdoomed.org"'s numbers either. I've still got to pull a lot of data and look at it all to sift through the bullshit.

The rape culture arguments are a lot easier to understand when you see numbers like 20-26% of women experiencing completed or attempted sexual assault while in college. I really suggest reading in detail. I never [I]quite[/I] sneered at the rape culture thing, but I started taking it a lot more seriously when I started seeing real numbers like that. When you're facing one-in-four odds, I can understand the "predatory environment" rhetoric. I mean, imagine if being a pizza delivery driver carried a one-in-four chance of being sexually assaulted. The CEO of Papa Johns would be facing charges from the attorneys general of all 50 states. It would be a [I]huge[/I] deal. So why do people blow off the fact that 4 years of education can carry that risk? Please give it some thought.

The problem with the "1 in 5 women will be raped on college campuses" statistic is that the surveyors asked questions, then decided what constitutes rape based on the answers. For example, it might have asked "Have you ever had sex while you were drunk?" If a women answered yes to that question, the surveyor decided that the woman had been raped, and counted it towards the statistic despite the fact that the woman who answered doesn't consider themselves to have been raped at all.