@Background Pony  
It was the same kind of argument used against violent media, e.g. utter shit.

I know it’s a tad late, but a Tumblr user by the name of “Do you really need Feminism?” already kind of debunked that article.
 
http://doyoureallyneedfeminism.tumblr.com/post/59824425299/scientific-evidence-rape-jokes-cause-rape

I really, REALLY hate that article, because I KNOW I’m going to have to refute it in its entirety at some point.
 
Talk about proof by verbosity. At least with the one “study” that’s floating around, I can point to how terrible the methodology was, the intent of the researchers to prove their point, the fact that it’s actually a student paper (and not actually a study), and the fact that the actual results were nowhere near statistically significant (and actually went the opposite way much more strongly in the case of the stranger rape groups).

The only thing that bothers me about this is that it really appears that nobody who is criticizing Molestia has seen the blog at all

This article is bad, and you should feel bad.

@Juniper1  
That whole article was a joke. Certainly the word scientific.

There’s also, technically, a rape joke in this article:
 
“So, does hearing rape jokes lead people to rape? Well, that is difficult to assess, as it would require scientists to allow people to get raped (which is relatively unethical… depending on your predisposed attitudes towards rape). “
 
‘Scientists getting raped is a fucking joke to you’?

“Where this can lead to problems is when comics do material on the topics of rape or sexism. We’ll get into the motivations of why comedians do this type of material later, but, because our brain is in humor mode, we’ll lap up whatever opinions a comedian proposes. For instance, if a comedian says a joke to the effect of: “Hispanics are lazy”, or “Black people are stupid”, or “Women are asking to be raped”, the response falls in one of three categories in the audience:
 
CATEGORY 1: “HA! THAT’S SO TRUE!” (genuine laugh)  
CATEGORY 2: “I DIDN’T KNOW THAT, BUT SINCE MOST PEOPLE THINK IT’S FUNNY, IT MUST BE TRUE!” (genuine laugh, or feigned laugh to support genuine laugh of CATEGORY 1)  
CATEGORY 3: “WHAT THE F***? THAT’S NOT TRUE!” (no laugh, brain switches back on to serious mode)”
 
I was sincerely giving the study a chance until I got to this point. What the fuck? There’s a lot of humor to be had in breaking taboo inherently (from Lenny Bruce to Anthony Jeselnik); there’s humor in embracing absurdism; there’s times where the comedian himself is the butt of the joke while ostensibly doing humor that’s offensive (see: Seth MacFarlane); humor and seeing x & y combined in ways that we aren’t used to (this is why, say, that Cupcakes animated youtube video with the dancing is funny to some). I’m not a neuro-scientist or anything, but these three categories really do not seem, to me, to encapsulate how people respond to the use of offensive material in humor as they’ve written it here.
 
If this is the coding they used for understanding offensive humor, that’s absolutely idiotic. You don’t need to actually think Hispanics are lazy to laugh at a joke in which that is utilized. SOME might; some comedians might sincerely be going for it - but implying it ONLY works this way is just moronic.

I would like to say this officially destroyed any credibility he had, but that would imply he had any at any point.

This “science” is being scoffed at by a rape victim IN FAVOR of rape jokes. Clearly this got pass his logic center somehow. There was no blind study, no numbers or values, it was like looking at pseudo-science from the Enquirer. Not to mention, studying comedians from decades ago won’t help here. In 20 years(1990 by the date of the so-called study), there will already be a new generation of adults,comedians, and events to craft jokes. By this article, I can look to a study made in 1945 to defend running over animals in the street. So long as I don’t do any actual work and hire scientists or psychologists to debunk my theory.

@SocDev  
I will make all the stained glass windows recreations of children’s drawings of the most gruesome caliber.

@SocDev  
I really like this idea. There are no rules, everything can be symbolic, and above all, chaos is the only reason.

@Mayojar77
 
Take a paper  
Draw something on it  
Place it on the wall with a clip or something anywhere on the church
 
Symbolism!

@Alalic
 
If you want in on the Discordian Society
 
then declare yourself what you wish  
do what you like  
and tell us about it  
or  
if you prefer  
don’t.
 
There are no rules anywhere.  
The Goddess Prevails.
 
Oh my, i am in love.

@SocDev  
And none of this ‘Symbolism’ nonsense, right?

@flyingtarantulas
 
Ahh, a lover of the chaos theory. I want you as my bishop.
 
 
@Mayojar77
 
You can also divorce people for no reason, use your hands to collect donations and drink all the wine you want.

@flyingtarantulas  
@SocDev  
@Mayojar77  
There’s a religion dedicated to the (Greco-Roman) God of Chaos: Discordianism.  
I have no idea how it works.

@SocDev  
Can I be a priest? I just want to say ‘By the power invested in me by the infinite cacophony of the universe, I now pronounce you man and werewolf’.

@SocDev  
I’m rather apathetic to what is happening. I personally think this whole thing started out as a troll move.
 
And if you do start that religion, I’ll join. I love the chaos of the universe.

@flyingtarantulas
 
I personally love everything that is happening. I love chaos.
 
………I should totally make a temple for discord and start a religion.

@SocDev  
True. Some people just hate.

@Prof.NightJack  
Ah, so the only evidence they can cite so far is a joke?
 
That fits so well.

@flyingtarantulas
 
You are giving them too much credit.  
Some people just want to watch the world burn.

@Zincy  
Of course not. I think a lot of people want to blame small things like video games and jokes because they can’t deal with reality. They can’t accept the fact that humans are just fucked up, so they have to find a logical reason for it.

@flyingtarantulas
 
Arson, murder, and jaywalking!