I hate to ask the question again, but if you believed the same thing and felt like you empirically proved it, how would you behave?
Granted, I've skimmed, but I'm genuinely not seeing it [1].
The closest is this study [2], which counted how many times thirty-eight women "who self-identified as having experienced unwanted or non-consensual sexual experiences in relationships" and were "recruited via social media," when "given the opportunity to reflect on their experiences of [intimate partner sexual violence], with prompting to speculate about their partner’s motivations or any underlying causes for the violence" mentioned pornography. That's...that's not a study.
[1] https://www.collectiveshout.org/research
[2] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10778012209713...
So then what? Since they really believe what they said, how can you blame them for their actions?
You might argue that since they are wrong, their beliefs should be changed. Well sure, maybe they should.
You could commission a study to confirm that, then try to persaude people. Perhaps form a collective to persuade others of that belief. Oh wait....
>> It doesn't matter if what they did is or isn't real science. They believe it is, and so as far as they are concerned, it's proven
There is a massive gap between someone having done something and their (wrongly) believing they've done it.
Historically, my observation is that some of the most evil things ever perpetrated by humans were done in the name of trying to make society better. So I'm pretty hesitant to enforce my views on other people or even attempt to. If they were acting in good faith, this would be sort of like a Black Lives Matter type of approach that is trying to raise public awareness around an issue. But they're not acting in good faith in trying to get society to see their point of view. Instead, they are trying to go after the fulcrums of society and enforce their view using backroom deals. It's a transparent power play, and it's not in good faith: real good faith actors look at both sides of the issue, both the values and the harm, and they try to develop a balanced response. This is not what's happening here.
