"Ted directly links to and endorses a document that claims the rate of false rape reports is close to 50%"
I think your post is dishonest here on many levels. What the document actually says is "the rate of false reports is at least 9 percent and probably closer to 50 percent". This talks about the contents of another book, and it's not clear which class of "reports" is meant here, so I won't comment on the plausibility of these numbers. But even assuming the 50% side would be implausibly high, I think it's quite far-fetched to claim that linking to a document which contains this number would justify the description "calls rape victims liars".
The feminist side has made quite a lot of totally implausible claims. I think it would be quite a double standard to be OK with these, but strongly condemn even linking to a document which contains a claim you think is false.
You're yourself "linking to and endorsing" the Ada Initiative post by Valerie Aurora. This post contains among others the "rape was impossible if both people were drunk enough" claim, which is fairly easy to verify to be false; she links to the mail this claim is supposedly based on, and it's easy to verify that it does not contain what she claims it does. I don't think this could be a honest mistake; it's obvious enough that in my opinion she should have noticed it if she did a check as thorough as I would consider responsible behavior before making such public accusations. I could have believed it was, if not an honest mistake, then at least still A mistake due to being blinded by ideology and misinterpreting Ted's mails by assuming they must say what she expected according to "enemy" stereotypes as soon as she disagreed with him; but if so, she should have become aware of her mistake by now, yet she still continues spreading this claim. Valerie Aurora is a liar. Is your linking to her any less condemnable?
Obviously saying some reports are false means saying that the women in question are not actually rape victims, not that rape victims are lying. You could make arguments like "but if you estimate the portion of false reports too large then you'll necessarily include some true reports in that portion, and thus incorrectly count people making true reports as making false ones"; but IMO it's dishonest to make further deductions of what would follow from the original claim and then say "Ted claimed (deduction you made starting from what was actually said)", especially if your deductions *assume* the original claim was false. You can logically prove anything starting from a contradiction, so you could just as well say "Ted claimed he is the pope".
It's a fact that a non-negligible portion of reports are false. When estimating the percentage, what number do you consider the minimum value that would justify personal attacks (rather than just saying that you think it is too high)?
"Ted thinks that, under certain circumstances, rape is partly the victim's fault. Ted blames victims."
This "blaming the victim" meme seems to be some kind of trigger for quite a few people here, so that as soon as you think it remotely matches a situation you think that's a valid reason to throw away all rationality and objectivity and move to "Burn the witch! Burn the witch!". In my opinion it's completely ridiculous to take it to the level where no negative comments whatsoever are allowed about someone if he or she has become the victim of a crime. Ted did not say "partly the victim's fault" in the sense "she made the rapist do it, he is less guilty" (which several people seem to confuse his comments with). He did say you could perhaps be faulted if you drink too much, incapacitate yourself and then become a crime victim. Would you still object to this attitude equally strongly if it appeared in context that doesn't involve rape and involves drugs less socially acceptable than alcohol? Say a heroin addict receives contaminated needles or bad dope from someone. How large a portion of the population do you think would say he's not to blame for his injury in any way?
"Ted clearly questioned whether some cases classified as rape should be classified as rape"
I think it's quite valid to question whether all the cases where the "victim" did not herself consider it a rape, and did not consider herself to have suffered significant harm, should be classified as "rape". In any case, this is ultimately just a question of terminology, and I don't think you should strongly morally condemn someone for preferring one kind of terminology over another. Sure, it's easier to discourage some behavior you want discouraged if you can attach a label with strong existing negative connotations like "rape" to it. But I do not think that makes it a moral imperative for everyone to support such use of terminology.
Re: My overall take on the discussion
I think your post is dishonest here on many levels. What the document actually says is "the rate of false reports is at least 9 percent and probably closer to 50 percent". This talks about the contents of another book, and it's not clear which class of "reports" is meant here, so I won't comment on the plausibility of these numbers. But even assuming the 50% side would be implausibly high, I think it's quite far-fetched to claim that linking to a document which contains this number would justify the description "calls rape victims liars".
The feminist side has made quite a lot of totally implausible claims. I think it would be quite a double standard to be OK with these, but strongly condemn even linking to a document which contains a claim you think is false.
You're yourself "linking to and endorsing" the Ada Initiative post by Valerie Aurora. This post contains among others the "rape was impossible if both people were drunk enough" claim, which is fairly easy to verify to be false; she links to the mail this claim is supposedly based on, and it's easy to verify that it does not contain what she claims it does. I don't think this could be a honest mistake; it's obvious enough that in my opinion she should have noticed it if she did a check as thorough as I would consider responsible behavior before making such public accusations. I could have believed it was, if not an honest mistake, then at least still A mistake due to being blinded by ideology and misinterpreting Ted's mails by assuming they must say what she expected according to "enemy" stereotypes as soon as she disagreed with him; but if so, she should have become aware of her mistake by now, yet she still continues spreading this claim. Valerie Aurora is a liar. Is your linking to her any less condemnable?
Obviously saying some reports are false means saying that the women in question are not actually rape victims, not that rape victims are lying. You could make arguments like "but if you estimate the portion of false reports too large then you'll necessarily include some true reports in that portion, and thus incorrectly count people making true reports as making false ones"; but IMO it's dishonest to make further deductions of what would follow from the original claim and then say "Ted claimed (deduction you made starting from what was actually said)", especially if your deductions *assume* the original claim was false. You can logically prove anything starting from a contradiction, so you could just as well say "Ted claimed he is the pope".
It's a fact that a non-negligible portion of reports are false. When estimating the percentage, what number do you consider the minimum value that would justify personal attacks (rather than just saying that you think it is too high)?
"Ted thinks that, under certain circumstances, rape is partly the victim's fault. Ted blames victims."
This "blaming the victim" meme seems to be some kind of trigger for quite a few people here, so that as soon as you think it remotely matches a situation you think that's a valid reason to throw away all rationality and objectivity and move to "Burn the witch! Burn the witch!". In my opinion it's completely ridiculous to take it to the level where no negative comments whatsoever are allowed about someone if he or she has become the victim of a crime. Ted did not say "partly the victim's fault" in the sense "she made the rapist do it, he is less guilty" (which several people seem to confuse his comments with). He did say you could perhaps be faulted if you drink too much, incapacitate yourself and then become a crime victim. Would you still object to this attitude equally strongly if it appeared in context that doesn't involve rape and involves drugs less socially acceptable than alcohol? Say a heroin addict receives contaminated needles or bad dope from someone. How large a portion of the population do you think would say he's not to blame for his injury in any way?
"Ted clearly questioned whether some cases classified as rape should be classified as rape"
I think it's quite valid to question whether all the cases where the "victim" did not herself consider it a rape, and did not consider herself to have suffered significant harm, should be classified as "rape". In any case, this is ultimately just a question of terminology, and I don't think you should strongly morally condemn someone for preferring one kind of terminology over another. Sure, it's easier to discourage some behavior you want discouraged if you can attach a label with strong existing negative connotations like "rape" to it. But I do not think that makes it a moral imperative for everyone to support such use of terminology.