[ SECRET POST #2638 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2638 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 055 secrets from Secret Submission Post #377.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Going to chime in here, you do know that isn't actually true? I worked for the police as a dispatcher/jailer for 2 years. I know the internet has filled your head full of lies about "rape culture" and such, but if that happens it is by far the exception, not the rule.

And when someone is murdered of COURSE they want to know why the victim was there and whether or not the victim did something to prompt the murder (which can help find motive and thus the killer).

Though if your house gets robbed, that is one case where police do ask if you did something like that. "Were your doors locked? Do you have any place that would be easy access?", etc.

[(Anonymous)]

"filled your head full of lies about 'rape culture' and such"

Ooh, scare quotes!

[(Anonymous)]

da

Regardless, among non-law enforcement, those are the questions that are asked.

[(Anonymous)]

your experience working for cops is not equatable to the thousands of stories rape victims have told about their experiences after being raped

i mean good god how is that hard to understand

[(Anonymous)]

it's not the internet telling "lies," it's people like me living our lives as a statistic because the police, the courts, the justice system in general is too corrupt and incompetent to put violent people away. when i was raped, people asked those questions. when my friends were raped, they were asked the same things too. and none of our rapists saw any jail time for their violence. how is that an exception, and not the rule, when only 3 out of every 100 rapists ever sees any amount of jail time?

[(Anonymous)]

You got some backup for that random statistic?

[(Anonymous)]

She probably got it from some Tumblr post she saw. Which means it is true! This is one of my favs.

http://logicd.tumblr.com/post/79924475029

[(Anonymous)]

I am now dying of joy. Thank you. I seriously just... HATE the bad stats that float around about rape for OMG SHOCK VALUE or IDEK what.

If I see that UK "study" post one more time I might actually give up my goal of not engaging in b.s. on tumblr, because I will probably lose my shit for real.

[(Anonymous)]

Someone also commented that if you look at it, the size of the figures changes from one side to the other. Like, literally the size of the pictures. This helps enforce their stupid statistics.

[vethica]

I don't know if we're listening to RAINN or not, but: https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not. I mean, I have no bone to pick with them as I don't know enough to have any stance, but slapping some footnoted numbers on an infographic does not persuasive statistics make. And when you look at the footnotes, their data is coming from a pretty deeply flawed source, and they're presenting it with no contextual explanation to help people understand where these supposed percentages are coming from. They've in fact (deliberately, I imagine, given the stated goal of the organization) cast the "data" in the light that makes it most inaccurate and most eye-grabbing.

Sorry. I hate dishonest manipulation of statistics, especially when it weakens an important point by making it look like the truth has to be massaged because it doesn't actually support what's being claimed.

[(Anonymous)]

this isn't dishonest manipulation of statistics. if you actually follow up on their sources you'll note that they are institutional in nature. it's essentially census data that can be backed up.

i think it's really shitty that some of you are so hellbent on blaming women for their own rapes, doubting them and acting like rape culture doesn't permeate society, that you'd rather sit there and whine about legitimate sources being provided for you than acknowledge that rapists are all over the place and no, most of them do not ever sit a moment in jail for their heinous actions.

[(Anonymous)]

i think it's really shitty that some of you are so hellbent on blaming women for their own rapes

Who here is blaming women for their own rapes? I don't see anyone doing that.

Here's why people want legitimate sources (the ayrt already explained, but let me see if I can rephrase it): when bad sources are used to prove things like this, it provides ammunition for the other side. I'm guessing you haven't seen rape deniers/apologists point to the use of bogus stats to discredit feminists and victims' advocates, but I definitely have. Shit, I saw a columnist in the Wall Street Journal do it, back when the Obama administration first started trying to take the military to task for its piss-poor handling of sexual assault.

Good sources help us. Bad sources hurt us.

I would also add that accurate information is more useful for solving problems. Bogus stats can behave like red herrings and drive attention away from the central issue. I'm not saying that that's necessarily what's going on here, but given that the potential is there, we need to be savvy.

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, well, I never once blamed anyone -- man or woman -- for his or her own rape. Never. One. Single. Time. So I don't really know why on earth you're suddenly on about that.

But here, I'll throw you a bone: "deeply flawed source" was poorly chosen wording in its ambiguity and failure to convey my real meaning. It's not that the source itself is untrustworthy or assailable or doing anything wrong. IT'S THAT THE DATA BEING REPORTED IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO HOW RAINN IS TRYING TO USE IT. It is a flawed source for the purpose it is being wielded. SURVEYS that poll people by some sampling method about unreported crime events in their lives (in which sexual assaults were actually lumped in with other types of violent crime for a long time, so that data couldn't even be properly differentiated) cannot be put on the same scale as actual review of actual reported cases and actual investigation records and actual court proceedings and actual verdicts and actual sentences. The former is not a part of the documented record; the latter is. They are apples and oranges, statistically speaking, and mashing them all together is dishonest.

And dishonesty makes for a liar. You know, someone who shouldn't be trusted in their arguments about things? And who make me, in considering the cause they're advocating for, seriously wonder whether the problem is with the CAUSE if a lie is necessary for it. And frankly, FUCK people who invite that cloud of suspicion on the serious and legitimate issues that surround rape and give misogynist assholes their talking points. Excuse me for caring enough to be pissed at liars doing damage to the legitimacy of the message.

[(Anonymous)]

yes.

http://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates

this is from a legitimate source that has cited all of their research references, whereas the other anon's source is from a misogynist's tumblr and has no statistical or logical basis.