> And did anyone write a long, statistics-citing rant about how unnecessary it is to warn people about this? I suspect the answer is no, and in fact no one did.
You're getting the sides of the issues confused here.
The conference organizers' statement about pick pockets was essentially victim blaming. They were telling people how to behave in order not to become victims of a crime. The equivalent statement within the rape context would be something like telling women not to wear "provocative" clothing in order to avoid being raped.
My point was that there tends to be outrage about this kind of victim blaming when it comes to rape, but not when it comes to other crimes. SJWs (for lack of a better term) don't feel the need to gang up on people who give advice to tourists to avoid getting mugged; they don't feel the need to call the conference organizers from my example "mugging apologists". Why is that?
And for what it's worth, the analogy to the statistics-citing rant would be somebody who reacts to conference organizers putting out statements about how attendees should not steal each others' wallets as if that was a common problem at conferences.
Obviously conference organizers never make such statements in reality because it would be kind of ridiculous, given that the incidence rate of pick pocketing among conference attendees is completely incomparable to the incidence rate of pick pocketing in society at large, but well, that kind of brings us back to the original point about incident rates of rape :)
(And just to reiterate: There's broader context in the rape case which gives me some sympathy for the double standard demonstrated by "SJWs", but I think it should still be possible to acknowledge that the double standard exists.)
I can cite statistics to create absurd conclusions and minimize points I don't like to. It's called, "being disingenuous." It is not a laudable thing simply to cite them. Statistics do not lend truth, they illustrate relationships and convey points.
> My point was that there tends to be outrage about this kind of victim blaming when it comes to rape, but not when it comes to other crimes. SJWs (for lack of a better term) don't feel the need to gang up on people who give advice to tourists to avoid getting mugged; they don't feel the need to call the conference organizers from my example "mugging apologists". Why is that?
Because rape is a heinous crime violating fundamental human rights, and yet here you are suggesting it's no more consequential than being pickpocketed.
You're getting the sides of the issues confused here.
The conference organizers' statement about pick pockets was essentially victim blaming. They were telling people how to behave in order not to become victims of a crime. The equivalent statement within the rape context would be something like telling women not to wear "provocative" clothing in order to avoid being raped.
My point was that there tends to be outrage about this kind of victim blaming when it comes to rape, but not when it comes to other crimes. SJWs (for lack of a better term) don't feel the need to gang up on people who give advice to tourists to avoid getting mugged; they don't feel the need to call the conference organizers from my example "mugging apologists". Why is that?
And for what it's worth, the analogy to the statistics-citing rant would be somebody who reacts to conference organizers putting out statements about how attendees should not steal each others' wallets as if that was a common problem at conferences.
Obviously conference organizers never make such statements in reality because it would be kind of ridiculous, given that the incidence rate of pick pocketing among conference attendees is completely incomparable to the incidence rate of pick pocketing in society at large, but well, that kind of brings us back to the original point about incident rates of rape :)
(And just to reiterate: There's broader context in the rape case which gives me some sympathy for the double standard demonstrated by "SJWs", but I think it should still be possible to acknowledge that the double standard exists.)