/pol/ is whatever the people going there are into at the time

but in reality they just tolerate everything because it's all a cesspool lmfao

^

All of that may be true, but if we go there right now, is a 50-50 mix of random stuff and hateful shit-posting

gore, bestiality, borderline pedophilia, you name it
whether it be edgy memes or actually fucked up people you will find it there

i only go on 4chan if i'm in a good mood and have to call a support hotline 😄

in terms of /pol/'s values on average it's definitely closer to the alt-right than progressive left (at least in the past year)

but 90% of it is reactive

and the progressive left just happens to be putting out the most garbage in volume

so it's normal to see

reddit is more constructive assuming you can find moderators that allow politics and are mostly neutral when things get heated

IGD is pretty bad. I think it was them who had articles about how to sabotage train tracks and lots of pro antifa stuff.

Yeah the request to verify came from a lefty prof of mine. Not surprising

https://archive.fo/6E74K

Those kinds of people shouldn’t be teachers.

I think she's a pretty fair teacher on her topics. She's not pro-antifa or anything and she covers he topics fairly well. She's far from apolitical but i don't think there is anything wrong with that. College is about encountering people who disagree with you

(I don't mean to sound defensive of her or offended, I'm not)

I don’t know your teacher so I’ll take your word for it but I’m really wary of anyone who takes the far left seriously.

Are you wary of anyone who takes the far-right seriously?

Don't you think its important to be presented with a diversity of opinions, some of them absurd but seriously defended when in college?

I’m wary of both. I don’t think you should shut down extreme views but also be careful to not cross the line of indoctrination.

extreme views on either side have issues..

Idk, there are some 'extreme' views that I like. (I'm partial to minarchism).

extremeism is generally bad, "only sith deal in absolutes"

I think there are plenty of far-right and left views that are worth being exposed to and engaging with.

extreme views are generally centrist views, just to the extreme...

@CreativeRealms i take the far left seriously

our federal government literally shut down and far left progressives are taking over major institutions all over the world at an alarming rate

so like

there are clearly risks

I take them seriously in that way yes. As in they are a serious danger.

i'm not a reactionary in the sense that join a group simply to oppose another party's views

because often it's mis-applied like universitites and their excessive nitpicking of themself despite not having the problems they describe like racism against minorities and rape

Sexual violence on campus is definitely a real problem.

compared to what

Compared to sexual violence off campus

citation?

Err this is the awkward part, I actually useds to generate the statistics at my campus.

everything i've seen shows that physical violence is lower on campus along with pretty much every crime

But i can't present them or discuss them intimately because of legal stuff

I can't speak to that.

All i can say with relative certainty, is that on my campus (and i've heard this is normal) the number of reported sexual incidents on surveys is much higher than normal. it depends on a lot of things of course, how do you define sexual violence/rape, what counts as on campus and so on

But what is unequivocally clear is that college-aged girls who actually attend university are very much at risk of victimization

That said, the 1 in 5 statistic is laughably hyperbolic

well to make a proper comparison you have to look at the methods you apply on campus to the surrounding city and break it down to the type of incident

for example many include drunk sex

I've never seen a study that included sex while intoxicated

And i've read a number of them

in detroit, the crime rate of the Wayne State university area is a LOT lower than the surrounding city

Well that's obvious

But you have to consider how often sexual violence goes unreported

for both sides

And that crime is a much broader category than sexual violence

?

For both sides???

for the university and the surrounding area

Oh, yeah of course. All I'm saying is that you can't look at crime rates and go, oh so rape is less of a thing on campus then off. Because crime is a very broad category and is confounded by a lot of variables. I think the best way to get at sexual violence rates is to ask people directly with surveys.

1 in 5 is not hyperbolic, its complete bullsh...that would make an american campus more dangerous the congo.

Its far from perfect, but you are way less likely to get false positives then false negatives

i don't lnow a single sane person that defends 1 in 5

@I AM ERROR, Summers is a bit off on that point.

in the congo it's 40% over their LIFETIME not 4-5 years.

That's not why she is off and we have to be clear about what the 1 in 5 claim really is.

i don't know what she says so i can't argue why she is or is not off

and the 1 in 5 claim currently is used for everything from catcalling to rape depending on who you are talking to

I mean you've literally ripped her talking point word for word so that would surprise me. Okay. But the actually 'study' was about sexual misconduct.

She compares that to Congo's rape stats, which is far from apples to apples

catcalling is a microagression

i looked up google where the most rapes occour...

😉

?

The survey found that 1,073 women, or 19 percent, said that they experienced attempted or completed sexual assault since entering college. The actual breakdown was that 12.6 percent experienced attempted sexual assault and 13.7 percent experienced actual sexual assault. (There was some overlap.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/05/01/one-in-five-women-in-college-sexually-assaulted-the-source-of-this-statistic/?utm_term=.eb987237232a

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf

This a voluntary response study over two universities. It's got a lot of problems but that number includes 'attempted sexual assault' which if memory serves, was far too broadly defined for my liking.

what exactly qualifies as sexual assault?

and why is a survey about sexual assault cited when people are talking about rape

> what exactly qualifies as sexual assault?

The first page of the linked study goes into this in detail

To your second point, Idk, I didn't do that. People are misinformed about this stuff a lot and the politicization doesn't help

i can agree with that

@cmdline that survey literally has the question ```Has someone had sexual contact with you when you were
unable to provide consent or stop what was happening
because you were passed out, drugged, drunk,
incapacitated, or asleep? This question asks about
incidents that you are certain happened. ```

😂

@ping Yes it does, so?

it counts drunk sex...

No, it counts sex where someone is so drunk that they cannot meaningfully conest

It reads stop what was happening because you were drunk

Not, just "were drunk"

no it said unable to provide consent OR stop what's happening
i thought if you are drunk you can't consent

i see the problem with knowing that it happened while being passed out

well no because they can leave evidence and someone could witness

so that part makes sense

Yes but @I AM ERROR is right, there is a small under reporting bias because passed out people might not know they were raped/assaulted

Though it might actaully result in over-reporting from people who are unsure and so think they did. This seems unlikely to me

i don't really care if its under- or over-reported, but i question the accuracy in general

@ping, you can definitely consent while drunk according to this survey. The point is that you can't stop your abuser because you are so intoxicated you can't move and so on. It's definitely a bit of a grey area but nothing as bad as "drunk sex = rape"

wdym

i don't see anything that explains whether or not you can consent while drunk

-sigh- And thus you should assume that you can.

let alone something that was in the final survey

(and just to make it clear: if you sexually abuse/rape someone you are a pos asshole and get locked up for whatever time possible according to the law)

why would i assume something that has a significant impact on the results?

Why would they need to state, by the way, you know that kind of sex that happens the most

We don't think that is rape

This is borderline deliberate misundertanding now @ping

no.

the issue is the wording depends on whether or not you think drunk people can consent

give me a person who thinks drunk people can't consent

And who has published anything in this field

Like 1 single person

well, there are people that think its rape when the woman changes her mind a week after... 😒

And i doubt those people have published anything.

@cmdline can't find anyone credible but it's about the opinion of the people taking the survey not the most credible answer

I suppose that much is true. That said, the question clearly states "unable to provide consent or stop what was happening
because you were... drunk"

If someone interprets that as "I took 1 shot, I was raped!" then sure, but i see no evidence that that is a significant issue.

No reasonable person is going to look back at pleasant sexual experience while intoxicated and report it as rape because they were intoxicated

uhhhhhhhhhh

matress girl?

@cmdline but those people might have an impact on the survey results if they were part of the interviewed (that is my problem with survey based studies in general, btw.)

survey based studies are fine

But what % of the population consists of people like mattress girl

you just have to compensate for selection bias as much as possible

The major problem with this study is it was voluntary response. People went online and answered because they wanted to, not because the survey was palced in front of them. They had to be motivated to take it.

Which is going to select for victims

i'd say more than 5% of the population are batshit insane enough to roll with a lie like that if they had social incentive

So say 5% of respondents did that (i don't think so but w.e)

That sifts the numbert marginally

5? try 50%, people are as self serving as they come

yeah but it diddnt even work out that well for her

@cmdline well... voluntary response disqualifies the study completely.

not really

you have to concider how many people see the study

if it's not random selection it has no value to me

definitely more effective

@I AM ERROR, I feel like you don't do a lot of social sciences research

i don't

*social* *science*

skeptic hat tilts forward

Then you should probably refrain from laying down the law on this stuff.

hey that's pretty condecending

Oh please, it's got its problems but the socials ciences have been producing meaningful work for almost 100 years

nope. you don't have to work in a field to see flaws in the methods used in it

And " well... voluntary response disqualifies the study completely. if it's not random selection it has no value to me" is a pretty absurd thing to say

100 wolves interviewed said that sheep are tasty 😉

Like I'm sorry sociology isn't physics?

That's just not what happened here...

well... then what do you mean by voluntary response

i posted a poll on 4chan asking if they think cnn is fake news

it's voluntary, of course

I mean the survey was posted online and people were offered 10 dollars on amazon to take it

I'm not sure how knowledge of the survey was disseminated

Pls hold

the results were that 99.998% of the internet thinks CNN is fake news

@I AM ERROR see 3.1.3

@I AM ERROR To recruit the students who were sampled to participate in the CSA Study, we relied on both
recruitment e-mails and hard copy recruitment letters that were mailed to potential
respondents. Sampled students were sent an initial recruitment e-mail that described the
study, provided each student with a unique CSA Study ID#, and included a hyperlink to the
CSA Study Web site. During each of the following 2 weeks, students who had not completed
the survey were sent a follow-up e-mail encouraging them to participate. The third week,
nonrespondents were mailed a hard-copy recruitment letter. Two weeks after the hard-copy
letters were mailed, nonrespondents were sent a final recruitment e-mail. The overall
response rates for survey completion for the undergraduate women sampled at the two
universities were 42.2% and 42.8%, respectively. The response rates for males were lower.
Exhibit 3-1 depicts the response rates in relation to the sampling frames and subframes.
Procedures for addressing response bias are discussed in more detail in the analysis section.

🤔 no men survayed

@ping what?

men were surveyed but did not respond in sufficent numbers

Over 1k males were considered?

i got confused, "the undergraduate women sampled at the two
universities"

i have a problem with the surveyed knowing the topic beforehand, that skewes the results in my eyes.

it sounds like they diddn't even sample undergraduate men

Scrool to 3.1.3 and look at the bottom of exhibit 3-1

Yes they did

wait wait what @I AM ERROR how the fuck are you supposed to make a survey without having a topic 🤔

- beforehand -

so like

you can't research your domain?

no

@I AM ERROR, you want them to ambush people with a rape survey?

@I AM ERROR, that would literally never get past IRB and for good reason

i think what he is attempting to say is that the people who did the survey were p-hacking (which i agree)

no

@ping, i see literally 0 evidence of that.

well the vauge questions, for one

you recruit them first, then give them info in what the survey is about and then have them take the survey...

they diddn't break them down

a ton of things were grouped in the same question

that's not really p-hacking

I don't think their questions are overly vague

well you can't know how much breaking them down affects the results because they diddn't do that

you are needlessly throwing away information

@I AM ERROR, i don't mind that methodology, but they still have to be able to leave the survey after finding out what it is

sure

@ping I haven't looked nearly closely enough to know what the effects of their filters were'

but they shouldn't be able to sign up BECAUSE of the topic

@I AM ERROR, agreed, that is a flaw in the survey. It's far from disqualifying, but its a problem

see, i can see flaws without working in the field myself 😉 if it's disqualifying... to me it is in this instance but that depends on the topic really...

@I AM ERROR, I never said you couldn't criticize the study. You can and should do that with all information presented to you

@I AM ERROR, you should be less certain of your critiques

Its hard to say what the effects of that were and its unfair to just disregard the study. Here is the thing. If you issue a survey at a college with 20k people

And get 2k responses

And 20% of them are affirmative

i'm never certain of any of my critiques because i never assume that i have all the needed information

Then you know for sure

that 20% of 2k people

reported sexual violence

('were raped seems strong)

And so you know a minimum rate for the campus (the absurd case in which every victim responded)

maybe i'm blind... is there a list with the exact questions asked and qualifiers if necessary?

idk let me see

3.1.3 and 3.2.2 should be of interest to you

and 6.2 and 6.3 perhaps

afaik there is no posting of the survey

How about they just don't go out and get drunk around a bunch of guys they don't know?
Any personal responsibility there?

Going out and getting drunk is a choice.

With a consequence all of society knows about.

being drunk? puking?

@JadenFrostwolf Yes people should consider that this stuff happens and should temper the actions accordingly, that doesn't excuse rape.

Oh come on, I don't think *anyone* says what I just did to "excuse" rape, and to try to say that I was doing so is disingenuous.

"None of the five measures of substance use since entering college were statistically
associated with being a victim of forced sexual assault during college."

hard to believe, but it's there

@JadenFrostwolf Sounds a lot like that since no one was having a conversation about rape prevention and you chimed in with what sounds like victim blaming

how would i know the accuracy of the study if i don't know the survey questions?

Not victim blaming, just people being responsible.

"the large majority of victims of sexual assault are victimized by men they know and
trust, rather than strangers. " <- from the study

yeah the most significant factor was being in a relationship with some form of physical/verbal/mental abuser

True, I shouldn't have said 'they don't know' because I remember learning about that in class, but my point about being weary still stands.

so... back to prohibition?

Yeah, *totally* what I'm advocating...

@JadenFrostwolf I guess what i mean is it sounds like you are saying that women should accept rape as a fact of life. Idk how i feel about a statement like that. It is a fact of life but we definitely shouldn't accept it

I think the reason that the "take responsibility" argument exists and is so controversial is partly due to the fact that going and getting drunk is NOT significant in the sexual assault increases occurring on college campuses

well if you can't get drunk around people you know and trust, why not just outlaw alcohol altogether... and yes i'm being sarcastic.

ie. most drunk girls dont call rape, its very low

Can you stop building up strawmen? I never said nor meant "it's a fact of life", especially one that can't be prevented or anything. I'm just saying that there is a level of awareness and critical thinking you should apply before being exposed to this kinds of situations in the first place.

As with just about any other situation based on surroundings.

Then why was the discussion earlier about alcohol if it wasn't a factor?

@JadenFrostwolf I never said what you are saying, i never constructed a strawman. I am simply telling you what i am reading from your comment. That is all.

@JadenFrostwolf If that is all you meant, i agree.

see THATS a good question, why do both sides center around alcohol/parties, when its clearly an abusive relationship thing

Actually we were just discussing the meaning of a question related to alcohol

@pukeblood, I haven't reviewed this study in a long time. Are you talking about the CSA study?

yeah

Mkay, and to be honest, there were so many messages I skimmed through them and didn't read them in-depth. I didn't know what was already discussed and such.

Okay, all we were discussing was whether drunkenness was something that barred consent according to the study

according to WHO it does, but if substance use isnt significantly associated with an increase, then most people attending parties/using substances have an understanding about drunk sex and it not being so black and white as the louder, more vindictive claimants of sexual assault make it out to be

Nah, I know there are people that full-on victim blame, and I know it can seem like that is what I was saying. Sorry for the misunderstanding, since again, all I was saying was that there to essentially just be cautious and think about the future/what could happen. Obviously, this doesn't apply if things go or events take place which you did not originally account for.

@pukebood WHO source?

world health org

i know, i'm asking for where to look specifically

http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/global_campaign/en/chap6.pdf

Yeah, there is that too: a lot of the time I hear feminists going on about the "1 in 5" statistic, they also usually drum up alcohol and parties. I think maybe that is why I jumped into that topic, since it is the one that is usually being discussed on this issue, on both sides.

@JadenFrostwolf That CSA study is the source of the 1 in 5 stat

"It may also occur when the
person aggressed is unable to give consent – for
instance, while drunk, drugged, asleep or mentally
incapable of understanding the situation."

Yeah.

considering the following qualifiers, you need to be *pretty* drunk

but they dont extrapolate on that, which has probably caused some issue

@pukeblood, i interpret that to mean that alcohol can negat consent, which i agree with. You don't think that it means it must right? That is to say that being drunk means you can't consent full stop.

Degree and context matter

Yeah. There's a difference between having a couple drinks or smoking some pot, and being five bottles in and doing a much harder substance.

And even then id hesitate to call consensual sex with a long term boyfriend with whom you do hard drugs assault

I dont see how I couldve been interpreted as 1 drink = no agency