Post: #301

That's bio of her was painful to read. I can't imagine specializing in a more DULL field.

Post: #302

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...24841.html

From this piece by Cathy Young:

Quote:The aftermath is equally mind-boggling. After a battered, bleeding Jackie escapes and calls some friends for help, they consider taking her to the hospital but decide that reporting a fraternity rape would risk a social backlash. As Jackie sinks into depression, other female friends belittle her and tell her to get over it. At the end of the year, after failing three classes, she finally tells her story to a dean; but since she is not ready to go to the police or even pursue a disciplinary charge, the university does nothing—not even when Jackie, by then an anti-rape activist, goes back to the same dean a year later to report that she has learned of two other sexual assaults at the same fraternity.

Failing three classes and being in a deep depression could easily be explained by being gang raped, but since the gang rape is questionable, maybe the girl had other substantial issues?

Quote:More facts will undoubtedly emerge in the weeks to come. The truth may turn out to lie somewhere in between the sensational Rolling Stone account and the suspicions of hoax: one possibility is that Jackie’s assault was real but far less violent and perhaps more ambiguous than portrayed in the story. (Notably, in her message to the community, UVA President Sullivan noted that the Rolling Stone article contained “many details [of the alleged attack] that were previously not disclosed to University officials.”) In her interviews, Erdely herself has said that she cannot be certain of the exact events at the fraternity house and is convinced only that something traumatic happened to Jackie. She has also stressed that what truly matters is the big picture of UVA’s culture of indifference to sexual assault.

If those details were really so gruesome you'd think she'd have mentioned them! EDIT: That would also explain the lack of action by the university. There's no way they could ignore it if they'd heard the tale from the RS article, but it's easier to sit still on "I had sex and I regretted it."

Post: #303

(12-04-2014 07:40 PM)Grange Wrote:  From this piece by Cathy Young:

Quote:(Notably, in her message to the community, UVA President Sullivan noted that the Rolling Stone article contained “many details [of the alleged attack] that were previously not disclosed to University officials.”)

It's interesting that this is being noted on a mainstream media article some two weeks after I noted the same inconsistency here at RooshV. I feel vindicated that the truth is coming out relatively quickly, but I don't like the fact that I am in a world where I need to use an anonymous identity to point out legitimate problems with today's extreme feminist agenda.

I am anonymous because the first mainstream journalist to point out problems with Jackie's story was savagely attacked by a hack piece in Jezebel. While Slate ran a reasonable article on the problems with Erdely's article (even though they have on staff the abomination that is Amanda Marcotte), Salon is running a poorly argued "but if the girl says she was raped, it must be true" piece. Slate, compared to Salon, has also been far more reasonable talking about Alcoholics Anonymous than Salon has been.

As a family man with three mouths to feed, the last thing I want to deal with is something like enraged feminists sending letters to my boss trying to fire me and make me unemployable if I were to, say, question a woman's claim of being raped.

Post: #304

(12-04-2014 04:05 PM)Dusty Wrote:  I want to do a full breakdown of the 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted hoax. I think we need a separate thread for the topic. Has that been done before? We need to really get to the bottom of rape hysteria and rape inflation.

I found the study from 2006 that came up with the 1 in 5 stat. It's long and filled with filler and gobbledygook. Let's tear that fucker apart. I'm even suggesting using FOIA to make the study less opaque so we can find its flaws.

I have some time around Xmas.

Expect a thread soon ( unless it's been done before).

There's some smart fuckers on this forum who are extremely numerate and I will need your help.

Dusty, this Washington Post "fact check" is a decent place to start with to try to understand this "1 in 5" lie. It assembles a lot of the relevant facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact...statistic/

Here are some of the facts which make clear that the results of this "study" are essentially worthless.

1. The entire study is based on a web survey of undergrads at two universities. That's right -- just two universities were surveyed and only at one time (2006). There is absolutely no reason to believe the results, whatever they're worth, are representative of US colleges at large.

2. The response rates to the survey were low. That means that out of an initial sample of females that were chosen for the survey, only some (small) fraction actually chose to complete it. You need to ask yourself the question: is a female who chooses to complete a survey on sexual assault more or less likely to report having been sexually assaulted than a female who chooses not to complete the survey? I think the answer is clear, and therefore the self-selected subset of females who chose to complete the survey is very likely not representative of the general population, and is biased (perhaps heavily) towards females who are likely to report that they were sexually assaulted.

3. The definition of "sexual assault" used in the survey was extremely broad and included such acts as "sexual touching", as in, for example, an unwelcome kiss. That is not the picture conjured by the words "sexual assault" in most people's minds. In other words, for a significant percentage of the females who report to have been assaulted, the "assaults" include acts that occur in everyday life and that, while perhaps annoying, would hardly be considered criminal under any law.

4. Survey results of these kinds are notoriously unreliable, and in particular, extremely sensitive to the precise wording used. As is pointed out in the WaPo piece,

Quote:On its Web site, the National Institute of Justice notes that rapes and other forms of sexual assault are among the most underreported crimes, but that “researchers have been unable to determine the precise incidence of sexual assault on American campuses because the incidence found depends on how the questions are worded and the context of the survey.” It said that two parallel surveys of American college women were conducted in 1997 and came up with very different results, with one survey showing rapes were 11 times higher than the percentage in the other survey. The reason appears to be because of how the questions were worded.

In other words, two different surveys conduced at the same time differed by an order of magnitude because of how the questions were worded. So maybe the "20%" is really "2%" (or 200%, LOL). A survey whose results can be off by an order of magnitude is meaningless.

5. Finally, all these numbers are entirely self-reported. To take them at face value is to assume that most females who filled out the survey answered it truthfully, and in particular, that a great majority of those who reported having been assaulted answered truthfully. There was no random followup of responders to ascertain if there is any truth to what they reported (nor could there be since the survey was anonymous). Thus, there is absolutely no objective corroboration of these numbers outside of the respondents to this one-time survey.

The long and the short of it is that this is an extremely shoddy study whose conclusions are absolutely worthless. To base major changes in national policy on a single survey of two colleges done in 2006 over the web, with suggestive and overbroad wording, a low response rate resulting in a biased sample, and no objective corroboration of the results, is a travesty and a national disgrace.

Post: #305

Lizard,

Another thing too is the "assault" rates in the survey are higher for sophomores than freshmen, and higher for juniors than sophomores, and highest for seniors. My hypothesis is that they are being indoctrinated all those years to see sexual assault in everything and anything and that's why it rises. They're being taught to see shit that isn't there.

You gave a good start above. I think there is a lot more we can dig into on the survey, and I'm looking forward to having a thread where we can all learn from each other.

The end result will be an educated and informed body of knowledge that us red pillers can use to educate people on rape hysteria, whether in real life, or on social media, or the comments sections of articles.

Post: #306

Dusty -- the fact that the rates are higher the higher you go in class is unsurprising since I believe that the survey asked about incidents that occurred at any time during the respondent's college career. Since sophomores have been in college a year longer than freshmen, juniors a year longer than sophomores, and so on, it makes sense that the cumulative incidence rises with college class (it should rise roughly linearly, in fact).

It's important to be careful about making these arguments because if one makes an error of this kind, it will be latched on to and taken as an excuse to dismiss the whole argument, even if the rest of it is perfectly valid. It is best to carefully vet and double check these things with guys who have a reasonably strong quantitative background (I'll be happy to vet anything you write).

I feel that what I wrote in the above post, while brief, is essentially sufficient as far as the 1 in 5 number goes. It might be possible to poke additional holes in that study but it's not necessary and the more minor details you try to get into, the greater the odds of getting bogged down in something that's not really relevant and making that the point of contention. What I wrote above is enough to show that this study is so flawed as to be worthless. Once that has been shown, there is little need, as far as I see, to add anything more. It should suffice to repeat these points since they cannot be refuted by anyone arguing in good faith.

Post: #307

(12-04-2014 04:05 PM)Dusty Wrote:  I want to do a full breakdown of the 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted hoax. I think we need a separate thread for the topic. Has that been done before? We need to really get to the bottom of rape hysteria and rape inflation.

I found the study from 2006 that came up with the 1 in 5 stat. It's long and filled with filler and gobbledygook. Let's tear that fucker apart. I'm even suggesting using FOIA to make the study less opaque so we can find its flaws.

I have some time around Xmas.

Expect a thread soon ( unless it's been done before).

There's some smart fuckers on this forum who are extremely numerate and I will need your help.

If you're going to break down the 1 in 5 figure, please use the below article as a source or link. I keep linking it on blogs and on here.

It's a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article from 2011, where the writer breaks down the number of reported assaults on college campuses to come up with a real statistic. The figure he came up with 1 in 1877 not 1 in 5.

Here is an example of how he ran the numbers at various colleges:

"At Carnegie Mellon University, there are roughly 3,900 female students. If their chances of being sexually assaulted are 1-in-4, there should be about 975 sexual assaults each year. In 2009, CMU reported 6. (That figure was a three-year high.)"

Also, is there a way we can save the Web page that goes with this link? I get the feeling the newspaper might be pressured into deleting it. We're in a different world than we were in 2011 -- people now get fired/boycotted for politically incorrect opinions and "hate facts."

http://communityvoices.post-gazette.com/...enty-seven

Post: #308

(12-04-2014 11:39 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Also, is there a way we can save the Web page that goes with this link?

I did what the GamerGate people have been doing, and saved it using the archive.today service:

https://archive.today/Fvqhz

And, in case that goes down, here is the entire article:

Quote:http://communityvoices.post-gazette.com/...enty-seven

One-in-One-Thousand-Eight-Hundred-Seventy-Seven
(or, how the numbers in Pittsburgh just don’t add up)

Monday, 28 February 2011 12:35 PM Written by Chad Hermann

I’ve been wanting to get to this one for two weeks now, but a few other projects, and then that damned and damnable arbitrator’s decision, got in the way. Let’s not keep it waiting any longer.

Two Mondays ago, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review published a piece about the new state law that requires colleges and universities to provide sexual assault prevention programs on campus. While there is much to discuss (like PA Rep. Scott Conklin’s claim that some people believe when you go to a university, nothing bad can happen) and to deride (like Pitt freshman Dominique Benzio’s insistence that some people don’t even understand if they have been sexually assaulted or not) in the piece, I want to focus, clearly and simply, on the numbers it presents. And the contradictions it, and almost everyone else, ignores.

You can not have an article on sexual assault in college, of course, without a solemn invocation of that infamous, oft-repeated, almost-as-oft-debunked One-in-Four statistic. The Trib does not disappoint:

The National Sexual Violence Research Center in Enola, northwest of Harrisburg, estimates 20 percent to 25 percent of women are victims of forced sex during their time in college.

But where the Trib, like everyone else who uncritically accepts this uncritical notion, does disappoint is in its failure to acknowledge that the numbers do not add up. And, in fact, that they do not even come close.

As a supplement to that same article, the Trib published a Campus Safety sidebar that provided a list of reported sexual assault offenses for eight local colleges over the past three years. All told, there were 65.

65. At 8 colleges. Among tens of thousands of female students. Over 3 years.

That’s a long way from 1-in-4. And thus a complete repudiation of the now-boilerplate statistic claimed in the article.

Those numbers, however, only represent reported assaults that occurred in student housing. Surely the numbers would be much higher, and much more alarming, once you counted sexual assaults that occurred elsewhere on campus and in the community at large. Surely that would get us much closer to the canonical 1-in-4 wisdom.

I decided to test that theory by examining the sexual assault statistics at Pittsburgh’s three largest residential universities: the University of Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon University, and Duquesne University.

Thanks to the Clery Act, all higher-ed institutions must publish and distribute an annual campus security report, complete with full crime statistics from the past three years. These documents are easily found online. You can check them yourself, and follow along with the numbers, here:

The University of Pittsburgh. Carnegie Mellon University. Duquesne University.

At the University of Pittsburgh, there are roughly 14,800 female students. If their chances of being sexually assaulted are 1-in-4, there should be about 3,700 sexual assaults each year. In 2009, the most recent year for which full statistics are available, Pitt students reported 4.

At Carnegie Mellon University, there are roughly 3,900 female students. If their chances of being sexually assaulted are 1-in-4, there should be about 975 sexual assaults each year. In 2009, CMU reported 6. (That figure was a three-year high.)

At Duquesne University, there are roughly 5,700 female students. If their chances of being sexually assaulted are 1-in-4, there should be about 1,425 sexual assaults each year. In 2009, Duquesne reported 3.

Just to be clear, and so those numbers stand out, here are the total number of reported sexual assaults for each of the three campuses in 2009, followed in parentheses by the numbers those universities should have suffered, according to the 1-in-4 figure:

PITT: 4 (3,700)
CMU: 6 (975)
DUQ: 3 (1,425)

Which means that, instead of 1-in-4, their chances of being sexually assaulted in 2009 were:

PITT: 1-in-3,700.
CMU: 1-in-650.
DUQ: 1-in-1,900.

There is, of course, a widely reported (if virtually unverifiable) statistic that says 90 percent of sexual assaults go unreported. The Trib piece took note:

90 percent or more of those victims do not report the assault.

If we grant that claim and adjust the numbers, then here are the total number of sexual assaults that occurred in 2009, followed in parentheses by the numbers those universities should have suffered, according to the 1-in-4 figure:

PITT: 40 (3,700)
CMU: 60 (975)
DUQ: 30 (1,425)

Which means that, even if we grant the 90%-are-unreported figure, women’s chances of being sexually assaulted while attending those universities in 2009 were not 1-in-4 but:

PITT: 1-in-370
CMU: 1-in-65
DUQ: 1-in-190

Even after adjusting for the possibility that 90% of sexual assaults on those university women went unreported, to get to 1-in-4, sexual assaults on those campuses in 2009 would have to be increased (and unreported) to the tune of:

PITT: 9,150%
CMU: 1,525%
DUQ: 4,650%

Is it possible that these numbers are just anomalies? That they represent a down year for sexual assaults on these local campuses, one that is not indicative of a typical year?

Not according to the crime statistics published for the past three years.

In 2009, Pitt reported 4, CMU 6, Duquesne 3. For the period 2007-2009, Pitt averaged 3.33 per year. CMU averaged 4 per year. Duquesne averaged 1.33 per year.

Which means that, in each case and on each campus, the three-year average was lower than the 2009 figure.

If we use those three-year averages, women’s chances of being sexually assaulted while attending those universities from 2007-2009 were not 1-in-4 but:

PIT: 1-in-4,444
CMU: 1-in-975
DUQ: 1-in-4,285

If you combine all of the crime statistics for Pitt, CMU, and Duquesne — again, the city’s three most populous urban campuses — and run an average for 2009 (which, as we’ve already seen, is above the most recent three-year average), here’s what you get:

# of Female Students: 24,400
# of Reported Sexual Assaults: 13
Chances of Being Sexually Assaulted: 1-in-1,877.

If you accept the claim that 90% of college sexual assaults are not reported, you get:

# of Female Students: 24,400
# of Reported Sexual Assaults: 130
Chances of Being Sexually Assaulted: 1-in-188.

To get to 1-in-4, you still need 47 times — not 47 more, but 47 times more — sexual assaults.

As I noted at the top of this post: the numbers in reality don’t come anywhere close to matching the numbers in the claims.

Is Pittsburgh just 47 (or, without a guess of an adjustment, 470) times safer than any other city, suburb, exurb, or small town in the country? Are Pitt, CMU, and Duquesne (plus all those other colleges on the Trib’s PDF) just terrific anomalies, just unexplained and uncharacteristic outliers in the data?

If so, and either way, there must be some city, some university, some collection of colleges somewhere for which the real, actual, federally mandated crime statistics — even bumped up to account for 90% of non-reports — work out to that 1-in-4 figure. Or at least come close. Right?

In fact, there ought to be a lot of them. Right?

Right?

If not, then the people who insist on advancing those dramatic claims while also ignoring these decidedly less dramatic realities would seem to have an awful lot of explaining to do.

One comment corrected the math to account for students being at college for multiple years:

Quote:Re: "14,800 female students. If their chances of being sexually assaulted are 1-in-4, there should be about 3,700 sexual assaults each year."

The claim is 1 in 4 are assaulted during their time at college. So if they all graduate in 4 years we would expect 912 assaults per year. That would vary if people took longer to graduate or dropped out but we don't expect 3,700 assaults per year.

Your larger point is perfectly valid however.

Also, as we are discussing in another thread, it takes longer than four years to graduate from college. Let us suppose these women studies majors are real slackers (or Ph.D seekers) and it takes them 10 years to graduate from college. If their chance of getting sexually assaulted a given year is 1-in-5 (that's the most commonly used number by radical feminists, so I will work with it), then we should still get 296 reports a year. We got 4 reports at filed at that particular college that year, which means, for these numbers to work, well under 2% of sexual assaults are actually reported.

Using Carnegie Mellon University's numbers, there were, in 2009, about 3900 female students. There were 6 sexual assault accusations filed that year. If an average student was there for 10 years (an extremely generous number), and if one in five female students are really sexually assaulted, then under 8% of sexual assaults were reported that year.

Post: #309

I saw this in the comments section of one of the UVa stories:

Quote:Alison Bax · Top Commenter

But there is no proof of a hoax, beyond the disbelief of many (male) reporters. The problem is not some "feminist cabal" (which frankly sounds a bit ludicrous), hunting down frats, but rather that fraternities provide a male-only space in which predators can camouflage themselves. NOT that all frats are/have rapists in them, but the male-centric atmosphere of hypermasculinity at SOME frats can lead the rapists' power and dominance needs to become more normalized.

In other words, some frats emphasize hyper-masculinity at the expense of women's rights/personhood. Such as those frats in which they've chanted terrible things in public. These frats create an atmosphere in which rape culture thrives, which can allow predators to swim undetected.

Post: #310

Some college rapes happening around the country in which the men were at least charged:

http://www.unz.com/isteve/think-progress...ape-cases/

Leaving aside the issue that most of those men are black - which is the main reason why the mainstream does not cover those, even those cases are somewhat strange:

http://abc7.com/news/2-charged-with-rape...se/421092/

Those 2 fellas are not students, but just crashed a John Hopkins frat house party and had sex with one 16yo girl there. Could be regret rape or real rape, maybe she fucked them and then got nervous as someone saw them and cried rape or she was truly raped by 2 guys, who were just visitors. See also how they called it - first forcing her to do sexual acts on her before raping her. So I guess she blew both of them and could not call for help during a busy party? Would not 10 well-built men come to her rescue? Maybe someone has more on that story.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03...57000.html

This one is even more bull-shitty.

Quote:The five men blocked a dorm room doorway at William Paterson University in Wayne, and restrained and demanded sex from the woman on Nov. 25, when the campus had largely emptied out for the Thanksgiving break, according to the criminal complaint.

Quote:Four men, Noah Williams, Termaine Scott, Darius Singleton and Garrett Collick, all 18, were charged with conspiring to sexually assault the victim. Jahmel Latimer, also 18, joined the attack while it was in progress and is charged with aggravated sexual assault, prosecutors said.

All the students pleaded not guilty in Passaic County Superior Court in Paterson.

"From the facts, it appears that all these young men are innocent," Latimer's attorney, Ronald Ricci, said.

Looks more like gang-bang regret rape, as the men are not even charged of rape. Super-slut finds out that likely men took pics and started snap-chatting about it, soon everyone finds out, girl feels bad about it and tells people that she was assaulted.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/13/justic...rape-case/

OK - this looks real. Girl unconscious - idiots think it's fine to fuck her, since maybe she would have fucked them when awake anyway. Morons take even pics & send it around to others. Yup - that likely happened - one of my ex-girlfriends was raped like that in the woods during a camping party by some idiots who fucked her in the ass while she was passed out drunk. Punks had to do years in the slammer afterwards. Stuff is super-easy to prove as she woke up and went straight to the police.

OK - mainstream media - even in those cases you trump out - 1 out of 3 which should have been made public is not bad at all. The other 2 are doubtful and the names of those men should be left out of the spotlight, as they may be declared not guilty in the end.

And besides - the first case was done by non-students on a non-student on university grounds. Next time a bum stumbles onto campus and takes a dump on the lawn, why not call that a "Public Exposure Epidemic at US colleges"?

Even the 1 in 1877 chance of being the victim of sexual assault that @Days mentioned is probably 50% or more bullshit & regret rape, since sexual assault can mean a botched kiss attempt to an ass-grab-move.

Post: #311

Saw a comment on Bradley's blog asking a good question about why the scrutiny on this case didn't match the crazy bitch with the mattress's case from a few months ago? Both were single sources that seem now highly unreliable.

Post: #312

(12-05-2014 03:03 AM)iamdegaussed Wrote:  Saw a comment on Bradley's blog asking a good question about why the scrutiny on this case didn't match the crazy bitch with the mattress's case from a few months ago?

The mattress story was a lot less lurid; the woman in question (Emma Sulkowicz) had previous consensual encounters with the alleged assailant before the supposed rape happened, and the supposed assault was a one-on-one affair, not a seven-on-one gang.

Her story was not one to incite emotions the way this Jackie's story does, and it's one that's a lot harder to confirm or deny, since the only thing we can confirm with physical evidence is that the two parties had sexual intercourse.

Post: #313

So, where will this go now?

I was surprised by the news the police aren't investigating, but I guess it makes sense if "Jackie" is hiding from them and the University and Erdely are stonewalling. The police can't even start.

There are only two things that will get the truth out now:

(1) good investigative journalism, which might be hard because Jackie and Erdely will run, UVa will hide, and the frats can't prove a negative, and

(2) The frats and students in general push back against all of the sanctions and measures the feminists will want to impose and demand some kind of due process. Someone needs to stand up at these meetings

Cavalier Daily: Faculty discusses action against sexual violence

and say "There's no fucking proof this gang rape happened!"

Otherwise, the narrative is going to be:

(12-05-2014 12:48 AM)Dusty Wrote:  

Quote:Alison Bax · Top Commenter
But there is no proof of a hoax, beyond the disbelief of many (male) reporters.

Here's another article on the journalistic abomination of the story:

Daily Caller: Is your rape clickbait, does it pop?

Quote:[Erdely] was rape shopping: going from campus to campus auditioning rape victims, contacting advocacy groups and asking for introductions. But the rapes she found at Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Penn didn’t have the right narrative feel. They were just rapes, and she needed a cover-worthy rape. So she kept shopping until she found someone who would tell her a version of the story she had already decided to tell. She needed a big rape — something splashy, something with wild details and a frat house. She needed a rape that would go viral. You can’t do that with just some regular boring rape.

Post: #314

(12-04-2014 02:17 PM)Grange Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 01:49 PM)SteveMcMahon Wrote:  So why, in spite of rape falling by about 80% since the 70's, won't feminists shut the fuck up about rape?

In part, it's because rape is always on their minds. Because they're women.

If we gave money instead of likes you'd be a rich man.

If only I'd joined Advantage's Skype group!

Post: #315

Some good comments showing up on various sites in regards to the UVA case:

Quote:You know, Glenn Reynolds famously quipped 'I'll start treating global warming like its a crisis when the people screaming about it start behaving like its a crisis'.

I think that sentiment applies here. I mean lets be honest- NOBODY really believes this story. Not the University, not Rolling Stone, not the feminists, nobody. They may believe in the 'truthiness' of the story, and certainly in the sanctity of never questioning a complainant no matter how outlandish the allegations. But lets imagine anybody did actually believe that there was a house full of men on a college campus that were engaged an ongoing conspiracy involving kidnapping and a serial rape 'cult'. People would be burning down the place with torches. Cops would be kicking the basement doors in to see if some poor coed was chained to a radiator. Microphones would be shoved into the faces of every member, their parents, their girlfriends. Lawyers would be lined up across the quad.

But nothing like any of that is happening. And the reason is clear- facts dont matter. Truth doesnt matter. That this is a ridiculous assertion doesnt matter. What matters is the 'larger' truth. And not about rape, which is a hideous crime that needs actual prosecution, but about the gender wars, in which our entire 'rape culture' needs to be tamed.

Post: #316

My article on UVA rape is up. It chronicles how the same claims were made at UVA ten years ago---and they turned out to be false:

http://www.returnofkings.com/49470/the-t...aim-at-uva

Post: #317

(12-05-2014 08:43 AM)runsonmagic Wrote:  My article on UVA rape is up. It chronicles how the same claims were made at UVA ten years ago---and they turned out to be false:

http://www.returnofkings.com/49470/the-t...aim-at-uva

Masterful article.

Post: #318

Excellent article, Runsonmagic, about a UVA woman who filed a lawsuit for being raped. Even though there was no evidence that the sex was non-consensual, and third party testimony supporting the notion that the woman consented to having sex, the jury rewarded her with a $150,000 settlement.

Here's another article from the left criticizing the reporting of Jackie's story:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...ictim.html

Quote:Even Erdely [the author of the Rolling Stone piece] herself has retreated from fully accepting Jackie’s story, now saying that “there’s no doubt in my mind that something happened to her that night. What exactly happened, you know, I wasn’t in that room (emphasis added).” Rolling Stone has since issued a carefully worded statement similarly distancing itself from Jackie’s claims, saying that they found her “credible” but stopping far short of declaring her story to be carefully vetted and judged to be true.

Post: #319

What's been eye opening for me from this saga, and it's always been there in front of my face but I only see it now, is how feminists do not want women reporting their rape accusations to the police. Before this episode, I thought that's what feminist want most, to scoop up these "rapists" and put them in jail. But what I've learned is they encourage the accusers to STAY AWAY from the police.

The reason being is the police have to act on tangible evidence, not tall tales. The feminist know an overwhelming majority of these accusations will dissolve into nothing once they have to be supported with proof.

I've seen a number of feminists from various sources quoted on this incident saying that wanting rape accusers to go to the police is some how oppressive. The girls have PTSD or what have you. "Our main focus is on the victim and supporting her through this traumatic event, and not seeking prosecution" is what they say.

They want these cases to be adjudicated by campus kangaroo courts where the rules of evidence are a in favor of the accuser and where those doing the judging are steeped in feminist ideology.

They can't afford the truth to be discovered in these cases because they depend on rape hoaxes and false accusations.

Why are false rape charges valuable to women?

1. The so called rape culture on campus provides easy and good paying jobs to the otherwise non employable. The rape counselors , the administrative jobs and so on. These are jobs for women, often Gender Studies majors who are otherwise not employable. Without the false rape case load, these jobs could not be justified.

2. On a macro level, feminist use rape hoaxes to destroy male institutions that are resistant to becoming feminized. Especially white male institutions. Fraternities and lacrosse teams are prime targets.

3. On a micro level, girls can use false rape accusations as a bazooka to punish guys who don't treat them how they would like. Also, it's a tool to redirect blame when the female gets caught doing something regretful or shameful. It's also a way for mentally ill girls to get sympathy and attention.

Fake rape is a valuable tool for bitches, and so they can't allow these accusations to leave the world that feminist control.

Post: #320

(12-05-2014 11:45 AM)Dusty Wrote:  What's been eye opening for me from this saga, and it's always been there in front of my face but I only see it now, is how feminists do not want women reporting their rape accusations to the police. Before this episode, I thought that's what feminist want most, to scoop up these "rapists" and put them in jail. But what I've learned is they encourage the accusers to STAY AWAY from the police.

The reason being is the police have to act on tangible evidence, not tall tales. The feminist know an overwhelming majority of these accusations will dissolve into nothing once they have to be supported with proof.

I've seen a number of feminists from various sources quoted on this incident saying that wanting rape accusers to go to the police is some how oppressive. The girls have PTSD or what have you. "Our main focus is on the victim and supporting her through this traumatic event, and not seeking prosecution" is what they say.

They want these cases to be adjudicated by campus kangaroo courts where the rules of evidence are a in favor of the accuser and where those doing the judging are steeped in feminist ideology.

They can't afford the truth to be discovered in these cases because they depend on rape hoaxes and false accusations.

Why are false rape charges valuable to women?

1. The so called rape culture on campus provides easy and good paying jobs to the otherwise non employable. The rape counselors , the administrative jobs and so on. These are jobs for women, often Gender Studies majors who are otherwise not employable. Without the false rape case load, these jobs could not be justified.

2. On a macro level, feminist use rape hoaxes to destroy male institutions that are resistant to becoming feminized. Especially white male institutions. Fraternities and rugby teams are prime targets.

3. On a micro level, girls can use false rape accusations as a bazooka to punish guys who don't treat them how they would like. Also, it's a tool to redirect blame when the female gets caught doing something regretful or shameful. It's also a way for mentally ill girls to get sympathy and attention.

Fake rape is a valuable tool for bitches, and so they can't allow these accusations to leave the world that feminist control.

You should expand that into an RoK article. Nobody thinks about the why of it all, but potential-but-not-yet red pillers would really benefit from hearing somebody say it.

Post: #321

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news...s-20141205
Uh-oh...

Post: #322

(12-05-2014 01:23 PM)komatiite Wrote:  http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news...s-20141205
Uh-oh...

Quote:To Our Readers:

Last month, Rolling Stone published a story titled "A Rape on Campus" by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, which described a brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity house; the university's failure to respond to this alleged assault – and the school's troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. The story generated worldwide headlines and much soul-searching at UVA. University president Teresa Sullivan promised a full investigation and also to examine the way the school responds to sexual assault allegations.

Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie's story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely spent reporting the story, Jackie neither said nor did anything that made Erdely, or Rolling Stone's editors and fact-checkers, question Jackie's credibility. Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie's account. She had spoken of the assault in campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn't confirm or deny her story but had concerns about the evidence.

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

Will Dana
Managing Editor

Watching them eat a metric ton of shit for this is going to be insane.

UPDATE: Live footage of the Manosphere vs. SJW just coming in now ...





HSLD

Post: #323

SJWS have grown overconfident. They are making mistakes.

Post: #324

(12-05-2014 01:25 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 01:23 PM)komatiite Wrote:  http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news...s-20141205
Uh-oh...

Quote:To Our Readers:

Last month, Rolling Stone published a story titled "A Rape on Campus" by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, which described a brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity house; the university's failure to respond to this alleged assault – and the school's troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. The story generated worldwide headlines and much soul-searching at UVA. University president Teresa Sullivan promised a full investigation and also to examine the way the school responds to sexual assault allegations.

Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie's story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely spent reporting the story, Jackie neither said nor did anything that made Erdely, or Rolling Stone's editors and fact-checkers, question Jackie's credibility. Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie's account. She had spoken of the assault in campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn't confirm or deny her story but had concerns about the evidence.

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

Will Dana
Managing Editor

Watching Rolling Stone eat a metric ton of shit for this is going to be insane.

HSLD

Not just RS but all of the fools who demanded that we suspend reality and believe this story, just because. Especially all the twinks who tried to make other men feel guilty.

Post: #325

Gentlemen, get to the battle stations and ramp up the torpedoes. Shit is about to get extra good.