undefined | Better HN

0 pointsJumpCrisscross8mo ago0 comments

> if we read the literature published by members of Collective Shout, they have in fact done this

Granted, I've skimmed, but I'm genuinely not seeing it [1].

The closest is this study [2], which counted how many times thirty-eight women "who self-identified as having experienced unwanted or non-consensual sexual experiences in relationships" and were "recruited via social media," when "given the opportunity to reflect on their experiences of [intimate partner sexual violence], with prompting to speculate about their partner’s motivations or any underlying causes for the violence" mentioned pornography. That's...that's not a study.

[1] https://www.collectiveshout.org/research

[2] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10778012209713...

0 comments

Negitivefrags8mo ago

You kind of missed the point. It doesn't matter if what they did is or isn't real science. They believe it is, and so as far as they are concerned, it's proven.

So then what? Since they really believe what they said, how can you blame them for their actions?

You might argue that since they are wrong, their beliefs should be changed. Well sure, maybe they should.

You could commission a study to confirm that, then try to persaude people. Perhaps form a collective to persuade others of that belief. Oh wait....

JumpCrisscrossOP8mo ago

> they have in fact done this. The evidence they have supports their claims

>> It doesn't matter if what they did is or isn't real science. They believe it is, and so as far as they are concerned, it's proven

There is a massive gap between someone having done something and their (wrongly) believing they've done it.

1 more reply

rpdillon8mo ago

You asked a question about what I would do if I had a belief that somebody was harming society.

Historically, my observation is that some of the most evil things ever perpetrated by humans were done in the name of trying to make society better. So I'm pretty hesitant to enforce my views on other people or even attempt to. If they were acting in good faith, this would be sort of like a Black Lives Matter type of approach that is trying to raise public awareness around an issue. But they're not acting in good faith in trying to get society to see their point of view. Instead, they are trying to go after the fulcrums of society and enforce their view using backroom deals. It's a transparent power play, and it's not in good faith: real good faith actors look at both sides of the issue, both the values and the harm, and they try to develop a balanced response. This is not what's happening here.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse