There is simply no question about this one:
Oh good, Chuck Johnson is on the case.
Johnson, the flamethrowing conservative blogger who’s spent the past six months crash landing into national news stories, published what he believes is the name of “Jackie,” the victim from the Rolling Stone UVA rape story. (Mediaite is not linking to his post.)
Jackie’s accounting of a gang rape by a UVA fraternity has come under increasing scrutiny, leading the magazine to retract it. On Sunday Johnson threatened to reveal more details about “Jackie” unless she admitted she fabricated the story:
I'm giving Jackie until later tonight to tell the truth and then I'm going to start revealing everything about her past.
— Charles C. Johnson (@ChuckCJohnson) December 7, 2014
This started with Malkin and her acolytes and conservatives cheered her on, was followed up by James O’Keefe and conservaties cheered his outfit on, and now has been taken to its logical conclusion. And that conclusion makes this world a very, very, ugly place.
chopper
God, what an asshole.
Buffalo Rude
Normally I think it’s dirty pool, but I’ll admit it: I’m not going to be that heart broken if someone doxes this d-bag.
Also, how is this not harassment?
KG
@Buffalo Rude: oh, it’s totally harassment. But part of Chuckles’ MO is to go after people that don’t have the resources to fight back. One of these times he’s going to miscalculate and harass someone that can afford to lawyer up
srv
Woah, big guy. You might want to give Pat Lang an honorable mention:
Just Some Fuckhead
Gingers are vicious.
MattF
The good part is that Johnson is headed for a fall. I just hope it happens soon.
Buffalo Rude
@Just Some Fuckhead: They have no souls. . .
max
And that conclusion makes this world a very, very, ugly place.
Welcome to 1989 Cole. I think you were out of the country for that, and if not, not in Texas. This is pretty bog standard Neo-Confederate operating procedure. (They’ve just taken it national.)
At any rate, I suspect Johnson’s uh, refreshing candor, should get the loving attention of Anonymous.
max
[‘It’d be a match made in hell.’]
Suzanne
Sigh. Not a surprise. What a badass: picking on a girl who, even if she has an addled memory or is even a liar, is obviously completely damaged.
I for one am totally convinced of his upstanding, moral superiority.
Oh, wait.
opiejeanne
Wow. Just. Wow.
How is this a left vs. right thing, anyway? Why are conservatives so sure the woman is lying? Because nice white college boys would never do such a thing?
kc
What a loathsome piece of work.
Comrade Scrutinizer
This isn’t the conclusion, it’s just another step along the way. Operastion Rescue, and things like it, are the conclusion. The irony is that if RS hadn’t fucked up the reporting, we wouldn’t be talking about Charles the-sociopath-not-the-sane-one Johnson.
MattF
I thought Johnson’s Twitter account was shut down.
Jebediah, RBG
Would she have any legal recourse against him?
ETA: assuming she has the money to hire an attorney. Hell, if people will donate money to reward Darren “Killer Coward” Wilson, it should be possible to crowdfund a lawyer to go after this egregious asshole.
Mike in NC
Conservatives are always playing the victim.
shelley
And this dick obviously confuses ruining someone’s life with journalism.
Like O’Keefe, I’m sure he likes to flatter himself as a ‘crusader’ .
Comrade Scrutinizer
@opiejeanne:
Everything is left v. right to these thugs, where left is stuff they don’t like. It’s almost an alternate statement of Cleek’s Law.
beth
The same people cheering on this dbag are complaining about the background investigations that went on with that lady who dissed the Obama girls last week. I don’t like it when anyone does it but at least I can see the hypocrisy.
Belafon
@MattF: It’s been “shut down” multiple times. It’s like quitting smoking for twitter, I guess: They can’t seem to give him up completely. As I said on LGF which – because their names are so similar, that Charles has been dealing with this guy a lot – Charles C doesn’t seem to realize that if he angers the right person, they can find out where he lives.
trollhattan
I’d like late consideration for Rich Lowry.
J
what a swine! (or is that being unfair to one of our fellow mammals?). Is there in any chance he’s bluffing, i.e., he doesn’t have the information he’s threatening to make public?
Belafon
@shelley: He calls himself an award winning journalist (wonkette):
KG
@Jebediah, RBG: defamation, negligence, invasion of privacy, maybe something like reckless endangerment if it leads to one of Chuck’s followers threatening her, intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress. Without really knowing the details, I could probably come up with 6 or 7 causes of action
beth
@Belafon: Is this the guy who went to what he thought was LGF’s Johnson’s home for whatever purpose?
Amir Khalid
Is there a lot of support for this loathsome person? As already noted, Jackie is likely a pretty messed-up young woman, whatever the truth of her rape story. The last thing she needs is to be publicly bullied.
Belafon
@J: He’s posted addresses for other people on twitter.
He’s the kind of person who knows there is almost nothing you can do about what he says on twitter.
Corner Stone
@srv:
Wow.
Hey, Pat. How about a new idea no one has ever considered? Maybe somebody teach young men that consent is vital, and sexual congress with individuals who have been drinking is not mandatory?
I’m pretty sure I am ok with those schools doing their thing. I’d just prefer that we don’t focus on having to teach young women what to do to not get raped.
BS
Belafon
@beth: Yep, that him.
trollhattan
@Belafon:
He ran over somebody with his Vette?
Belafon
Last week, Chuck posted the address or Wesley Lowery’s parents on Twitter. He was attempting to post Wesley’s address, but got his parent’s instead.
My personal opinion is that if anything happens to someone he posts the address of, Chuck should be charged as an accessory.
Mister Papercut
@Jebediah, RBG:
As of Friday, she found an attorney through (IIRC) Central Virginia Legal Aid Society.
Source: I work in a TV station newsroom, and I’d rip off my right arm and beat myself with it to un-hear the shit they were saying about this girl.
Belafon
@Amir Khalid: I’m afraid there is. Chucks willing to call it like it is, things like Michael Brown deserved to be shot. His twitter feed is full of people that agree with him.
Kay
I love how he and his fans are discussing this intermixed with their outrage at the injustice of it all:
MattF
@Kay: Oh, he’s all set to start spending Other People’s Money. How cute.
Mnemosyne
@Belafon:
Unfortunately, current law disagrees with you. As I understand it, Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists decided that publicizing someone’s name is protected speech, even if the person is threatened or even killed by third parties afterwards.
Kay
@MattF:
Well, his fans advise against it because he will lose his journalistic independence, but obviously this Jackie Scoop is ripe for monetizing/promoting his personal brand. It’s a real ethical dilemma.
Ruckus
@Kay:
What a wonderful country. We have serious money available for hate in most any form. Anything positive, not so much. But get your hate on and the tap opens right on up. So glad I spent my time in uniform supposedly to help guarantee the right of assholes like johnson to be allowed to be such douchebags. Makes me feel all squishy inside.
Cacti
@Mnemosyne:
In “Jackie’s” case, she has also likely made herself a limited purpose public figure with her participation in the Rolling Stone article.
Belafon
@Mnemosyne: What if they publish an address, especially when it seems to me like he’s being malicious?
Mustang Bobby
@Buffalo Rude: How is this not extortion? As in a felony?
cckids
@opiejeanne:
Probably. I’ve actually read articles that knock the story because of the gang rape aspect of it; because it just “isn’t believable” that nice frat boys would do such a thing. One-on-one rape, sure, but . . . a group? Oh, hell no.
Now, you know, that “gang rape” thing only happens with those people, wilding at night in parks, grabbing & raping joggers.
Oh, wait . . .
Cacti
@Belafon:
Unless he’s explicitly advocating violence from his readers against “Jackie”, publication of her address or true name is protected speech
Dolly Llama
Forty comments deep into this thread, I’m surprised no one has said “This guy’s full of shit. He doesn’t have that girl’s name.” I doubt he has any name, and if he has one, I’ll be astounded if it’s the right one. Charles C. Fucking Asberger’s Johnson has the scoop on this and no one else does? My bet is he never releases shit, as he doesn’t have shit. My worry would be for whomever’s name he releases, if he releases one. They’ll likely be completely innocent.
ETA: The ironic thing is that Charles Johnson’s main nemesis on earth is also named Charles Johnson. About a third of LGF is the two Charleses going at it.
Ella in New Mexico
@Suzanne:
Yes. That is SO clear in this situation. Plus, if I understand the chain of events, this girl never even reported or attempted to charge the rapists? And she only told her story to RS under conditions of anonymity? So whether she made it up whole cloth or just forgot or changed some of the details, it seems like her intention was never to harm any particular person.
It really could be that she is just a very emotionally disturbed young woman who made up or embellished a story to be a part of a group (anti rape activists on campus) never thinking far ahead enough of the way it would snowball. Dealing with patients who lie or make up stories to get attention, pity or be a part of things–usually when it’s completely unnecessary– is really not uncommon in the counseling/psychiatry field. It’s very common among adults coming from alcoholic or other types of severely dysfunctional families, and in general these folks are otherwise relatively functional, accomplished human beings- just suffering from chronic depression, anxiety, or other mood disorders. It doesn’t excuse the basic wrongdoing, but it does seem more and more an explanation for this woman’s behavior.
I may not have my facts completely right, but I hear a young person crying out for help here, and anyone who tries to crush her is a piece of human excrement that deserves absolutely no mercy. How, in fact, DO we contact Anonymous?
Enhanced Voting Techniques
What’s these g@srv: .
How about their sons? I’ve heard enough stories of barely disguised homoerotic d&s nonsense from Frats filled with allegedly straight men it is no surprise they treat women like shit since they have so little compassion for their own .
I suppose it explains the frantic attempts to defend Frats – for these guys to do otherwise would be to admit to themselves they are rape victims too.
KG
@Cacti: name and address are protected. The question is if he doxed her, what else does he spew? Those things, especially if untrue or otherwise defamatory, may not be protected
Ruckus
@Dolly Llama:
He’s been full of shit for so long it was probably just assumed.
Mnemosyne
@Dolly Llama:
There is a commenter right here on this website who says that her daughter (a UVA student) is acquainted with “Jackie,” and I believe her. I don’t think it would take much effort at all for Johnson to find out her real name since it seems to be an open secret at UVA.
Kay
@Ruckus:
I think it probably backfires. Whatever she did or didn’t do she’s really young and the outrage wasn’t about her (supposedly, ostensibly) it was about journalistic ethics.
They already had the liberal media dead to rights but they can’t help themselves. They have to go overboard. They don’t have any self control.
Linnaeus
@opiejeanne:
It’s a left/right thing to these conservatives because they consider situations like these to be the consequence of man-hating feminism that erodes our rights and condemns all men as criminals. Really, that’s how they think about this.
I made the unfortunate choice to read the comments in some of the blog posts (at least one of which was linked on the discussion thread when the first critiques of the Rolling Stone article came out) and yes, they were especially odious. Of particular note were the lurid alternate scenarios that the commenters came up with as to what “really happened”. With the required slandering of Jackie as a “whore”, of course.
Regarding “nice white boys”, a sawbuck says that if Jackie’s alleged assailants had been black men, we wouldn’t be seeing a tenth of the outrage from the right that we are now. If we’d see any at all.
trollhattan
@Ella in New Mexico:
Because she cut into those frat boys’ party time, and that’s the real crime here. She’s got to pay as an example to the others.
Another Holocene Human
Chuckles is an asshole, but his impact factor is nil.
Check this out:
http://heyjackass.com/category/2014-chicago-crime-murder-stats/
WTF, Rahm. Why can’t Chicago do the basic work of catching people who kill other people and stopping them from killing more people? NYC crime is down again, CHI is actually going up per capita. This is extremely painful to watch.
I like how they broke down the stats. That police involved shooting by race statistic was telling.
Wash Times was crowing that CHI crime rate was down with concealed carry. Well, since it’s UP I guess that means it’s up because of concealed carry WashTimes? Lol.
NotMax
There are so many a-holes polluting public discourse that buttplugs rightly should be a growth industry.
Another Holocene Human
Cole, why don’t you blame Twitter for enabling his ass? He keeps coming back after trivial periods of timeout after doxxing or threatening to doxx people.
Btw, I think there ought to be a distinction drawn between pulling back a veil of anonymity of an internet troll (for example, what Gawker did to Reddit’s underage creepshots meister) and posting personal info/addresses/etc for a ravening mob with the intention of harassing the target into suicide. Which is what Chuck Johnson is attempting to do because he is a very, very bad person.
Anne Laurie
@J:
He’ll have some poor woman’s information. Not necessarily the right person’s, if his past practice is any guide — which won’t stop his slobbering inbred fans from internet-attacking her, even after Chuck’s misidentification is widely aired.
Tree With Water
It’s a Monty Python sketch. It’s a game show in which the BBC trains its cameras on a individual and begins a live broadcast. As the cameras roll, the game show host begins to read increasingly embarrassing information about the individual. As he reads, the amount of money the person must pay to make it stop increases (..$50, $100, $200..). That person’s score is determined how quickly they can get to a phone to pony up the dough.
divF
@Belafon:
Robert Novak was loathsome rightwing scum with a syndicated newspaper column.
Keith G
@max:
I was just thinking roughly the same thing.
This sociopathic critter needs to become acquainted with some type of consequence.
Alex
@Mnemosyne: Yeah remember that time you ridiculed that “commenter” for not accepting the RS article hook, line, and sinker like all decent people did? Remember that time you baited her with her own daughter in order to embarrass her for standing up for skepticism and due process? You showed her. Good times.
Ruckus
@Kay:
They don’t have any self control.
Most 5 yr olds don’t.
Another Holocene Human
@Another Holocene Human: btw, avoid the commentary–the stats are good but the site is run by a loud, proud libertarian who just happens to be (oops) racially biased, which you can tell by talking about boths sides of his mouth about things that shouldn’t be crimes … unless you’re Black, apparently.
YellowJournalism
Does anyone know of lawmakers who are actively pursuing changes to Kiel and harassment laws based on social media as other tech? I know some mention it from time to time but wonder if there’s any organizations out there to donate to?
And fuck Twitter for not banning his ass permanently. He’s a repeat offender.
Anon Coward
@divF: Robert Novak is still dead–please tell me he’s still dead?
Villago Delenda Est
@srv: Pat Lang really, really, really needs to suffer the fate that should have befallen such traitorous scum as Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and every other slaveholder general officer.
The problem is finding enough apple trees sour enough to carry out the appropriate disposition of such types.
Villago Delenda Est
@divF: He used to co-write a column with Roland Evans which was referred to by people associated with actual journalism as “Errors and No Facts.”
Kryptik, A Man Without a Country
One of Chuckles’s more loathesome tweets about the entire thing. (Linked to show that yes, this is actually something he said):
Another Holocene Human
@Linnaeus:
Back when I used to read (and buy) comics, a certain “feminist” writer who was internet famous for blogging about women in refrigerators, did a storyline where some vigilante women get revenge for men who murdered women and were never brought to justice. So in this issue a pretty young, white, blond college girl had been killed at a fratty party by being pushed off the roof. Despite it being a frat party, somehow the writer and artists on the project thought it made total sense that the guy who actually did the pushing (as opposed to the frat brothers who covered it up for decades) was the one Black dude there.
I was pretty outraged by this comic but nobody else seemed to be bothered by it.
This was a recurring theme … she also did a scene where one of her white heroines runs off some black “thugs” in a city park mid-mugging.
I think the author needs therapy, not a job writing for comics. But her employers, DC comics, sure as fuck didn’t care about that. After all they employ Geoff Johns. If Geoff Johns had a column instead of a comics job he’d be like a clone of Erick Erickson but maybe with less scatological insults flung. (Infinite Ericks is now trying to back away from the shit he said when the web was new and it was all “Wheeee! I can say anything I want!!” and before his Biblemates were reading “worldly” sites (or at least admitting to it) and could report back on his foul mouth.)
KG
@Kryptik, A Man Without a Country: does that mean he doesn’t believe that Micheal Brown was a shoplifter since he was never convicted? Or is there a difference?
Mnemosyne
@Alex:
Well, I was trying not to call that commenter out and force her to respond, but now you’ve done it. Good job. It was eemom, for those not following the threads.
And now “Jackie’s” name and identifying information is going to be splashed all over the internet, and no one knows who the men are that she accused of assaulting her. You must be so pleased to know she’s going to get what’s coming to her.
Roger Moore
@opiejeanne:
Because it involves interfering with rich white male privilege. Where will we be when rich white men aren’t free to rape whomever they choose?
chopper
@Kryptik, A Man Without a Country:
Wow. Just…wow. That’s some cask-strength derp.
Belafon
@KG: I don’t want to go look for the tweet, but Chuck did publish stuff about Brown’s parents to justify Brown’s death.
chopper
@Mnemosyne:
Yes, pointing out that shitty move you tried to pull on eemom a few days back clearly means that Alex hates rape victims.
Iowa Old Lady
@srv: That is just odious.
Apparently on one of the Sunday shows, Rich Lowry argued that forced kissing is not sexual assault. We need to educate all our daughters and sons about what’s acceptable if you’re being pushed into sex, tempted or prompted to push someone else, or wind up as a bystander to unacceptable behavior. What can you do? What should you do?
Suzanne
@Linnaeus: Truth to that. White male privilege has taken a big hit here, and anyone who threatens it must be humiliated, discredited, shamed, and if they get killed because we published her address, oh well.
The election of a black man to the Presidency has already threatened the white man in very deep ways. If a woman was to be elected immediately afterward, I think white dudes may just completely explode.
Shalimar
@Belafon: The spirit of Robert Novak? Do they pick the winner by refracting light into the souls of all the contestants and picking the one who lets the least escape?
Roger Moore
@Linnaeus:
I disagree completely. We’d be seeing far more outrage from the right in that case. It’s just that all of it would directed against the alleged rapists and the overly politically correct college administrators covering for their reign of terror rather than the victim.
KG
@Belafon: yeah, I knew something about that. Was mostly being sarcastic because I already knew the answer
KG
Is the football thread still active? I’m watching the Colts-Brown’s game in amazement. The Browns offense is just horrendous, while their defense has put them in position to win (multiple turnovers, two defensive touchdowns). And somebody is going to give Hoyer way too much money next year
Belafon
@KG: I could tell you were being sarcastic; I didn’t think anyone over the age of 14 would buy your statement. I replied just in case you’d missed how low he’s willing to go.
ThresherK
@Tree With Water: We don’t wish to morally censure you, we just want your money.”
KG
@Belafon: I have three regular reads: here; lgf; and Sullivan. So I’m familiar with Chuck’s despicableness
Mnemosyne
@chopper:
Actually, I would still like an answer to that question. As I pointed out in yesterday’s thread, UVA has multiple complaints out there about their lack of response to sexual assault accusations: here’s a story from March of this year. UVA has been under investigation by the feds since 2011.
So I’ll ask you the same question: if you had a daughter who attends UVA, would you be comfortable with her going to fraternity parties knowing that there are multiple accusations of UVA botching investigations?
Suzanne
@Kryptik, A Man Without a Country: I HATE this idea that, unless the assailant is convicted in a court of law, that the victim is making shit up, or that the general public can’t have an opinion about the likeliness of the assailant’s guilt or innocence. I also doubt that this douche feels this way about any other crime. I bet he thinks that OJ did it, for example.
I get that everyone is entitled to due process in court, and I am in no way arguing that they should not. But just as the right to free speech only means you don’t go to jail, not to have people not think you’re an asshole, being accused of a crime doesn’t mean that other people cannot or should not speculate on the likelihood of one’s guilt or innocence. The court of public opinion absolutely should work on a “preponderance of the evidence” basis.
Belafon
@KG: Good to know. Then I was repeating the internet. Sorry.
Mnemosyne
@chopper:
Or, I’ll put it another way: I am a woman. I went to college. There was an active Greek system at my college. We all knew which frat houses to avoid, because they had a reputation for bad things happening to drunk women there. Were we supposed to ignore that reputation because no one had been convicted in a court of law?
Corner Stone
@KG: I was flipping between Texans v Jags and Indy v Browns.
Nice final drive by Wolfman Luck and crew to take the lead / win.
D58826
@Ella in New MexicoBecause of the possibility that she is a very emotionally disturbed young woman, RS should have gone the extra mile to verify her story. They also should have been aware that the memory plays tricks especially when recalling a traumatic event. Someone on the staff should have been whispering ‘remember the Duke lacrosse players’. While I don’t think it happens often false rape claims do happen for any number of reasons and when it becomes a national news story it just hurts all of the real victims.
As far as the conservatives who are jumping on this story, I’m afraid they will never see the insides of the gates of hell. Even Satan has standards on who he lets in.
Corner Stone
@Mnemosyne:
Goodness gracious.
AxelFoley
@beth:
No, the hypocrisy was the bitch trying to get at the President and First Lady through their daughters being the one in need of good parenting. I have no problem going after someone trying to project their vices on others.
Anne Laurie
@Mnemosyne: Get off the hobbyhorse, Mnem — this ain’t about you.
Mike J
@AxelFoley: Not to mention the fact that the woman who attacked children because she didn’t like their parent’s political views was a professional political operative who had made herself a public person.
Mnemosyne
@Anne Laurie:
I didn’t plan to get on the hobbyhorse, but Alex and chopper decided to put me there. If you don’t want me to defend myself, say so.
SFAW
@MattF:
Yes, just like the Rethugs have suffered the consequences of their lying, insanity, and generally seditious/traitorous behavior.
Or, at least, that’s what soon-to-be Speaker Pelosi tells me.
When I read that Chuckles Asshole Johnson has ended up either in the morgue, or in a full-body cast because someone beat the crap out of him, I’ll revise my statement/beliefs. Until that time, it’s just business-as-usual for the vile, despicable liars and charlatans who make up the right wing in this country.
SFAW
@Corner Stone:
Almost as good at Geno Smith leading the Jets on that final drive to beat the Vikes. Now THAT was an awesome drive.
Corner Stone
@SFAW:
Or at least sharing a jail cell with James O’Keefe.
Who for some reason still seems to be doing just fine.
eemom
@Mnemosyne:
Call me out for what?
Exactly what the fuck are you accusing me of now, you smug-ass Hollywood drone masquerading as legal scholar?
Corner Stone
@SFAW:
Geno led an awesome final scoring drive, it just didn’t seem to be for the win.
opiejeanne
@Linnaeus: Yeah, they would have had no trouble believing it if it had been a bunch of black guys, which is why I added the “white” to the description.
SFAW
@Corner Stone:
One would hope it would be a triple, and the third would be some guy clocking in at 6-5, weighing 275, and who doesn’t have a lot of tolerance for sniveling little twerps like those two.
I feel bad, daydreaming about harm being visited on people. On the other hand, it’s not clear that O’Keefe and Johnson are human.
Mnemosyne
@eemom:
Ironically, I wasn’t accusing you of anything at all, but Alex and chopper decided that I was.
Tenar Darell
@Corner Stone: Heh, I guess Columbia and Amherst moved?
SFAW
@Corner Stone:
An 87-yard pass play for a touchdown wasn’t for the win?
Next you’ll be trying to feed me some bullshit about the how the Giants lost to the Jaguars last week.
eemom
@Mnemosyne:
Then what does “call out” and “force to respond” refer to?
Corner Stone
@SFAW: *Coughs gently* Hmmm…ok, so there was this almost three TD lead at halftime. And then…
Nah, can’t go there. Nobody would believe that shit, even if I tried.
Which leads to an interesting question. If Eli does not retire after this year who is he playing for next year? Or who is he backing up next year?
Corner Stone
@Tenar Darell: Pat Lang is just an unreconstructed piece of shit. Fuck him.
And it makes me angry sometimes when people put the onus of not being sexually assaulted on women / “young women in social situations”.
Like somehow not being a complete human being is just fine for women but the youthful adventures of young males on campus is just fine, dandy, and expected as par.
max
@Keith G: I was just thinking roughly the same thing. This sociopathic critter needs to become acquainted with some type of consequence.
I think it would fall under ‘fair’s fair’.
Legally, he can publish the address, morally it’s awful, which is one of the reasons it was considered awful netiquette.
max
[‘So don’t do that.’]
Mnemosyne
@eemom:
To the fact that I was not actually trying to re-start an argument from a different thread. My only point in saying that there is a commenter here (you) with a daughter at UVA who knows “Jackie’s” real name was to say that there are probably dozens, if not hundreds, of people with UVA connections who already know her real name, so it’s not going to be that hard for Johnson to find it out.
Once Alex decided to drag the previous thread into it, I thought it was only fair to use your nym since he was re-starting an argument I had with you and it seemed unfair to continue that argument without giving you a chance to participate.
With that said, since I’ve already had Anne Laurie implicitly threaten to put me into time-out if I get back into argument mode, I’m going to drop it now. Good day.
Anonymous
Not your personal army, sadly. It’s not a good idea to behave like Anonymous will do what you tell it. I actually have no idea what Anonymous would make of this guy. Some of ’em probably like him, though I doubt it’s anything like a majority.
thefax
@Jebediah, RBG: She is a UVA student, so there is a good chance that her family has the resources (and connections) to lawyer up. I hope so at least.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
I’d like to say that on this one, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Cole. Publicizing the young woman’s name is unconscionable. It’s a part of why I minimize the number of times I actually use the name given to her in the RS story, which is apparently her real first name.
Motherfucker am I still angry at Sabrina Rubin Erdely about this.
Omnes Omnibus
@thefax: Why would you say that? Do you have stats showing the SES status of UVA students or are you generalizing based on the school’s social reputation?
Just Some Fuckhead
This would be a pretty peaceful blog if Mnemosyne wasn’t always starting fights.
John
@Omnes Omnibus: Are you really suggesting that “there’s a good chance that a UVA student’s family is reasonably well off” is an implausible statement which needs specific evidence to back it up?
Omnes Omnibus
@John: I was asking if the commenter was relying on the school’s reputation or if the commenter had facts to support the speculation. I live in a city with a major research university – a lot of students at the university are from well-off, well- connected families, but a lot of them are not.
rikyrah
you know what I find incredible? that Rolling Stone didn’t talk to the local group on campus that supports the victims of sexual assault. when I was in college, there was a group that was called in – other students – that held the hands of the girls that actually came forth to the student health service to say that they were attacked. checked in on them. made sure that they had all the phone numbers and where to go. made sure that they knew they could call these folks 24/7 no matter what.
now, this existed back when I went to school. you’re telling me that UVA, in 2014, doesn’t have something similar? that they couldn’t call on this group who would have hooked them up with all sorts of victims that would have repeated the story in their story…shyt….I knew that story from girls when I went to college….that shyt is oh so real.
Rolling Stone REALLY never went to the group supporting sexual assault victims and asked if there was anyone else who’d like to tell their story….really?
…………………………………………………..
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@rikyrah: It’s worse than that. If you read the story, Erdely says that she did find other victims (although, I’m treating everything she wrote with skepticism) who were willing to report their rapes to the police and most of them had more grounding in their accusations, sometimes including findings of a tribunal, and some of whom had a story of stonewalling from the UVa administration that couldn’t be explained away by saying that they were just doing what the victim wanted in not acting on the accusation.
She chose to use the story she did instead of those that were more substantial. I can only guess that she wanted the most sensational case possible. She brought this on herself. As I said, though, you have to believe Erdely actually has these other cases that she described briefly and isn’t just making them up.
Howard Beale IV
@SFAW: Don’t forget to include Todd Kincannon in that bunch.
Howard Beale IV
@Belafon:
It’s actually pretty easy for anyone to dox someone-tons of aggregators are out there and it doesn’t take much data to query the services-especially when you consider many state records are public by law.
SFAW
@Corner Stone:
Well, he could be backing up Jameis Winston for the Jets. Probably get a fair amount of playing time, unless Winston is on work-release. Or maybe they’ll try to get this kid who seems to be doing OK as backup QB for the Eagles, instead of Winston.
Something from Bill Simmons over at grantland (which have probably already seen):
Q: How many NFL teams would trade their starting QB for J.J. Watt?
—Ben, Milwaukee
BS: Everyone but the Colts, Packers, Seahawks, Patriots, Broncos and Jets.
I have little doubt that, if both Mariota and Winston are still available when the Jets’ pick comes up, they’ll either go with Winston, or Mario Mendoza.
That is, if Woody still owns the team and Idzik still has a job with them. Because even if Idzik gets fired, Woody is still (to my [very tiny] mind) a clueless fuck who insists on “helping” run the team.
Anne Laurie
@Mnemosyne:
And climb off that cross, too. I wasn’t “threatening” you, I was asking that you not try to derail yet another serious thread with your serial adventures as Victim Queen of the Junior Debate Club. There are stories in this world that are not all about Mnemosyne, believe it or not.
SFAW
@Howard Beale IV:
I’m sure we could come up with 1,000 additional names, but you gotta have a cutoff somewhere.
Tenar Darell
@Corner Stone: Welp, I’d say that starts all the way back to the very first time a girl is told to be good when she jumps on the bed, and a boy roughhousing is okay because “boys will be boys!” /snarl intended
SFAW
@Anne Laurie:
“But enough about me — what do YOU think of me?”
Suzanne
Wow, for serious, can we all chill the hell out? Myself included?
The various posters here are not the enemy we need to be fighting. Knives in the right, and yes, I mean the right, direction, y’all….
Corner Stone
@Tenar Darell: That’s different. There is a certain amount of decorum that must be followed.
Cervantes
@Anne Laurie:
I agree that “threatening” was not accurate on her part but I don’t quite understand the “not try to derail” objection. A poor argument — or, sure, a string thereof — can become a distraction from the point at hand, but you don’t really think she is consciously trying to derail anything, do you? In any event, I doubt it.
Tenar Darell
@Corner Stone: Heh. Probably giving away too much of how my mind works that your comment spawned: “dulce et decorum est” for girls and not for boys, makes Jack a very, very bad boy.
Anne Laurie
@Cervantes: Yeah, you’re right — I shouldn’t have included the ‘try to’ clause in my response.
Mnem, I apologize for implying that you intend to derail topics. (But I still wish it didn’t happen so often.)
Keith G
Wow. Best thread ever.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Keith G: Arguing about arguing beats arguing any day.
Omnes Omnibus
@Just Some Fuckhead: No, it doesn’t.
John
@Omnes Omnibus: All that was said was that there was a “good chance” Jackie’s family is well off based on UVA’s demographics. This would seem to be the case at your local research university, as well.
John
@rikyrah: Huh? Erdely clearly talked to people at OneLess, the group at UVA. That’s where she got Jackie’s name. Did you even read the article?
Omnes Omnibus
@John: I guess it would depend how one defines “good chance.” One in three? Fifty-fifty? More likely than not? I’ll admit that I read it as implying more likely than not. I may have been incorrect, but that was why I asked my question. I am sorry that I struck such a nerve with you.
Cervantes
@Omnes Omnibus: Does, too.
Keith G
@Just Some Fuckhead: I wasn’t being sarcastic. There was an exclamation or two which were entertaining to the point of laughter .
Of course, I have been drinking.
Alex
@Mnemosyne: You’re a fraudulent piece of shit. You were flaming anyone who didn’t buy the RS article uncritically. For some reason, you decided to bait someone – a mother – by using her daughter against her. Now, it turns out she was right to be skeptical, and you wanted to comment on this thread without being called out on your hypocrisy.
Also, no one would’ve known whom I was talking about without your later comment. So nice try, fuckhead.
rikyrah
@John:
I believe the now supposedly discredited young woman. I believe her name was leaked to very powerful people and a check was cut.
Have a story that would impact shutting down the Greek system at UVA?
Oh no. Oh hell no. That could not stand. That WOULD NOT STAND.
She was bought off. I believe her story because I knew of at least one girl per semester that that happened to back when I was in school.
The guys in those frats, especially in a school like UVA, are connected from beginning to end. All throughout the tentacles of anything and everything in Virginia. They were NEVER going to let that stand.
You can call me a conspiracy theorist, if you want to, but if you don’t believe that that girl’s name was leaked to them and they’ve threatened her family, promising to make things difficult for them unless she takes the money and runs..
well….
ok…..
you believe that.
Linnaeus
@Roger Moore:
True enough. I should have been a bit more precise about who wouldn’t be receiving the outrage.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@Alex:
Fuckhead and Mnemosyne are the same person? Who’s the sock puppet? Or are they both Doug J?
Suzanne
@Alex: I don’t think Mnem was trying to bait eemom. I think her intent was to invite the reader to consider an issue as if one’s hypothetical child was involved, to make it personal. Mnem has invited me to do the same with my Spawns. I don’t think any judgment of eemom’s daughter’s character was intended. I understand that we are all protective of our kids. I think you are reading more intent into Mnem’s hypothetical than was intended. YMMV.
Also, please keep in mind that the original discussion was whether or not it would be necessary or appropriate for the journalists to specifically reach out to the nameless perpetrators for a quote within the context of a story that was intended to be more of an indictment of a system rather than an investigation into an individual case. No one ever, that I saw, defended a lack of fact-checking. It was a very narrow point being argued, and I think a lot of bad faith was assumed on all sides. And I include myself in that.
Omnes Omnibus
@rikyrah: Or it was simply a poorly researched, written, and fact checked story about a woman who was assaulted but like many witnesses had a less than perfect recollection of the event.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@rikyrah: No, it really was just a terrible article. Among other things, the name wasn’t leaked by some super secret organization; the story’s author used the victim’s real name despite the victim not wanting her to. Finding out who she was didn’t take any sort of heroic effort.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@Suzanne: You just defended a lack of fact checking in the very same paragraph in which you denied defending a lack of fact checking. Trying to contact the alleged rapist is, in part, an element of fact checking.
Suzanne
@Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN): The reporter could have done everything short of contacting the guy directly to verify the story, and I think that would have been acceptable. Confirming his name, job, class schedule, frat affiliation, etc., should have been done to make sure that the story was for the most part true. I still don’t think that an actual quote from the dude(s) is necessary, because, once again, I still think the story is about UVA’s lack of response, not this one incident. Jackie’s story is important to the story to show what damage has been done by UVA’s lack of response, but the actual details of the actual rape are not, IMO.
jonas
Anonymous really needs to tear this guy a new one. Apologies for the crude rape metaphor, but in this context, it seemed apropos. Rolling Stone fucked up big time in reporting this story, but Jackie is clearly a traumatized and troubled young woman and this guy needs to DIAF for what he’s doing. What a horrible, horrible human being.
Alex
@Suzanne: Intelligent people can disagree on the issue. I think you simplified the matter by reducing it to merely reaching out to the accused to get a formulaic denial (many journalists argue some type of effort like that has to be made in any – any – story involving a criminal accusation). But, it turned out that Erdely’s failure to reach out to the accused assailants was but a microcosm of her larger, more serious dereliction of journalistic duty. Long and short – you can’t publish a criminal accusation in a national magazine solely based on the narrative of the victim. There must be an attempt to corroborate from third parties. Period. Full Stop.
I dearly, dearly hope that the well-meaning activists on this sensitive issue come to understand this basic point.
And I also hope that posturing assholes like John Cole come to check their ego whenever they want to lash out and have people validate their self-righteous outrage. Fuck your good intentions, Cole, you were wrong on this.
Corner Stone
@Alex:
I largely agree that Cole never gets anything right from the word Go. But what do you consider him to be wrong about on this, specifically?
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@Suzanne:
That may be, but then you are critiquing a story that Erdely didn’t write. She made the details of the alleged rape (and at this point, you have to go with alleged rather than just assuming it’s true unless you place no value on actual truth) an important part of the story that she wrote. If she hadn’t, then contacting the accused wouldn’t have been important. But she did.
Responding to the article you wish she had written rather than the one she did write doesn’t work.
Suzanne
@Alex: I agree that other third-party corroboration should have been done. In fact, it appeared that it had been done. One of her friends is quoted to have said something like, “Me and a bunch of other people know exactly who did this to her,” so it read as if they had checked the story out from other angles besides just the victim’s retelling. And as the alleged perpetrator’s name wasn’t used, I don’t feel that an accusation was made. But once it became clear that they didn’t even check other details, that’s definitely not ok.
I just think it is an unfair characterization of the position that those defending Erdely on this one specific point don’t care about due process in the criminal justice system or about journalistic ethics as a whole.
Suzanne
@Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN): As I noted, the fact that no one was accused, since a pseudonym was used, in my view gets Erdely off the hook on that point. She’s not off the hook on any other point, so far, but on this one, I think she’s okay. Because, as I noted, the story isn’t about rape being horrifying or bad, and the story isn’t about this one girl being all emotionally FUBAR after being raped. The story is about institutions failing victims of sexual assault, and no assailant is necessary in the article for that to be true.
kc
Why do y’all think Anonymous is gonna come riding to the rescue? Y’all still believe in the tooth fairy, too?
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@Suzanne:
Yes, it is. That is a huge, ongoing, central part of the story Erdely wrote. She goes into it in great detail. Again, you are critiquing the story you wish she had written, not the one she actually did. You can’t just ignore the parts of it that you don’t want to be the story.
kc
I get the strong impression that 95% of the people arguing strenuously about the RS article haven’t even read the got damn thing.
Gordon, The Big Express Engine
@rikyrah: you have some very strange misconceptions about fraternities. Connected to anything and everything especially at a place like UVA? And she was bought off? What? You’ve seen too many movies…
chopper
@Mnemosyne:
when my daughter goes to college i’m not going to be comfortable with her going to any party anywhere.
what that has to do with being skeptical of what was clearly a badly-written magazine article and wanting the truth to come out i have no idea.
John Cole +0
@Corner Stone: Seeing as how the only thing I ever really said about the entire damned story was that I see no need to get both sides of the story in a rape like this (I was under the assumption the reporter had tried to contact the, guess I’m the fool for believing her), I’m kinda interested, too.
Suzanne
@Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN): I disagree. YM obviously V’s.
Alex
@John Cole +0: You immediately – and stupidly – framed legitimate criticisms from journalists (male and female) as an artificial “both sides do it” phenomenon. In fact, these were not Glenn Kessler and Ron Fournier/no labels types. They weren’t clutching their pearls or tone policing. They made persuasive comments, based on very basic journalistic principles, about about how irresponsible Erdely’s blind acceptance of the narrative was. And they were maligned for doing so, by you and others. Yet they were right.
Also, as you seem to admit, you wrongly – and repeatedly – suggested that she reached out to the assailants, or at least the main one. In fact, she never did – at the behest of the victim – and never claimed to have done so (although she deceitfully elided the question during the Slate podcast, giving the impression that she had). That might have been a noble impulse coming from a friend, but it’s journalistic malpractice.
Every now and then, it helps not to air the knee-jerk response, however much it fans your preexisting prejudices.
Southern Beale
Must be “punch Chuck Johnson” day because I just saw this:
Charles Johnson reaches new low with James Foley tweets
Suzanne
@chopper: I think Mnem’s point (please feel free to correct me if I am full of shit, Mnem) is that none of us can or should operate under a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard when choosing with whom or where to spend our time. We are free to make choices based on rumor, or suspicion, or even gut feeling. Doing so does NOT mean that we want to deny due process rights to someone accused of a crime. Her point was: if one’s hypothetical child was to attend a party at a frat house, and there had been multiple rumors of rape happening there, would you really say, “Well, no one’s been convicted of any crime, so it’s obviously completely danger-free!”? No…most of us, in that situation, would advise our kids not to go, because their personal safety was of higher importance than ostensibly being “fair” to some frat boys. I believe that she is correct; the right of the accused to due process of law in the criminal justice system does not extend to my own personal judgments about how, where, and with whom I surround myself. People can and should operate on a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, or really any standard they want. That’s not unreasonable or unfair, IMO.
eemom
@Suzanne:
If you had, in fact, read jack shit about any of this before running your mouth about it — something you have never, in fact, done, from the get go — you would know that one of the major holes in the RS story that was documented by the subsequent WaPo reporting was the fact that Erdely didn’t even bother to talk to those 3 friends of “Jackie’s” that she allegedly turned to for help right after the incident. Kind of key witnesses, those.
Suzanne
@eemom: I never said that Erdely’s piece was flawless, or that she shouldn’t have interviewed Jackie’s friends.
I’d offer you a strawman, but it seems you have one already.
eemom
@Suzanne:
You said there is independent corroboration of her account. Can we have a cite to that, please? And to your “me and a bunch of other people” quote?
Suzanne
@eemom: From the original Rolling Stone article by Erdely:
Having read this, it appeared to the reader that there was independent corroboration of Jackie’s story. If Erdely did not follow up on this and at least find out if these people existed, that is a massive failure on her part. But it’s not unreasonable, having read that passage, for a reader to think that Jackie’s story was corroborated.
Mandalay
@Alex:
You have made several good points, but that isn’t one of them.
While it now seems (from subsequent statements from RS) that she made no effort to reach out to the alleged assailants, you can hardly blame folks for getting the impression that she had based on her comments in the Slate article, even though they were somewhat vague and evasive.
As an aside, her claims about reaching out contradict those of her (former?) employer:
– RS claims “we decided to honor her request not to contact the man who she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men who she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her”.
– Erdeley claims “I reached out to them in multiple ways”.
I don’t know which party is lying, but one of them is.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@Suzanne: The UVa administration is not mentioned in any form until the 14th paragraph of the story. There is at least one other 15 paragraph stretch where it isn’t mentioned at all. Your mileage is simply of a different story than the one that’s actually there.
Suzanne
@eemom: I also said that third-party corroboration appeared to have been done, not that it actually had been done.
danielx
@KG:
If the lgf you’re referring to little green footballs, not the same person involved…Charles Johnson of that web site evidently finds Chuck C. Johnson to be a despicable little douchebag, as would any reasonably sentient human being.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
ICYMI – ThinkProgress:
Eyes aren’t cameras and memories aren’t magnetic tapes. What we recall is affected by the circumstances surrounding the events, and afterwards.
Cheers,
Scott.
chopper
@Suzanne:
but that doesn’t mean automatically accepting a story that happens to fit into your narrative. you still have to read things critically, especially those that look to reinforce your existing point of view because those are the ones that are most likely to fool you.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Not being able to name the assailant is a much bigger deal in this case, though, because the woman claimed that they were coworkers and that she had interacted with him on several occasions afterwards in which he mocked her about the rape. That’s not something that is just a traumatic memory issue.
Mandalay
@Suzanne:
The writer of this WP article agrees with you:
There are plenty of posters the article’s comments section mansplainin’ why she is wrong of course.
Anne Laurie
@danielx: I think KG meant that anyone who read LGF on a regular basis would know why the Twittering Douchefrigate so irks The Other Charles Johnson, LGF proprietor.
J R in WV
@opiejeanne: I think it is because they believe that well-to-do white frat members are allowed to gang rape drunk girls at will.
So they blame the girls for squealing on the nice frat boys.
Remember that many of these southern fraternity boys are from families who just 3 generations back were buying good looking women to take back to the plantation to be brood stock, and available to the well-to-do white plantation families as needed to relieve their male urges.
So I don’t think it’s any wonder that there is a problem with sexual predation in our society. Founded upon human bondage slavery, how could there not be problems with predation? The Confederates still don’t believe that there was anything wrong about their ownership of people, with rape just a benefit of their society. Nothing wrong with it then, and now.
That’s the current founding belief of the Republicans running the party today. They would resume slavery tomorrow if they thought they could get away with it somehow. That’s why unions are hated, they help prevent wage slavery! That’s why universal health insurance is hated, it mitigates wage slavery.
That’s why the Democratic Party is so hated, we don’t believe in slavery of any sort. Mostly, anyhow.
Suzanne
@Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN): The story is called “A Rape on Campus”. IMO, the failures of the larger University system are the central point. Look, we may disagree, but that doesn’t mean that my opinion is invented based on no evidence. It’s getting offensive that you keep accusing me of fantasy. We disagree. Okay, moving on.
@chopper: Sure, but that wasn’t the point being made at the time. Those who said that we believed that it was important to treat Jackie as credulous were accused of wanting to deny someone due process rights, when that was never suggested.
Suzanne
@J R in WV: Rape and sexual slavery have been a thing long before America was a twinkle in anyone’s eye, and occur all over the world. This is a worldwide problem, and has been for a very long time.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@J R in WV: This would be a much more convincing explanation if rape weren’t such a big problem in non-Confederate parts of the country or, in fact, pretty much every other country in the world.
Mandalay
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
Yep. And when witnesses to (say) a robbery or a traffic accident make claims which are contradictory or demonstrably false about what took place, the assumption is not that those witnesses are liars; it is that they are sincere but mistaken.
Victims of rape….not so much. From your link:
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@Suzanne: @Suzanne: Your entire point hinges on ignoring half of the story. It just is not a matter of opinion whether rape being a hoorifying thing or the emotional effects on this young woman are important oarts of the story. That’s what almost half of the story is about, including all of the first thirteen paragraphs.
That may not be what stuck in your mind, and what you personally find important is entirely up to you. But that doesn’t change what the actual words in the story are. Erdely made those things an important part of the story and if you’re going to critique the story as journalism, you must analyze by what is there, not just what you remember.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@Mandalay: As I’ve said before, that’s not just about not believing claims of rape. Someone who was in a traffic accident can point to the damaged car to denonstrate that an accident happened. Someone describing a burglary can generally point to some evidence that it happened.
If you think cops routinely believe people who report crimes avout which they can’t produce any evidence of it even happening, you’ve never tried to do it. They won’t do jack for you and will just dismiss the incident.
Even if people started believing rape victims and took their claims seriously, it would still present a horrible problem for the judicial system. Unless it is reported very quickly or there are corroborating witnesses, it generally just comes sown to a woman saying something happened without anything else to supportit.
I don’t have any ideas about how to solve that.
Suzanne
@Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN): Look, I disagree with you, and I disagree with you based on having read the story in full three times, as well as much of the other reporting surrounding this case. I have plenty of evidence to support my view. All you’re doing at this point is screaming at me that, “You have to actually read the story, and it has to be based on what’s there,” which is really a backhanded way of calling me hysterical, irrational, illiterate, unintelligent, or some combination thereof. You keep attacking me on this, as if you’re attempting to score a point. I don’t really know why.
We disagree. Moving on.
Mandalay
@Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN):
Honestly, you are losing all sense of perspective at this point.
I have real admiration for the way you dismantled Erdley’s article, but now you appear to be concocting disingenuous and irrelevant debating points to constantly show that you are right, and some other poster is wrong. I’m not playing your game.
Mandalay
@Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN):
Of course you don’t – you don’t have time. You are far too busy spending every waking moment bragging that you are right, and picking fights with everyone else about being wrong.
Mandalay
RS is putting out revised damage control this evening, for appearing to blame the victim in its initial mea culpa last Friday….
Suzanne
@Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN): The way that you solve, at least in part, that is by treating a victim as if she/he is credulous by default, and change your mind if evidence comes to light that suggests otherwise. What you’re suggesting is that we treat victims as if they are lying or mistaken unless they can produce evidence. And I’m not talking about the criminal justice system. No one is saying that anyone accused of a crime shouldn’t get due process of law. No one is advocating crucifying anybody, I’m talking about the way each and every one of us talks to and about this issue in our daily lives. I am talking about The Cultural Conversation.
But at this point, your refusal to accept this, which is what progressive feminists have been saying for years and years and years, comes across as cold-hearted. But it’s your right.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@Mandalay: Because it’s not just you. I see this argument all the time and I think that not only is it wrong but also that pigeonholing the problem of police handling of rape as the simple, though hard to change, issue of them not taking those claims seriously as other crimes is doomed to failure. It’s also necessary to understand and grapple with why it is that rape poses very real problems in terms of investigating it and prosecuting it that most other crimes don’t pose. This isn’t just something I’m picking out about your comment; it’s something I’ve thought about a lot, though, as I said, without coming up with any good ideas.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@Suzanne: Okay. If you’re going to insist that War and Peace was really just about peace and not about war at all, go right ahead.
FlipYrWhig
@Suzanne: And I still agree with you.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@Suzanne: Frankly, I think you do come off as entirely credulous. And you also continue to misrepresent what I’ve actually said. I have said many times, at least once on great detail, that I do not treat them as liars if they can’t produce evidence. Much like Mnemosyne, you cannot seem to grasp that there is a middle ground between uncritically accepting someone’s claims and thinking that they are lyrical ing.
You have repeatedly accused me of the latter without even trying to address my explanations. I find your complaints about how I have treated you in these threads amusing in the way they betray a complete lack of self awareness about the casual way you throw around nasty accusations.
And what you also have refused to grapple with is that there were already reasons to be skeptical about this story before any of these threads got started. I didn’t just express doubt out of the blue. I thought that Ederly’s story had problems frim the very first time I read it and I was right about them.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@Mandalay: That’s kind of funny given some of the pissing contests you get into around here.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@Suzanne: I’m also curious. How is evidence that suggests otherwise supposed to come to light if no one treats claims without at least a le skepticism?
Suzanne
@Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN): I have no idea what you’re talking about. I come off as credulous? Well, I’m not a rape victim, but, uh, thanks?
I’ve accused you of nothing other than saying that I think you come off as unsympathetic. You have done nothing to change my view. Quite the opposite.
Look, this discussion is not illuminating anything at this point. From here on out, I’ll pretend you don’t exist, and you can do the same for me. Deal?
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
And at this point I finally get to go home and go to bed. Never, ever get stuck waiting for someone to finish something when you have nothing to do but whatever amusement you can generate with a phone you barely know how to use.
Omnes Omnibus
@Suzanne:
Credulous vs. credible.
Suzanne
@Omnes Omnibus: Still not sure what he means here.
Omnes Omnibus
@Suzanne: You used credulous instead of credible. It, oddly enough, fit JMN’s criticism of your position, so I presume that he took it and rather gleefully ran with it.
Suzanne
@Omnes Omnibus: Ah, I just read back, and you’re right. My bad. THX for pointing it out w/o being a d-bag about it.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Suzanne: TTP(JMN)’s mania for using poorly qualified adjectives and adverbs in his writing comes out in his arguments with you. He’s saying you believe everything that the RS story says and thus you are a simple child on this topic. It’s a really bad form of argument. He thinks he knows exactly how to explain everything that he sees wrong with the RS story, and if you don’t see things his way, well it’s because of a character or intellectual flaw on your part.
His dozens of posts on this topic are bullying, especially toward you, IMHO.
I don’t accept that style of argument,myself. It’s good that you’re giving up arguing with him on this topic – you haven’t been getting anywhere with him.
Hang in there.
Just my humble opinion. YMMV.
Cheers,
Scott.
Omnes Omnibus
@Suzanne: It actually made me laugh a bit. I also bet that you could resolve some of your conflict with JMN by asking this question: Do you think that a complaining witness in a rape case should be treated as credible until such time as the facts indicate that s/he is not credible? I am willing to be that he would say yes. I also think that that is what you want as well. You are both digging in over the RS article. The article was a trainwreck – that was JMN’s point. Rape culture exists and is a huge problem – that is your point. Both can be true.
Suzanne
@Omnes Omnibus: His multiple swipes at my intelligence lead me to not want to try any harder to find agreement. I feel I have stated and defended my positions adequately, so I’m done. I don’t need to be liked.
Omnes Omnibus
@Suzanne: Your choice. As an observer of this fight, I don’t see you as without fault. You did ignore his protestations that he was talking about the article and the article only while you talked about the larger issues. You can take my observations for what they are worth.
grandpa john
@Anne Laurie: She had a boost up on that horse from another poster first. Maybe you should remind him also
Suzanne
@Omnes Omnibus: Noted, thanks.
Omnes Omnibus
@grandpa john: Mnem had been rather shitty – IMO – about her choice of argument on this topic in previous threads. Calling her out about it is not inappropriate as long as you think that she had behaved badly. But maybe I should just defer to your judgment. Right?
grandpa john
@Cervantes,@Suzanne: The why is found in your last statement. The self appointed judge of correct opinion and thought, doesn’t like dissent.
grandpa john
@Omnes Omnibus: Really And you think that TTP hasn’t acted like an arrogant asshole with his denigration of opposing thinkers here. Also, Mnen did not originate the change in discussion within the thread, Alex did
Omnes Omnibus
@grandpa john: I don’t think that you have followed this discussion in the several threads that it has involved.
Omnes Omnibus
@grandpa john: @Omnes Omnibus: Anything else to say?
myiq2xu
Congratulations John. Even though you are a daily dick and a pussy for blocking me on Twitter, I agree with you on this one.
eemom
Gramps seems to have some grudge against JMN. I think he previously mentioned that was not specific to this particular argument, so whatev.
What I find amusing about all this are the tortured intellectual contortions that little Suzanne — and probably Mnem too, if she weren’t too worried about being put in “time out” — are willing to put themselves through, to defend their insistence that any man accused of rape be deemed guilty until proven innocent; that witch-hunting of the accused is the ONLY way to properly redress the injuries perpetrated on rape victims throughout history.
And that, regardless of how much the original RS article has been and continues to be proven to be an irresponsible, poorly researched, sensationalist piece of shit, they were TOTALLY right to vilify anyone who questioned it.
YMMV.
grandpa john
I have read and commented in all 3 of them, so yes I have followed the commentary in them. I am also aware of the general style of posting from some of the posters here from earlier thread and recognize when someone uses a style that is assertive and argumentative for what it appears to be contrarian purposes, IN this I agree with the ideas expressed in # 200 of this thread by someone else who was also involved in all 3 thread on this topic
grandpa john
@eemom: Wow so much bile, so little essence
As Pope said in his “Essay on Criticism”;
” All is infected that the infected spy, as all is yellow to the jaundiced eye”
Omnes Omnibus
@grandpa john: “I say nothing about anything in general but also not in specific.” Do me the courtesy of answering my question.
eemom
@grandpa john:
If you think there’s no essence, you haven’t read shit.
YMMV.
grandpa john
@Omnes Omnibus: I did, courtesy usually extends in two directions
Omnes Omnibus
@grandpa john: Is there some question that you have asked that I have failed to answer?
Omnes Omnibus
@Omnes Omnibus: I rather thought not.
Cervantes
@grandpa john:
Can you elaborate your comment? I don’t understand and cannot otherwise respond.
Barbara
@Mnemosyne: I went to UVa and I went to two fraternity parties the whole time I was there, the second with a male escort. My friends and I found the experience to be so degrading we didn’t go back. This is not a new problem. It’s not even an open secret, because it’s not a secret at all. Most girls, I believe, are pragmatic enough to stick together or not get too drunk, and so do manage to protect themselves. But there are some who don’t and who become victims of what is clearly predatory behavior that counts on shame and university complicity in the name of protecting its reputation to escape accountability. And I will say, it’s not just sexual assault, although that is incredibly serious, it’s all kinds of aberrant and dangerous behavior that occurs when bands of just barely post-adolescent males decide to take charge of things after getting very drunk. You remember a Clockwork Orange after Malcolm MacDowell was rehabilitated, how he exhibited repulsive behavior while the professionals stood around and approved? Sometimes that’s what UVa seemed like. These serious adults, essentially captive to these moronic boy’s clubs.