Thursday, December 18, 2014

UUUUGGGGHHHHHHHHH

[TRIGGER WARNING: RAPE, RAPE CULTURE]

I am so so so so so so so sososososossososoSOSOSOSO TIRED OF HAVING TO POST ABOUT THIS KIND OF SHIT.

Dalhousie University probes misogynistic student 'Gentlemen's Club'

In one post, members were polled and asked, "Who would you hate f--k?" They were given two names to vote on. 
Another post shows a woman wearing a bikini. The caption says, "Bang until stress is relieved or unconscious (girl)."

WHAT RAPE CULTURE HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA BYE.

14 comments:

Matthew Lane said...

"I am so so so so so so so sososososossososoSOSOSOSO TIRED OF HAVING TO POST ABOUT THIS KIND OF SHIT."

Then by all means stop posting about it.... Especially since the thing you seem to be offended by is that somewhere in the world there are men who "shock and horror" are saying things you are offended by, in jest.

Lindsey Weedston said...

Wow man "it's just a joke" what an original thought, A+, never heard that excuse before.


And I mean it's not like there's a direct correlation between making rape jokes and holding beliefs that make you more likely to rape women OH WAIT THAT IS THE CASE EXACTLY.


I'm going to post about it more just to spite you.

Matthew Lane said...

"And I mean it's not like there's a direct correlation between making rape jokes and holding beliefs that make you more likely to rape women OH WAIT THAT IS THE CASE EXACTLY."

Firstly, no their isn't, secondly cum hoc ergo proptor hoc.... There's a direct correlation between people who have eaten breakfast in their life time & people who have committed genocide too: Is your solution to that that we ban breakfast?

Jokes do not make you more likely to rape someone.

"I'm going to post about it more just to spite you."

Yeah that'll teach me, I've been told now, oh how I'm going to hate um.... ah.... How exactly is it you think you continuing to write about something is going to punish me exactly?

Lindsey Weedston said...

Aw, how cute, you precious little flower bud. You think I don't understand the basics of correlational research. Super cute.

Firstly, your one memorized Latin phrase is spelled wrong. Second, you guys are so predictable. The moment a correlational study doesn't go in your favor, you act like anything showing correlation is useless. But in this case, no matter what the cause, you lose.

This is not like a study that shows a correlation between marijuana use and cancer. Obviously marijuana doesn't cause cancer. Cancer patients are just more likely to use marijuana to manage symptoms. In this case, I'm arguing that rape jokes are correlated with pro-rape attitudes. Which is very much true:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1018868913615



In this case, either making/appreciating rape jokes makes you more likely to hold pro-rape attitudes, or people with pro-rape attitudes make more rape jokes.


And remember, we're talking about a Facebook page full of rape jokes that you're saying I shouldn't be upset about because they're "just jokes." Yet, either way, it's terrible. Because either making and allowing these jokes will contribute to more rape, or the Facebook page is full of men who are totally cool with rape already!


Why shouldn't I be concerned, again?


And it's people like you who are trying to say that men who are okay with rape are sooooo RARE, yet here you are accidentally arguing that all the men making these jokes are exactly that.


But, perhaps lucky for you, it makes a lot more sense that rape jokes contribute to pro-rape attitudes. Morbid jokes serve to distance oneself from terrible realities, yes? These jokes in particular from this frat Facebook page were incredibly dehumanizing of women. There are loads of studies and general academic consensus that dehumanizing victims makes it easier to harm, whether we're talking about rape, murder, genocide, enslavement, etc. You may have heard about the tendency for oppressors to refer to their victims as animals? So it makes sense that jokes like the ones on said Facebook page, which those frat boys clearly knew were terrible since they tried to hide them, would make one more likely to rape, because they help you to view women as less human.


Are you quite aware of how wrong you are now? I think I'll make an entire post soon just about how wrong you are, because I know it will upset you, no matter how hard you try to convince everyone that it won't. Obviously you want me to stop writing about this stuff, or why would you have even bothered to leave a comment?

Matthew Lane said...

LOL a Gish gallop of logical fallacies? Really?

There is no evidence whatsoever that jokes about something makes that something more common place.
This is just a fact you are going to have to learn to accept, because those jokes are going to continue, no matter how often you try to invent speech codes to assuage your own ego.

Lindsey Weedston said...

Wow, I hand you actual scientific evidence of your wrongness, and all you can say is "logical fallacies?" How many fedoras do you own?


If you don't have an argument, just don't bother commenting.

Matthew Lane said...

No you actually didn't.... You are handing me the idea that you have scientific evidence, which is the same as me saying "science has proven that Lindsey Weedston has sex with hamsters."

See how no actual study was cited, that's because I didn't actually offer you one, I simply offered you the IDEA that such a study exists, even though no such study actually exists, let alone a peer reviewed or meta reviewed study.

As for Fedoras what does a fedora have to do with this discussion exactly?

Lindsey Weedston said...

Lmao. Did you not read my second response at all? I literally cited an actual study. Stop trying, you're embarrassing yourself.

Matthew Lane said...

But you didn't cite a study, you cited an abstract for a study.... You have no idea what conclusions were drawn from that study, so the point still stands.

Lindsey Weedston said...

Here's a tip: Read the abstract.

Matthew Lane said...

Here's a tip: Read the entire article, not just the abstract, because the abstract doesn't tell you what they actually found. For that you'd actually have to see the actual study in all it nuance.

Especially since its since been refuted in "Humor as an Optics: Bergson and the Ethics of Humor." A study FYI that you can read ALL of.

Lindsey Weedston said...

Um, that's not a study. It's just a paper. Written by some nobody. You don't even seem to know what a study is, or an abstract. An abstract of an actual study summarizes its findings, as the study I cited does.


It's impressive how wrong you've been in such a short amount of time.

Matthew Lane said...

"Um, that's not a study. It's just a paper."

I didn't call it a study, as a paper is all that is required to refute a studies flaws. So we come full circle to your correlative study not being a sufficient study (it being correlative & not causative) & freedom of speech still being freedom of speech, even if you personally find the speech to be undesirable.

As for what an Abstract is, an abstract is a brief summary of a research article, thesis, review, conference proceeding or any in-depth analysis of a particular subject or discipline, and is often used to help the reader quickly ascertain the paper's purpose. It is not a conclusion.

Lindsey Weedston said...

Yeah, you can't "refute" a study with some high school level "philosophy" paper that lists a bunch of boring opinions about how humor works. The fact is that many studies show how dehumanization makes it easier to harm, and jokes like the ones posted on the frat's Facebook page are clearly dehumanizing.

Also, again, hilarious how people like you will only say that correlative studies are not "sufficient" when they say things you don't like. Fact is, studies like this are generally accepted as useful to the larger picture in psychological research and theory.

"Freedom of speech" LOL sorry you don't understand how the 1st Amendment works, that must be so embarrassing for you.

And finally, abstracts also summarize conclusions. Seriously, did you actually read the abstract of the study I cited? Because it literally summarized the results. You are making this all WAY too easy.

Seriously, you want more studies on this subject? Here's one:

http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp13_10.pdf



They're not hard to find. Not that it really matters because the point stands that whatever the cause of the correlation, it's still fucked up. Either rape jokes make more rapists or there are a hell of a lot of rapists making jokes that you seem adamant to defend. What's that say about you?