There’s several different conversations about SR that are going on right now and which provoke this post. As always, the objectors, deniers and condesplainers are out in force.
This chap was retweeted as part of a conversation begun by @clementine_ford:
This is what I just posted as a comment on his blog (as always I wish I’d added a few more clauses for absolute clarity, so this is a slightly improved version, especially since I’m going to link to other posts here and I didn’t there):
You’re coming at this from the wrong direction, E. The problem is not that women think that you (pl.) look like a rapist – the problem is that women know that rapists look just like you (pl.).
You’re also only doing half of the risk assessment calculus – the metric is not just how likely is it that any given man that I meet may be a rapist, the metric is also what are the consequences if my probability assessment of any given man that I meet is wrong? If I am wrong about him maybe being a rapist, then the only thing I miss out on is the possibility of an uplifting human connection that I’m not particularly seeking right now anyway, but if I am wrong about assessing that he most likely is not a rapist, then I end up raped. As a bonus, should I survive I will be interrogated by just about everybody I know on how could I have been so reckless and why wasn’t I much less trustful of somebody I didn’t even know.
BTW, women are also assessing strange men they meet as Schrödinger’s Thief, Schrödinger’s Drunk Who Vomits On New Shoes, Schrödinger’s Teller Of Long Boring Tales, and they’re also assessing every car for whether Schrödinger’s Hit And Run Driver is behind the wheel. Do those background safety checks upset you as much as Schrödinger’s Rapist? If not, why not?
N.B. YouTube is full of video rants about SR and Atheism+, as if that one concept totally defines the Atheism Plus movement. Good times.
Not a single one of these terribly upset people appear to be bothered by the fact that shops treat every customer as a potential thief, that casinos treat every gambler as a potential cheat, that schools treat every student as a potential plagiarist etc. But they’re totally being rational in their analysis, all right?
Image Credit: index-page thumbnail is a screenshot from a Pepe Le Pew cartoon, where relentlessly stalking and blithely assaulting a woman who has consistently indicated refusal and who is obviously fearful for her safety is presented over and over and over again as obviously hilarious, just a bit of fun, and nothing that anybody should be getting upset about.