but I know there are people believing the second version too.
Who, and how do you know?
What rough probability would you assign to a random feminist woman thinking this? What about a feminist woman on LW?
ETA: Let’s assume submitter A has at least average intelligence (usually a reasonable claim on LW). Then she must know that LW has many more men than women. She likely also knows that this series exists in part to give those men potentially new information.
Suppose she believes version #2. Then she thinks most of her audience would torture women if they knew they could get away with it. If, like many feminists, she believes rapists have a low conviction rate, she must think the fraction of men committing rape far exceeds the observed figure—or that it would if we knew the truth. (Note by the way that the 6% figure appears in feminist sources.) Why would she tell us any of this? If she thinks we already know, why doesn’t she denounce the whole series as a sham? If she thinks we don’t know, did she mean to encourage us in our supposed dream of raping and hurting women while holding a respectable job? What, other than anti-feminist tribalism or the assumption of bad faith, could make #2 seem like a reasonable interpretation of the text? If you thought it was almost certainly wrong, but wanted more clarity in the future, you failed to make that clear.
Who, and how do you know?
What rough probability would you assign to a random feminist woman thinking this? What about a feminist woman on LW?
ETA: Let’s assume submitter A has at least average intelligence (usually a reasonable claim on LW). Then she must know that LW has many more men than women. She likely also knows that this series exists in part to give those men potentially new information.
Suppose she believes version #2. Then she thinks most of her audience would torture women if they knew they could get away with it. If, like many feminists, she believes rapists have a low conviction rate, she must think the fraction of men committing rape far exceeds the observed figure—or that it would if we knew the truth. (Note by the way that the 6% figure appears in feminist sources.) Why would she tell us any of this? If she thinks we already know, why doesn’t she denounce the whole series as a sham? If she thinks we don’t know, did she mean to encourage us in our supposed dream of raping and hurting women while holding a respectable job? What, other than anti-feminist tribalism or the assumption of bad faith, could make #2 seem like a reasonable interpretation of the text? If you thought it was almost certainly wrong, but wanted more clarity in the future, you failed to make that clear.
I agree with the reasoning in the last paragraph. So just to answer your question:
see the Swedish documentary “The Gender War”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yta55u2zP2U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb2fcl4e3UI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkgE4YSArIA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffaoPCWGIjI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f98fY7NDKM8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hgxHaSqzn4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isMK21PY7wc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfIHJkvag8k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKTlv2a35ZM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H50mgIXVj5U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02EfQvqFtoM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKKVb_vJ2Bc