When someone tries to get me outraged over something, I do quick distance and magnitude checks. In another country, involving people I've never heard of, involving low-level government officials doing something less bad than murder, which I couldn't plausibly affect in any way? Caring would be a mistake; if my outrage threshold were that low, I'd never do anything but fume.

I'm not a big fan of the phrasing of your poll - I'd prefer if it was directly asking about approval / disapproval rather than "positive/rational" versus "negative/irrational"; it's not obvious what "rational" would mean in a context like this, beyond being generally positive in this community.

The"Liberal/Secular/Scientific" and "Libertarian/Atheist/Technophile" phrasing also seems weird to me - is there really a split between "secular" and "atheist", and is it really correlated with politics? Same for "scientific" and "technophile" :P

My general impression from the "Slutwalk" you describe is that it's more about "Yay sluts boo uptight cops and judges" than about actually reducing rape - do many attendees seem to expect a drop in rape incidence as a result of their action? IS your question about whether going "Yay sluts" is a good thing in general (which would seem to be highly function of the current status of sluts in Canadian society, a subject I know very little about), or whether it's an efficient way to reduce rape?

(Edit) Actually, a better framing might be that some judges / cops considered "boo sluts" as a way to reduce rape, and sluts responded to the status attack by going "no, it's not a good way - yay sluts!". Less focus on the status attack and more on alternative ways of reducing rape (A "Sluts With Knives" march?) might have been better.

I don't understand the history of this issue and any broader significance it has for humans, but I do have a suggestion: the general idea behind this event is:

• Bad humans use characteristic X to infer Y, justifying (in their minds, and in rhetoric directed at others) act Z.
• Most humans regard Z as bad, though differ in what specific acts constitute Z.
• A group of humans intend to overload the search space with datapoints that satisfy X but not Y, in an attempt to destroy the mutual information between X and Y, and thereby further diminish the ability of the bad humans to justify Z through X.

You should first form your opinion with out know the referents of X, Y, and Z, nor who the activist group and "bad humans" are, and only afterward, decide whether, once you know these items, you support this strategy. The mapping is, of course:

X = female human wearing "slut"-type attire
Y = female human consenting to recreational mating with a male human
Z = rape of a human female by a human male
bad humans = male human rapists
activist group = female humans attempting to destroy the mutual information between X and Y by setting X to true for themselves, yet also making Y obviously false

Or did I misinterpret this situation entirely? Human sociology is still a weak point in my inferential engine.

I agree with the people who say Liberal/Secular/Scientific vs. Libertarian/Atheist/Technophile is a bad categorization. I identify as all 6.

I was once heavily involved in the midwest anti-war movement, so I can say this sort of noisy public protest is useful mostly for either fun/socializing or networking.

For the networking aspect, the slutwalk will only be useful if you're pursuing a career in professional feminism. If your career isn't in some specifically left-wing aspect of academia, it may be actively harmful for your career and social life, since in conventional society, affiliating with sluttiness is low-status. More likely, there will be basically no effect, since unless you publicize it, colleagues and friends are unlikely to know.

The fun/socializing aspect must be judged on a person-to-person basis. If you agree with the political perspective, you may enjoy it. But don't be fooled into thinking this is an effective way of getting utilons.

This makes your poll question pointless. Are you asking whether slutwalks are a good way of generating utility? (No.) Are you asking whether participating in slutwalks is a good idea? (This depends on whether you would personally enjoy it, or if it would benefit your career.) Are you asking whether slutwalks will be effective at reducing harassment? (Almost certainly not.)

The categorization seems very weird. The word clusters basically sound like you'd be describing the same group in an out-group context, but would either want to frame them in a generally positive and inoffensive or a somewhat suspicious light. I have a hard time seeing this as an actual actionable classification and not a framing trick.

I've got no idea whatsoever if the event is a good idea or not. This whole post seems a bit arbitrary for such a potential comment thread can of worms though.

Most demo organisers I know are quite upfront about the fact that they a tool for recruitment and networking rather than PR . They don't use those terms obviously but criticise groups like Stop the War which don't have a clear strategy beyond the protest, and focus on speeches more than route when police interference isn't an issue. Anti-fascist counter-protests are the only example I can think of where putting boots on the ground is the point.

Take back the night style events like this are a pretty good example of the form: the point isn't to convince people who wouldn't attend of the campaign's views but to drag in as many wavering fence sitters as possible (hence why they are so big on campuses) and give them a big confidence boost in their beliefs. The main effect on framing is probably from the attendees going on to express those views in their personal life, rather than from the media coverage of the protest.

These protesters were dressed in revealing clothing and holding signs in order to reject the belief that female rape victims are "asking for it"

From the image search "Revealing clothing" seems to be an overstatement. Perhaps it is the selection effect on the personalities most engaged with this sort of issue but the average level of dress is less revealing than what I'd expect to see on the street on a warm day.

I don't see why I have to limit my approval to such categories as 'rational' and 'irrational'. I doubt it has much effect on the direct cause either way but it sounds like fun to participate in or watch. And hey, the participants get to go around dressing provocatively and feel morally virtuous for doing so. That's a rare opportunity to flip the script on a self limiting belief.

Poll options thread