Post: #226

(12-02-2014 11:23 PM)Dusty Wrote:  I'm beginning to see the campus rape hysteria apparatus as a sort of cult. A "safe place" where people can tell tall tales and everyone believes them and they reward each other with sympathy and attention.

They managed to get their tentacles into the school administration, media, and even the legislature and executive. The cult uses the government to come up with fake 1 in 5 stats to support the cults teachings. Heretics that voice any skepticism are ruined by the powers that be.

The rape hoaxers are like a Manson or Jim Jones or Heavens Gate cult where fantastical tales are told, and no one can question them no matter how outlandish.

Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I'm hoping they overreached so badly in this case that the veil will come off and the cult is exposed.

It's a witch hunt.

Or ritual-satanic-child-abuse-hunters. It's got many parallels to that sorry episode.

The chilling parallel is the rape-culture-enders are insisting the allegers are to be believed without question, and are to be protected at all costs.

Here we have Jackie and her friends alleging that something terrible took place, but are all refusing to name the culprits. Yet they are to be believed. They MUST be believed, because no one would ever lie about such a thing.

Here is a core fallacy people are engaging in: No one ever lies about rape, right? What they mean is, people who are raped don't lie about it. This is a very different thing from saying that if someone says they are raped, they are not lying.

You are not a dreamer. An end will come. In McMartin it came only after the claims so completely stretched credulity that they broke. The public obsession with believing children's claims of abuse was exhausted. I have no idea if we are at that point, but it feels close.

Post: #227

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Regarding the McMartin daycare fiasco, which was referenced above. I have some bad news and some bad news. No, that's not a typo.

I'm old enough to remember when this was happening. It wasn't the only daycare witch hunt, just the most notorious. Every state in the country seemed to have one.

We had one in Maryland, and the woman's name was Sandra Craig. I remember the dead seriousness in which the local newspapers reported this case, even though some of the claims the kids made seem ridiculous in retrospect ("She smashed the bunny's head with a hammer" comes to mind).

At the time, Craig was hounded by the press and considered by everyone to be a psycho. She was run out of town and ended up working in New York as a short-order cook if I remember correctly.

But I looked her up and she's now part of something called The National Registry of Exonerations. Read about it here. Five years later, the prosecutors said "Oops! Never mind!"

"Why is he telling us this?"

Because when this kind of mindset grips the populace, it spreads. If you're in college but far away from University of Virginia, don't think it won't spread into your personal life. It might.

(And once again, I'll stress college guys should date off-campus townies, even though I got criticized for that last time. All the non-college girls I picked up with day-game -- before there even was such a thing -- look better and seem better adjusted than the college shrews I knew.)

Post: #228

(12-02-2014 11:57 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Regarding the McMartin daycare fiasco

[...]

I'm old enough to remember when this was happening. It wasn't the only daycare witch hunt, just the most notorious. Every state in the country seemed to have one.

I recently saw the documentary Capturing the Friedmans, which shows why New York's particular 1980s daycare scandal was (probably) yet another witch hunt.

Edit The liberal-leaning tabloid is still beating the dead horse claiming that this particular 1980s child care witch hunt is based on fact. Disappointing that they hold on to that after these kinds of allegations have been universally condemned as being a witch hunt. As a liberal myself, it annoys me that it's the liberals who usually enable these kinds of witch hunts.

Post: #229

I was at my parents house and they had CNN turned on and they were talking all about this. I haven't read through all the comments yet since I last commented in this thread but I want to say this.

I normally try to drop some red pill-lite nuggets into regular conversations just to try to open up peoples minds a bit. Especially with my far left parents and family members.

So, here is a point I brought up and I think we need to make an effort to really bring this point home in the near future when we leave comments on other web sites and in person.

If I am aware of a crime, especially a serious felony like a murder or rape or armed robbery, being committed and I have every reason to believe this has been committed, like say my gang-related friend bragging about it, and I do not inform the police then I have engaged in a crime. Each area has a slightly different wording for this and I am not a lawyer and I do know that there are some instances where this information is somewhat protected but...knowledge of a crime and not reporting it is a crime in and of itself.

In some cases, correct me if I am wrong, it is considered obstruction of justice or aiding and abetting a crime or whatever.

So, I think we need to constantly bring this up with respect to this case and others. At the very least college administrators have a civic obligation to the community to report alleged rapists and their alleged victims to the police for a proper investigation.

Post: #230

What I find interesting is that even leftie publications are questioning this article.

Of course, something else is at play here. Rolling Stone is a magazine that is dying a slow and well-deserved death. It was initially founded by the Hippies to promote their counter-culture. Those people are getting told, too (THANK GOODNESS). They've kissed the ground that Obama walks on, even though Obama has promoted war and corporate welfare (things which hippies once despised). This article is just a desperate attempt by Jan Wenner and these other burnouts to make the magazine relevant again.

It's backfiring wonderfully.

Post: #231

Rolling Stone is garbage.



Disgusting whores posing as concerned leftists.

Post: #232

(12-02-2014 11:36 PM)Shortest Straw Wrote:  Here we have Jackie and her friends alleging that something terrible took place, but are all refusing to name the culprits. Yet they are to be believed. They MUST be believed, because no one would ever lie about such a thing.

Feminist logic 101:

Wealthy, well connected men who have everything going for them would brutally gang rape a girl on broken glass for three hours for shits and giggles.

but...

No girl anywhere would ever, ever, EVER make up a story for attention.

When you consider the implications of this logic - that all men everywhere are both capable of, and likely to commit one of the worst crimes in existence; but women aren't even capable of lying - it becomes indisputable that feminism is an ad hoc ideology constructed around male hatred, to substantiate male hatred. People who, in spite of this, still try to engage feminists with logic - that is, as if they are authentic agents - are fools. If you haven't realised it by now, then here is the simple truth:

Anybody who flies under the banner of feminism has declared war against you.

Post: #233

Rolling Stone Magazine is less than the bottom fishing shit:

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/feat...w-20141017
https://twitter.com/rollingstoneaus/stat...5025425409

Quote:Anita Sarkeesian on GamerGate: 'We Have a Problem and We're Going to Fix This'

How a video game fan weathered a misogynist backlash to become pop culture's most valuable critic

If a magazine is unable to even research the subject sufficiently regarding Sarkeesian's complete and utter lack of Gaming competence, then it does not deserve any mention.

Rolling Stone is less well-researched than the Daily Mail or the low-level Gossip trash mags that make up stories as they go along.

If Sarkeesian is pop culture's most valuable critic according to the Rolling Stone, then that little trash mag is akin to Jezebel and blasts the feminist propaganda without even a shred of difference. Misogyny and patriarchy everywhere, rape-paranoia for everyone despite the fact that incidences of rape have been falling by over 80% since the 1970s and they still continue to fall.

Crime will never be able to be abolished unless someone manages to completely control everyone all the time or kills all humans. But I don't want to live in that kind of Orwellian world. Fuck you Rolling Stone - you are just a feminist propaganda piece that has relegated itself to the bottom of the fucking mainstream barrel!

"We are going to fix this!" Yeah right - fixing your perception of misogyny means basically neutering all men and making them behaving like women.

Post: #234

(12-03-2014 05:26 AM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  Rolling Stone is garbage.



Disgusting whores posing as concerned leftists.

That was a good article about Tsarnev, the Boston bomber. Did you read it, or is your knee just jerking over the cover picture? Flash bulletin: magazines exist to be generate sales, the picture was to provoke sales.

Matt Taibbi's work in Rolling Stone more than balances out this UVa story. Taibbi is back at RS now.

Not to mention the late Michael Hastings's work.

In the end, it might be RS itself which publishes the definitive story on this story.

Let's not throw the baby, etc.

Post: #235

Sp5 Wrote:Matt Taibbi's work in Rolling Stone more than balances out this UVa story. Taibbi is back at RS now.

Let's not throw the baby, etc.

I absolutely will throw out the baby with the bathwater here. Let me explain why.

While I very much liked Matt Taibi's financial crisis & global warming articles (which are, by the way, very detailed and everything is properly sourced and quoted), he's just one fine investigative reporter, not someone who decides the overall slant and bias of the magazine.

Let's take bets on how fast the editorial board of Rolling Stone would sack Matt Taibi if he wrote a reasonable and factual article on the topic of "rape culture", "campus rape epidemic" or "family violence epidemic".

My bet is 6 hours.

Post: #236

(12-03-2014 09:57 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Sp5 Wrote:Matt Taibbi's work in Rolling Stone more than balances out this UVa story. Taibbi is back at RS now.

Let's not throw the baby, etc.

I absolutely will throw out the baby with the bathwater here. Let me explain why.

While I very much liked Matt Taibi's financial crisis & global warming articles (which are, by the way, very detailed and everything is properly sourced and quoted), he's just one fine investigative reporter, not someone who decides the overall slant and bias of the magazine.

Let's take bets on how fast the editorial board of Rolling Stone would sack Matt Taibi if he wrote a reasonable and factual article on the topic of "rape culture", "campus rape epidemic" or "family violence epidemic".

My bet is 6 hours.

Hmmm, he might. Taibbi left his last job at First Look Media for a few reasons, but one of them was a bullshit complaint by a probably underperforming chick:

Quote:These simmering problems came to a head this month when a Racket staffer complained to senior management that Taibbi had been verbally abusive and unprofessionally hostile, and that she felt the conduct may have been motivated, at least in part, by her gender. Temple conducted an investigation, and First Look determined that while none of the alleged conduct rose to the level of legal liability, the grievance bolstered their case that Taibbi should not be the manager of Racket. Among their concerns were the staffer’s claims that Taibbi had been privately criticizing First Look managers, particularly Ching, that Taibbi’s abrasive demeanor was alienating some on his staff, and that Taibbi instructed Racket staff to resolve any grievances directly with him rather than going to upper management.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/...ook-media/

Gawker: Matt Taibbi left First Look after female staffer's complaint

Taibbi strikes me as the kind of guy who would fit in well here, all those years in Russia, for one thing.

The tide is turning. A year from now, you might have a lot of ridicule about this "rape culture" thing. Look at all the women writing critically about this UVa thing.

Post: #237

For those just tuning in:

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/02/author...exactly-ha

Comments section is great, as usual.

Quote:Not only 7 UVA students, but seven students FROM THE SAME FRATERNITY.

And they committed the alleged gang rape with new pledges in October who they didn't know as recently as August.

What, do they have some secret rapist sign language that lets them know who is totally down with potential gang rape so they can be admitted to the frat? Are there decoder rings?

Sorry if that's glib, but this part of the story is unbelievable.

Quote:Jezebel, like most feminist sites, is a totalitarian hug box, filled with social cripples, it’s silly to think you’d get any sort of rational debate out of them. They’re the pseudo-intellectualization of the cookie dough the fat girl eats when she can’t get a date on Saturday night.

The Rolling Stone article is being completely shredded. I predict that it will eventually come to light that the chick had consensual group sex and regretted it. Of course, the whole thing could be one big lie too.

Post: #238

(12-03-2014 06:27 AM)Ocelot Wrote:  Feminist logic 101:

Wealthy, well connected men who have everything going for them would brutally gang rape a girl on broken glass for three hours for shits and giggles.

but...

No girl anywhere would ever, ever, EVER make up a story for attention.

When you consider the implications of this logic - that all men everywhere are both capable of, and likely to commit one of the worst crimes in existence; but women aren't even capable of lying

Funny, I've never seen it articulated this way but it really does showcase how differently our society has come to view men and women. The Halo Effect that women enjoy really is astounding. From making unsubstantiated rape-accusations, to frivorcing their husbands, to sleeping with their under-age students, society sure seems ready to bend over backwards to give women the benefit of the doubt.

Post: #239

(12-03-2014 11:07 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  For those just tuning in:

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/02/author...exactly-ha

...

Jesus - the comments:

Quote:I've found that these SJWs and feminists are keen on manufacturing rape allegations. First of all they're moral utilitarians and so if they think ruining one guy's life with false accusations will benefit their cause, they'll do it without a second thought. Thus they constantly work to expand the definition of rape.

A friend of mine is in prison because he threw up on his date during consensual sex. The girl was grossed out and days later told her "women's studies" 'professor' who then convinced the girl that she was raped because it got icky and the guy slept in her bed when she wanted him to leave.

That's one bloody rape culture indeed. Better not vomit on your sex-partner, or you end up in the slammer.

Quote:Want to know what's great about a story like this? You can make wild accusations that are physically impossible (such as the claim that you were raped on top of broken glass) and then when questioned you can back out of interviews with the ready made excuse that rape is incredibly traumatic and that the skepticism has inflamed your PTSD.

That story has so many traction points that any police detective could easily find out if true or not.

No way in fucking hell will any party be able to lie about it. 7 frat brothers, a room filled with likely remnants of evidence, her friends, alibis of the 7 men, alibis for her and the state of her body after the incident - right after as reported by her friends as well as some time later, as she was supposed to work as a life guard.

Even if all parties try to compose one fitting stories, no way in fucking hell will all people be able to hold on to it under cross-examination.

If the girl speaks the truth, then some or all of the men will get convicted. Then she is an instant multi-millionaire with big-budget interviews, a book deal and maybe even a fucking Lifetime-movie. It may suck for a while, but she would stand to make millions of $ and live in comfort for the rest of her life.

Now - if her allegations are wrong, then of course it will be only embarrassment for her and she would have to leave UVA and have a reputation forever tarnished. If I were her, and if she is not psychotic to some degree, I would be very careful when talking about unfounded rape allegations in such a highly provable incident. The things she said are just too unreal and a dozen people are able to counter her claims. Good luck with that.

But I guess snowflake did not think about it as the bloody Rolling Stone wanted to make her a stupendous martyr for female rights. Such attention and none of the responsibility.

Post: #240

This girl, Jackie, may have Munchausen Syndrome, and Ederly and RS exploited her sickness for clicks and profits.

By the way, Steve Sailer has a big article on it today at Taki. He explains how Richard Bradley started to comment on it on his blog, but it wasn't until a few days ago that the comment section blew up. What Sailer doesn't know is I linked to the Bradley blog in this thread and a number of RVFers went to town on the comments.

Good work men!

Post: #241

Speaking of making millions off rape, Lady Gaga -- never one to pass up an opportunity for publicity -- just revealed she was raped by a music producer when she was 19.

How is it that with her fame, she won't send the guy to prison now? Or name him?

Isn't it irresponsible for her to let this guy off the hook? Should this guy be running around?

This seems like it's becoming an easy way for pop stars to get in the news. Gaga, you all might remember, had to cancel a tour and rumor was that it just didn't sell. Kesha had similar problems.

Tori Amos, I think, started this, with her song "Me and a Gun," which made rape the central focus of publicity for her first solo album in 1992. I've read rumors that might not have been real either.

Post: #242

(12-03-2014 11:54 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:07 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  For those just tuning in:

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/02/author...exactly-ha

...

Jesus - the comments:

Quote:I've found that these SJWs and feminists are keen on manufacturing rape allegations. First of all they're moral utilitarians and so if they think ruining one guy's life with false accusations will benefit their cause, they'll do it without a second thought. Thus they constantly work to expand the definition of rape.

A friend of mine is in prison because he threw up on his date during consensual sex. The girl was grossed out and days later told her "women's studies" 'professor' who then convinced the girl that she was raped because it got icky and the guy slept in her bed when she wanted him to leave.

That's one bloody rape culture indeed. Better not vomit on your sex-partner, or you end up in the slammer.

Quote:Want to know what's great about a story like this? You can make wild accusations that are physically impossible (such as the claim that you were raped on top of broken glass) and then when questioned you can back out of interviews with the ready made excuse that rape is incredibly traumatic and that the skepticism has inflamed your PTSD.

That story has so many traction points that any police detective could easily find out if true or not.

No way in fucking hell will any party be able to lie about it. 7 frat brothers, a room filled with likely remnants of evidence, her friends, alibis of the 7 men, alibis for her and the state of her body after the incident - right after as reported by her friends as well as some time later, as she was supposed to work as a life guard.

Even if all parties try to compose one fitting stories, no way in fucking hell will all people be able to hold on to it under cross-examination.

If the girl speaks the truth, then some or all of the men will get convicted. Then she is an instant multi-millionaire with big-budget interviews, a book deal and maybe even a fucking Lifetime-movie. It may suck for a while, but she would stand to make millions of $ and live in comfort for the rest of her life.

Now - if her allegations are wrong, then of course it will be only embarrassment for her and she would have to leave UVA and have a reputation forever tarnished. If I were her, and if she is not psychotic to some degree, I would be very careful when talking about unfounded rape allegations in such a highly provable incident. The things she said are just too unreal and a dozen people are able to counter her claims. Good luck with that.

But I guess snowflake did not think about it as the bloody Rolling Stone wanted to make her a stupendous martyr for female rights. Such attention and none of the responsibility.

Now that the police are doing the investigation, the truth will come out. And I'll bet dollars to donuts RS ends up apologizing. The good thing is that there's been a lot of media attention on the case before the investigation concludes so the results will have to be a topic at least for one news cycle.

No backing out of this one SJWs. You overreached, feeling so bold that you couldn't believe anybody would call you on it. Pretty soon you'll have to deal with not only being wrong, but being ridiculously wrong, and hella smug about it all along.

Post: #243

Hopefully this starts a revolt against the mainstream media, led by those who care about the truth and are explicitly anti-SJW.

Post: #244

(12-03-2014 12:02 PM)Grange Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:54 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:07 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  For those just tuning in:

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/02/author...exactly-ha

...

Jesus - the comments:

Quote:I've found that these SJWs and feminists are keen on manufacturing rape allegations. First of all they're moral utilitarians and so if they think ruining one guy's life with false accusations will benefit their cause, they'll do it without a second thought. Thus they constantly work to expand the definition of rape.

A friend of mine is in prison because he threw up on his date during consensual sex. The girl was grossed out and days later told her "women's studies" 'professor' who then convinced the girl that she was raped because it got icky and the guy slept in her bed when she wanted him to leave.

That's one bloody rape culture indeed. Better not vomit on your sex-partner, or you end up in the slammer.

Quote:Want to know what's great about a story like this? You can make wild accusations that are physically impossible (such as the claim that you were raped on top of broken glass) and then when questioned you can back out of interviews with the ready made excuse that rape is incredibly traumatic and that the skepticism has inflamed your PTSD.

That story has so many traction points that any police detective could easily find out if true or not.

No way in fucking hell will any party be able to lie about it. 7 frat brothers, a room filled with likely remnants of evidence, her friends, alibis of the 7 men, alibis for her and the state of her body after the incident - right after as reported by her friends as well as some time later, as she was supposed to work as a life guard.

Even if all parties try to compose one fitting stories, no way in fucking hell will all people be able to hold on to it under cross-examination.

If the girl speaks the truth, then some or all of the men will get convicted. Then she is an instant multi-millionaire with big-budget interviews, a book deal and maybe even a fucking Lifetime-movie. It may suck for a while, but she would stand to make millions of $ and live in comfort for the rest of her life.

Now - if her allegations are wrong, then of course it will be only embarrassment for her and she would have to leave UVA and have a reputation forever tarnished. If I were her, and if she is not psychotic to some degree, I would be very careful when talking about unfounded rape allegations in such a highly provable incident. The things she said are just too unreal and a dozen people are able to counter her claims. Good luck with that.

But I guess snowflake did not think about it as the bloody Rolling Stone wanted to make her a stupendous martyr for female rights. Such attention and none of the responsibility.

Now that the police are doing the investigation, the truth will come out. And I'll bet dollars to donuts RS ends up apologizing. The good thing is that there's been a lot of media attention on the case before the investigation concludes so the results will have to be a topic at least for one news cycle.

No backing out of this one SJWs. You overreached, feeling so bold that you couldn't believe anybody would call you on it. Pretty soon you'll have to deal with not only being wrong, but being ridiculously wrong, and hella smug about it all along.

I think you're forgetting something(s).

When Stephen Glass was caught faking his articles, he ended up rich and famous. First, he got a six-figure advance for his loosely-autobiographical novel "The Fabulist" (source).

Then he got a movie made about his life, "Shattered Glass," where he was portrayed by Hayden Christensen. Imagine that? Being able to walk into a bar with that kind of money and say "Hey, baby -- Hayden Christensen played me in the film about my life!" Makes "daygame" tips seem a bit lame, don't you think?

The writer of the Rolling Stone story knew Glass in college and expressed admiration for him in a 1998 interview (source).

So, even if her story turns out to be false, there's money in that -- probably for both her and Jackie. Talk shows. Lifetime movies. Books -- and I'll bet fiction agents will want to sign her up.

She might not make out as well as Glass, but there is a chance she could. Otherwise, why would she have taken a chance with a story like this?

Life has become like the bitterly satirical music "Chicago," where the bad guys profit and the thinking people come out losers. American journalism is a circus driven by the quest for attention and fame.

"Truth" in journalism is like disco music. It's a relic of the Watergate era.

Post: #245

Wow! NY Post's Front Page casts doubt on the authenticity of the rape allegations. That's a huge move, considering NYP is one of worst in passing judgement:
"A Rape Story Too Bad to be True"
http://nypost.com/2014/12/02/a-rape-stor...o-be-true/

Post: #246

(12-03-2014 12:55 PM)monster Wrote:  Wow! NY Post's Front Page casts doubt on the authenticity of the rape allegations. That's a huge move, considering NYP is one of worst in passing judgement:
"A Rape Story Too Bad to be True"
http://nypost.com/2014/12/02/a-rape-stor...o-be-true/

Just pasting the article from above link that Monster shared.

Quote:Rolling Stone has published an incredible story about a rape at the University of Virginia, sending shock waves around the country.

But when I say the story is incredible, I mean that in the literal, largely abandoned sense of the word. It’s not credible — I don’t believe it.

I’m not saying the story’s author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, deliberately fabricated facts. Nor do I believe that all her reporting was flawed. There may be an outrageously callous attitude toward sexual assaults at UVA.

Rape, particularly date rape, may be a major problem there. I’ve talked to enough people with connections to the campus to think that part’s credible enough.

But the central story isn’t about a spontaneous alcohol-fueled case of some creep refusing to take no for an answer (an inexcusable offense).
It’s an account of a well-planned gang rape by seven fraternity pledges at the direction of two members. If true, lots of people need to go to jail for decades — if.

The basic story is this: Jackie is asked out on a date her freshman year by a junior named Drew (not his real name). After dinner, they go to a party at Phi Kappa Psi. Quickly, Drew asks Jackie, “Want to go upstairs, where it’s quieter?”
WHAT A CONVENIENT CONVERSATION FOR AN EXPOSÉ OF RAPE CULTURE — IT READS LIKE A SCRIPT WRITTEN FOR A FEMINIST AVANT-GARDE THEATER TROUPE.

Jackie is led to a “pitch-black” bedroom. She’s knocked to the floor. A heavy person jumps on top of her. A hand covers her mouth. When she bites it, she’s punched in the face.

And for the next three hours, she’s brutally raped, with Drew and another upperclassman shouting out instructions to the pledges, referring to Jackie as “it.”

Many alleged details aren’t suitable for a family paper. Others are simply hard to believe: The pitch-black darkness doesn’t prevent Jackie from recognizing an attacker or seeing them drink beer.

The assault takes place amid the wreckage of a broken glass table, but the rapists are undeterred by shards of glass.

The most unbelievable dialogue comes later. Sometime after 3 a.m., Jackie leaves the still-raging party, “her face beaten, dress spattered with blood,” without anyone seeing her.

Distraught, she calls three friends, Andy, Randall and Cindy (not their real names), for help.

They arrive in “minutes.” One male friend says they have to take her to the hospital. Cindy asks, “Is that such a good idea?” adding, “Her reputation will be shot for the next four years.”

Erdely expounds: “Andy seconded the opinion, adding that since he and Randall both planned to rush fraternities, they ought to think this through. The three friends launched into a heated discussion about the social price of reporting Jackie’s rape.”

Really? Neither boy put Jackie’s medical needs above their pledge prospects? What a convenient conversation for an exposé of rape culture — it reads like a script written for a feminist avant-garde theater troupe.

Similarly, when Jackie reports what happened to school authorities — again, a brutal, premeditated gang rape by nearly half the pledge class of a prominent fraternity — the dean is described as responding with all of the emotion you’d expect if Jackie requested to change majors.

Meanwhile, it was all kept hush-hush until Erdely reported it.
Erdely admits she set out to find a sexual-assault story at an elite school like UVA.

She looked at lots of other colleges first, but “none of those schools felt quite right,” in the words of a Washington Post profile of her.

But UVA, which Erdely describes in Rolling Stone as a school without a thriving “radical feminist culture seeking to upend the patriarchy,” was just right.
As Worth magazine editor Richard Bradley noted last week, the whole thing seems like an adventure in confirmation bias — our tendency to find “evidence” that confirms our prejudices.

Initially, Erdely wouldn’t say if she even knew the names of the alleged rapists. Monday, according to The Washington Post, her editor said Rolling Stone “verified their existence” by talking to Jackie’s friends, but the magazine couldn’t reach them. Uh huh.

Erdely’s story was reported uncritically for days as a powerful example of the “rape epidemic” that is somehow taking place amid a 20-year decline in reported rapes.

Erdely’s story may be proven true after a needed investigation, but I suspect it will turn out to have been one of those stories too useful to verify.

Post: #247

(12-03-2014 12:01 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Speaking of making millions off rape, Lady Gaga -- never one to pass up an opportunity for publicity -- just revealed she was raped by a music producer when she was 19.

How is it that with her fame, she won't send the guy to prison now? Or name him?

Isn't it irresponsible for her to let this guy off the hook? Should this guy be running around?

This seems like it's becoming an easy way for pop stars to get in the news. Gaga, you all might remember, had to cancel a tour and rumor was that it just didn't sell. Kesha had similar problems.

Tori Amos, I think, started this, with her song "Me and a Gun," which made rape the central focus of publicity for her first solo album in 1992. I've read rumors that might not have been real either.

I was about to make a thread on this, oh well someone else will in 5...

Post: #248

(12-03-2014 09:50 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 05:26 AM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  Rolling Stone is garbage.



Disgusting whores posing as concerned leftists.

That was a good article about Tsarnev, the Boston bomber. Did you read it, or is your knee just jerking over the cover picture? Flash bulletin: magazines exist to be generate sales, the picture was to provoke sales.

Matt Taibbi's work in Rolling Stone more than balances out this UVa story. Taibbi is back at RS now.

Not to mention the late Michael Hastings's work.

In the end, it might be RS itself which publishes the definitive story on this story.

Let's not throw the baby, etc.

Fuck Rolling Stone.

If you want the granddaddy of injecting leftist ideology into journalism, you're looking at it.

I'm big into music, so spent years reading it, and it was consistently-terrible at just giving me decent, unbiased music journalism. By the early 90's, you were more likely to get a five page interview of, say, Brad Pitt, than a musician, because it would sell more magazines, so it transitioned into a film and celebrity-gossip magazine with the occasional political article because you have to indoctrinate them young.

All the musicians through the 80's and 90's who pushed the art form forward? Largely-ignored. You were more likely to get an in-depth interview with Brittany Spears, Hootie and the Blowfish or The Dave Matthews Band than anyone who made a lasting or notable artistic contribution to music. The music reviewing was uniformly-dreadful, and relegated to a small section at the back of the magazine.

Yet, it was so full of itself, coasting on its outlaw reputation from the 60's and early 70's. It's your grandfather wearing a backwards baseball cap and trying to rap.

I haven't read it for years, but I could accurately guess the artistic level of the artists they would still be pushing, and a quick search confirmed it. (I also noticed a startling lack of diversity in their covers from the last couple of years. It's white face after white face, despite urban music dominating the charts).













Rolling Stone has been 'Sassy' with delusions of grandeur for a good 15 years or more.

Post: #249

(12-02-2014 10:42 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  There is now a Slate piece co-authored by Hanna Rosin questioning why Erdely apparently never attempted to reach the alleged rapists for comment. It is remarkable that even Slate feels obliged to publish such a piece.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/d...leged.html

When I get almost convinced to dismiss Slate as a rag piece posting click bait for SJWs, they have an attack of journalistic integrity and publish something like this.

By the end of the year, the "piece" from Rolling Stone will be considered a hoax by the mainstream media. Erdely's career may not survive the fallout.

Post: #250

I think it's safe to say that this story will turn out to become a complete hoax.

But the important question that I think a lot of people really need to start asking is: is this revelation going to constitute the beginning of a pushback against the "rape culture" hysteria that we've been seeing pushed by the government-academia-media complex. And unfortunately, I don't think it will.

As previously mentioned, we have the Duke lacrosse and Hofstra cases to look back on. Any thinking person should be able to tie this in and see a trend - but the Cathedral of SJWism wants this pushed forward, all evidence to the contrary.

They've declared war on masculinity itself, and by God, they'll do anything they can to prosecute it - and if they end up having peddled false allegations as they increasingly seem to have done so here, hey, they can just rationalize to themselves (and to us!) that it was "for the right reasons."

It all just looks like one step forward, fifty steps back. If our government, our academia, and our media are deadset on pushing this hysteria, then we're going to get it one way or the other, it seems. It's all just another signal that for the thinking man who values his masculinity, it's high time to flee the West as soon as possible.

HSLD