Forum Poll Says “Up To 30% of Women Raped in Canada”, Sounds Reliable

 It’s the conclusion of a poll done earlier this month by Forum Research that as many as 3-in-10 women may have been raped in Canada. An interesting claim to be certain. Made by a company with a history of serving up political polling numbers to it’s clients in the interests of drumming up business.
Yeah, the more observant among you probably noticed the “may” in that claim. There’s a reason for that. You see out of the women that they polled 17% of them said that they were raped OR sexually assaulted (remember the “OR”,this will be important in a minute) while 12% percent failed to provide an answer. This is because they either refused to take the poll, answer that specific question, didn’t pick up the phone, or some similiar reason. So if you add up the people who said yes with the people from whom there was no response you get 29%.Hence as many as 30% of women may have been raped……..
Well with that kind of crackerjack brilliant methodology and testing I can’t imagine why they aren’t the top research company in the world.
90% of statistics are false 76% of the time according to 64.832% of people.

90% of statistics are false 76% of the time according to 64.832% of people.

Now, if one were to look again at the claim made in their title, they clearly state that the number which they are putting forth is the number of rapes. However in other places within their synopsis they say sexual assault and rape. Even the questions which they asked the people who took the poll specifically asked if they had been raped or sexually assaulted. You might not understand why this is an important distinction so allow me to explain.
Sexual assault is a term that covers a large variety of possible situations, not just one specific thing. Similiar to domestic violence.
Domestic violence does not necessarily entail one partner being beaten or injured, as we often perceive. The term can easily cover an argument between a husband and wife where one partner punches a wall. Throws a dish across the room, or any number of other things. It is the same thing with sexual assault, a sexual assault could be anything from a drunken kiss on new years to sexual torture. In fact only a very small portion of sexual assault cases are what are classified as “major” sexual assaults (about 2%), ones that cause actual physical harm.
So, it’s not even 17% of women that were raped as their title claims, it’s rapes  plus sexual assaults, many of which are going to be extremely minor instances.
In 2010 there were just over 17.2 million women in Canada. So at 30% that means potentially 5.16 million women raped in Canada. Or 30,000 for every 100,00 women in this country. To put this into better perspective, the official rape rate as of 2010 was 1.7 women for every 100,000. So what they are trying to tell you is that either the real rape rate is FOUR HUNDRED-THOUSAND TIMES bigger than the reported rape rate, and somehow nobody but them noticed,or that in the last four years Canada has devolved into a place where women are raped daily on the city streets and in broad daylight in droves. 
Let me put it this way. According to the real numbers in 2010 1.7 women raped yearly out of every 100,000 translates into 292.4 rapes yearly across the country.Since the poll was dealing with a lifetime period rather than yearly let’s say look at a forty year period from age twenty to age sixty. During these forty years if the rate stays relatively steady there will be 11, 695 women raped. Now according to them the number of women raped over a lifetime period is 30,000 out of every 100,000. Meaning that there are (according to them) 5, 160,000 women raped in that forty year period.
Makes you wonder how Canadians here get anything done when we can barely manage to get an hours of work in between rape sessions.
What? Is it something in the water? Did global warming finally catch up with us and dry out portions of our brain causing massive bursts of sociopathy?
Seriously, do they really think people are this fucking stupid?
FireShot Screen Capture #312 - 'Forum Research surveys increasingly blur the line between polling and trolling I canada_com' - o_canada_com_news_forum-research-rob-ford-brandon-souris
Well apparently some of them are. Since Hope24/7 recently started using this article from on their website. Even quoting feminist Elizabeth Sheehy as saying that the figure was a “lowball” estimate. Well there’s certainly no reason that we shouldn’t trust the judgement of a woman who thinks that charging women with murdering men is “arbitrary” at best on an issue like this. Her views on the rights of women to murder their husbands in their sleep makes her perfectly suited to judge this logically and rationally.
Fucking feminists.
Furthering this polls problems is that everything about it is self-selected and reported. The respondents to the poll used their own judgement on whether anything had happened to them.Meaning that aside from the fact that we’re dealing with the unreliability of human memory there is no standardized criteria being used for rape or sexual assault.It simply is because the person answering the poll says that it is.
Speaking of standardization, there’s none in the general methodology either. Forum Research conducts its surveys using automated machines to phone selected numbers who then respond to recorded messages asking the questions. Meaning that there is no way of knowing who is actually answering these questions. The purely automated nature of these calls has also meant that in many instances with their other polls people have been called to participate multiple times,a fact even admitted to by Forums president; though not a cause for concern according to him. The president stated in an interview with the Canadian Press that “We know (automated phone polls) can work,there’s just no question about that.”
Can work, yes possibly, if one bothers to put any standards or measurements in place.As opposed to using sloppy methods to support an ideology.
FireShot Screen Capture #313 - 'Forum Research surveys increasingly blur the line between polling and trolling I canada_com' - o_canada_com_news_forum-research-rob-ford-brandon-souris
Let’s look at President Lorne Bozinoff’s final words at the end of the poll, for a moment.
“These findings quantify what has been anecdotally obvious since the Ghomeshi and Cosby affairs became news; women do not trust the authorities, nor the way their cases will be handled, enough to report something as deeply damaging as rape to the police.”
Quantify what has been anecdotally……
Seriously, fuck this guy.
Ok, here’s where he’s getting this from. In the poll the last question asked was if they reported it to the police. Of the women who said they were raped or assaulted only ten percent of them said they reported it. So he’s taking that and extrapolating it to say this is because they do not trust the police to deal with rape, which is the typical feminist line.
Nevermind that in actual studies  done by the Department of Justice women who were asked why they didn’t report gave several other explanations, such as the matter having been resolved another way, they didn’t deem it important enough (remember almost all sexual assaults are relatively minor things), or considered it to be a personal matter to be dealt with on their own. Only 18% of the women studied by the department of defense listed not trusting the police as the reason for their not reporting.
Now this is just speculation on my part, but I can’t help but notice that this is roughly the same number of women that identify as feminists. So maybe it’s actually just feminists who don’t trust the police in this matter. Or at least who say that they don’t and tell women not to trust them. Because, of course, feminists want to stop rape and all of that.
Bottom line:Forum Research does shitty research.
The whole pdf. of their research can be downloaded here:

To David Pakman,Please do Better.

(Authors Note:To be honest, this was written about a month ago and things started to happen and I got busy, so this is going to seem a little out of date because,well, it is. Still, I figured that I would toss it out there since it’s been a while,though I promise to go back to producing stuff within the next few days for certain)
Considering that we’ve been covering #gamergate recently on our videos and blog,it is rather remiss of us to be talking about a man who’s actual name is  “Pakman” without having an appropriate joke. To be honest we just couldn’t think of one without sounding lame. So we opted for simply not having one at all. Apologies.
David Pakman is the host of his own journalist/opinion show where he generally,I believe, deals with largely political topics. Over the past few weeks though he has been also covering #gamergate,though we would say not very well.
Which is not to say that he’s been unfair or biased (yes it is),it’s merely that his reasoning and journalistic skills seem somewhat…..lacking (virtually non-existent). Though this could simply be a matter of a lack of knowledge regarding the subject on his part.He does not come across as very well-informed,which I suppose goes back to his level of skills being lacking as you would think he should be informed. Regardless, that does not really matter in the context of this post. We simply wanted to be clear that we’re coming from a position of not really finding him very compelling in the first place and already being critical of him (perhaps at some point we’ll do a full post or video about it if it ever becomes desirable).
Part of it seems to be his intense unwillingness to truly question the narrative. Despite the fact that I consistently see others in #Gamergate praising his neutrality (to whom I can only shake my head in wonder at how they look at the world) he’s very much of the same cloth as the rest of Anti-GG. The one difference being that he can still at least tolerate the presence of alternate ideas. Even if he can’t actually listen to and process them. See his video interview with Karen Straughn if you want an example of this.
The reality that his fans in GG don’t really want to realize is that Pakman is not a journalist.He’s a commentator, a pundit, he is pushing an agenda and peddling an opinion. All you have to do is look at the actual substance of his coverage of GG.Or, more accurately, look at what of substance is not presented. He says that there is harassment on both sides of the aisle in GG, but neglects to mention that none of the harassment blamed on GG has actually been shown to have come from it. No mention of the Harassment Patrol GG established to police the harassers on both sides, their attempts to protect Anita and their chasing down of those who harassed her and Brianna Wu, etc. All of these are very important facts that any decent journalist would bring up.He never does. Nor does he address much of the more egregious behaviour and comments of his co-feminist and SJW’s.
It kind of says a sad thing about the state of journalism and it’s coverage in the mainstream media when a hack like Pakman is considered to have journalistic integrity.
But that’s for another time, let’s move on.
Regardless however, #gamergate is only tangential in regards to what we’re taking issue with here.
Yesterday he uploaded an interview that he conducted with the comedian Dave Rubin titled “Are Progressives Disagreeing About Progressive Principles?” in which they talked about a recent incident where Sam Harris and Bill Maher were labelled as racists for making comments about how bad Islam is. You may watch the actual video below.

Essentially what they’re edging towards trying to discuss is what’s known as horseshoe theory. Basically the idea that the political spectrum is not actually a line as we’re generally taught in schools,but much more closely can be represented by a horseshoe where, as  you get farther from the center the ends become closer together.That is,the far right and the far left start to have more and more in common. I don’t know if either of them are aware of the term,but that’s what they’re trying to discuss.
Look, let’s make one statement clear before we get into this whole business here.We are not progressives,or conservatives,or libertarians, or anything.We are whateverthefuckisthemostrationalandintelligentsolutionians. Unfortunately you’d be amazed at how hard that is to stick on a campaign pin. So we have no political opposition to any person on any side. Our only opposition is in direct proportion to the intelligence/rationality of what is being proposed. A stupid/smart idea is a stupid/smart idea,no matter where you are on the political spectrum.
Now that we have that disclaimer out of the way,let’s continue.
Now much of what they are saying is actually a series of valid points about these people who call themselves “progressive”. The problem arises at approximately the 9:38 mark where it seems that they’re incapable of taking their own advice.
Pakman:”And I think it’s fair to say that you have concerns about the sort of “Neo-atheists”, in terms of misogyny.Are they not open to female voices?Those are all legitimate specific concerns that we could get into.”
Needless to say this is where our cranium started impacting violently against our keyboard. What follows after did not help either, but we’ll get to that in a moment.
No, Mr.Pakman, it is not fair to say that there are concerns about “Neo-atheists” (which incidentally is a conservative-christian term,whereas you were talking about them being on the left,but whatever) and misogyny. It is entirely unfair to say that because there never was any misogyny, even a hint of it. The misogyny claims came from a collection of insane feminists and “progressives” trying to push forward an agenda.
Before we go on,allow me to make a point clear here.
Earlier in the video, Mr.Rubin made an offhand remark in regards to the racism claims to the effect of “Pft,whatever that is actually supposed to mean”. Essentially referencing something that is often pointed out in criticism of progressives; namely that they use certain words so broadly that they really have no meaning. They only serve to stir up negative feelings on the part of the listener, who then projects those feelings onto the intended target. In thought reform it’s referred to as ‘loading the language’,and I plan to get to this at some point in the future as well.
This is the same thing that you are doing with misogyny. Is,in fact, the same thing that progressives typically do with misogyny.
To be misogynistic, is to display a hatred, mistrust and/or dislike for all women. Progressives generally use the word to mean “something bad happened to a woman, which may or may not have been bad, and may or may not have been because she was a woman,but it happened to a woman and I don’t like that it happened”.
Now, let’s take the so-called misogynistic death threats that women like Anita and Brianna Wu claim to receive,and for the sake of argument let’s say that they are actually real and not faked by the women in question.
The threats that they receive, at least such ones have been shown, are threats and bad comments made about these women. I freely grant that. Are they, however, misogynistic? To my knowledge neither of these two women are a representative sample of all women. Furthermore to my knowledge there is nothing in these threats that indicates that they are being delivered because they are women at all. These are people in the public sphere who have blatantly lied, conned, and outright slandered various large groups of people. Perhaps that has something to do with the threats and insults that they receive, rather than them being women.
So to say that there is misogyny is simply not borne out by any evidence. Or at least none that anyone has cared to provide. All of these claims of misogyny are made by progressives, like you apparently,slinging the word around without concern for its meaning or effect.
The same is true for what you’re calling “Neo-Atheism”. There never was any misogyny. There were a bunch of progressives screaming misogyny at people who opposed their ideas. You heavily betray yourself as little better than those you are criticizing when you do things like this.
If you really want to project yourself as being the fair and balanced voice of reason, you should really put some effort into acting like it.

AResponse to David Pakman

 David Pakman recently did a video detailing his opinions on #gamergate. Nothing new or original really, pretty much what I expected from a  Social Justice Warrior like him. There were a lot half-truths, lies, misrepresentations, and glaring omissions. It’s an interesting thing though watching other people on #gamergate look to him as a neutral and unbiased source when he very clearly isn’t. Certainly he’s less-biased than the average SJW, but he’s still very clearly an SJW and in lock-step with their ideology and viewpoints. All you have to do is look at his other videos on similiar subjects to see that. There seems to be a confusion being made between being willing to hear both sides and being neutral.
Despite people in #gamergate consistently saying that they want no leaders or “e-celebs”, they still seem to develop followings around people and they will defend those people against all criticism. On /r/KotakuinAction we got labelled a shill and downvoted to oblivion after pointing out some of Pakmans flaws as a journalist (although he really isn’t a journalist, more of a commentator). Not argued against, just called a shill and downvoted. It is inevitable,we suppose, to form these attachments to people. Even in a movement that you specifically want to remain leaderless and without cults of personality, they’ll emerge anyways because people are people and will inevitably look to others. We’re really no better,
But no matter.This video is a response to Pakman’s video, that we tried to keep under twenty minutes long. There were a lot of other problems that we had, and maybe we’ll do a second review to point them out, but there’s already another article we’re writing on another interview that he did (unrelated to #gamergate itself) and we don’t want to devote too much to him.
As usual there is a button to the youtube channel and to subscribe if you’d like.