The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Understanding the Personal Psychology of Rapegate
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From my Taki’s Magazine article “A Rape Hoax for Book Lovers:”

Strangely, just about the only people in America who don’t seem to have accepted at face value Jackie’s theory of a nine-man conspiracy to rape her are those portrayed in the Rolling Stone article as knowing the poor young woman well.

Much of this immense article is devoted to puzzling scenes in which Jackie’s friends and female mentors tell her to cheer up and get over it. If you read the article carefully, you’ll notice that almost everybody who knows Jackie closely treats her about the way you’d treat a friend who starts talking about having been abducted by aliens. You would try to find out what the real actual thing that happened to her was. But if she kept talking about alien rectal probing, you’d try to change the subject.

Morally, Sabrina Rubin Erdely and Rolling Stone should not have exploited an unsettled young woman.

Late in her first year at UVA, depressed and in danger of flunking out, Jackie talks to Dean Nicole Eramo, Chair of the Sexual Misconduct Board. This dean patiently explains to Jackie the three ways she can file charges, but Jackie can’t make up her mind. Eventually, Dean Eramo suggests she join a campus rape survivors’ support group. There, Jackie makes new friends who appreciate her story (even though it’s more violent than their own).

In Erdely’s telling, Dean Eramo, a middle-aged lady, is a sinister figure, a sonderkommando who shields the rape culture by getting students to confide in her instead of exposing the vileness all about. But there’s a problem with the author’s interpretation: Jackie and numerous other young women love Dean Eramo. She listens. Jackie and others responded to the Rolling Stone hit piece against Eramo by writing a long letter to the college newspaper praising the dean.

My vague impression is that Jackie seems like a troubled soul who drew needed comfort from talking to listeners who were sympathetic. She doesn’t appear to have been in any hurry over the last couple of years to talk to people who might ask her tough questions about the validity of her allegations, such as police detectives or defense attorneys. That appears to have been prudent on her part.

Unfortunately, Rolling Stone was eager to use her for its own commercial and political purposes. …

And so her story is now our latest national media crisis. …

Erdely attributes this widespread ho-hum reaction among Jackie’s old friends and confidantes to a second massive conspiracy, this one to cover up the first conspiracy in order to protect that bastion of the right, UVA. …

I suppose that Erdely’s positing two conspiracy theories is logically consistent. But Occam’s razor suggests that the real campus conspiracy may have been to gently humor the unhappy girl.

If you haven’t already, you can read my Taki’s Magazine article here.

 
Hide 63 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Something from the other top story in rape news. It sounds like Tina Fey and other comedians were taking legitimate shots at Bill Cosby years ago:
    Tina Fey joked about Bill Cosby on SNL in 2005, and on a 30 Rock episode she wrote, too
    http://arts.nationalpost.com/2014/12/05/tina-fey-joked-about-bill-cosby-on-snl-in-2005-and-on-a-30-rock-episode-she-wrote-too/

    I noticed this in the story about one of Bill Cosby’s accusers:

    … Huth sued, claiming the comedian forced her to perform a sex act in 1974 when she was 15. The incident occurred in a bedroom of the Playboy Mansion after Cosby gave Huth and a 16-year-old friend alcohol, according to her lawsuit.
    …..
    Her lawsuit stated she only recently discovered that she had suffered psychological damage as a result of the incident, which under California law would allow filing of the case.

    So she only recently discovered her mind had been damaged in 1974? Had she not used it again until recently and then discovered it was damaged?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Like I said last month, I haven't fully trusted Cosby's America's Dad reputation since 1971. I recall him spending a lot of the 1970s at the Playboy Mansion. And the 1997??? case where he got his alleged daughter thrown in prison was a red flag to me.

    By the way, a lot of Cosby stories don't seem to involve full-on coitus, but more like him insisting on a hand job -- kind of the opposite of the UVA hoax in terms of violence. But, jeez, there are lot of stories.

    Of course, there are all the drugging allegations, too.

  2. @Cagey Beast
    Something from the other top story in rape news. It sounds like Tina Fey and other comedians were taking legitimate shots at Bill Cosby years ago:
    Tina Fey joked about Bill Cosby on SNL in 2005, and on a 30 Rock episode she wrote, too
    http://arts.nationalpost.com/2014/12/05/tina-fey-joked-about-bill-cosby-on-snl-in-2005-and-on-a-30-rock-episode-she-wrote-too/

    I noticed this in the story about one of Bill Cosby's accusers:

    ... Huth sued, claiming the comedian forced her to perform a sex act in 1974 when she was 15. The incident occurred in a bedroom of the Playboy Mansion after Cosby gave Huth and a 16-year-old friend alcohol, according to her lawsuit.
    .....
    Her lawsuit stated she only recently discovered that she had suffered psychological damage as a result of the incident, which under California law would allow filing of the case.
     
    So she only recently discovered her mind had been damaged in 1974? Had she not used it again until recently and then discovered it was damaged?

    Like I said last month, I haven’t fully trusted Cosby’s America’s Dad reputation since 1971. I recall him spending a lot of the 1970s at the Playboy Mansion. And the 1997??? case where he got his alleged daughter thrown in prison was a red flag to me.

    By the way, a lot of Cosby stories don’t seem to involve full-on coitus, but more like him insisting on a hand job — kind of the opposite of the UVA hoax in terms of violence. But, jeez, there are lot of stories.

    Of course, there are all the drugging allegations, too.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    …I haven’t fully trusted Cosby’s America’s Dad reputation since 1971. I recall him spending a lot of the 1970s at the Playboy Mansion.
     
    More disturbing is the fact that Shel Silverstein was part of that clique. "A Boy Named Sue" was inspired by a lawyer he met on assignment for Playboy.

    The YouTube comments on his "You're Always Welcome at Our House" express shock at the lyrics. But he wasn't writing for kids in those days!
  3. I think I know what happened. Sabrina meant it to submit her story to Penthouse Letters but it got mailed to the wrong address.

    PS. Given Rolling Stone promotes rap, alcohol and drugs, hedonism, lewdness, materialism, and barbarism, isn’t it rather disingenuous for the mag to preach about sexual-moral sobriety?

    • Replies: @Steve Austen
    Given Rolling Stone promotes rap, alcohol and drugs, hedonism, lewdness, materialism, and barbarism, isn’t it rather disingenuous for the mag to preach about sexual-moral sobriety?

    Rolling Stone never heard of Lady Gaga?
  4. Priss Factor [AKA "terrapin gape"] says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Learning

    “Wayne confronts Kristen when she says the anti-sexism group is for women. Kristen later attends a rape awareness rally with Taryn. The Neo-Nazis attack an interracial couple while Remy looks on. Kristen asks to spend the night with Taryn. Taryn rebuffs her, saying she wants Kristen to be sure. While stretching on the track, Malik touts his newfound black ideology to Deja. Deja rebuffs this, saying he has opportunities that people would do anything for and he should take them. A montage shows the two training and falling in love while Kristen begins dating Wayne.”

    Rotfl.

  5. UVa president Teresa Sullivan’s response to today’s RS article:

    To the University Community:

    I’m sure many of you are aware by now of today’s reports from the Washington Post and the statement from Rolling Stone magazine. While all of us who care about the University of Virginia are upset by the Rolling Stone story, I write now with a different message.

    Over the past two weeks, our community has been more focused than ever on one of the most difficult and critical issues facing higher education today: sexual violence on college campuses. Today’s news must not alter this focus. Here at U.Va., the safety of our students must continue to be our top priority, for all students, and especially for survivors of sexual assault.

    We will continue to take a hard look at our practices, policies, and procedures, and continue to dedicate ourselves to becoming a model institution in our educational programming, in the character of our student culture, and in our care for those who are victims.

    Now is the time for us to come together as a community to lead the way on this critical issue.

    Very truly yours,

    Teresa A. Sullivan

    • Replies: @Rapparee
    A classic sign that you're dealing with a witch-hunt, rather than a sincere and ardent desire to see justice done: the anger and sanctimonious moralizing don't abate when new facts emerge to contradict the original narrative, but instead stay the same, or intensify further.
    , @dearieme
    "Now is the time for us to come together as a community to lead the way on this critical issue.

    Very truly yours, ..."

    It's a measure of the plight of our civilisation that the boss of a university should write such horrible English.
    , @reiner Tor
    Well, I start to feel vindicated. Of course this RS article didn't contain a true word or syllable, but at least it turned our attention to this huge problem of mostly blond Southern WASP kids raping innocent girls, and let's not lose focus: we should be concentrating on this problem even harder, because the fact that the problem doesn't even exist makes it all the harder to tackle it.
    , @e
    That's one of the most disgusting responses I've yet read from the insane, pc world of academia. Her male students, once reviled, each and every one of them "possible rapists," are now vindicated, yet she tosses that fact away as unimportant and starts talking about a "different message."

    Screw you, woman.

    She should be fired.

    I am embarrassed for my sex.

    , @interesting
    so she's doubling down on the bullshit?
  6. @Steve Sailer
    Like I said last month, I haven't fully trusted Cosby's America's Dad reputation since 1971. I recall him spending a lot of the 1970s at the Playboy Mansion. And the 1997??? case where he got his alleged daughter thrown in prison was a red flag to me.

    By the way, a lot of Cosby stories don't seem to involve full-on coitus, but more like him insisting on a hand job -- kind of the opposite of the UVA hoax in terms of violence. But, jeez, there are lot of stories.

    Of course, there are all the drugging allegations, too.

    …I haven’t fully trusted Cosby’s America’s Dad reputation since 1971. I recall him spending a lot of the 1970s at the Playboy Mansion.

    More disturbing is the fact that Shel Silverstein was part of that clique. “A Boy Named Sue” was inspired by a lawyer he met on assignment for Playboy.

    The YouTube comments on his “You’re Always Welcome at Our House” express shock at the lyrics. But he wasn’t writing for kids in those days!

    • Replies: @David R. Merridale
    Shel Silverstein was an obvious degenerate. I made sure my kids were never exposed to a word of his effluent.
  7. @Wyrd
    UVa president Teresa Sullivan's response to today's RS article:

    To the University Community:

    I'm sure many of you are aware by now of today's reports from the Washington Post and the statement from Rolling Stone magazine. While all of us who care about the University of Virginia are upset by the Rolling Stone story, I write now with a different message.

    Over the past two weeks, our community has been more focused than ever on one of the most difficult and critical issues facing higher education today: sexual violence on college campuses. Today's news must not alter this focus. Here at U.Va., the safety of our students must continue to be our top priority, for all students, and especially for survivors of sexual assault.

    We will continue to take a hard look at our practices, policies, and procedures, and continue to dedicate ourselves to becoming a model institution in our educational programming, in the character of our student culture, and in our care for those who are victims.

    Now is the time for us to come together as a community to lead the way on this critical issue.

    Very truly yours,

    Teresa A. Sullivan

    A classic sign that you’re dealing with a witch-hunt, rather than a sincere and ardent desire to see justice done: the anger and sanctimonious moralizing don’t abate when new facts emerge to contradict the original narrative, but instead stay the same, or intensify further.

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    It's like everyone forgets that Shel wrote the lyrics for the band Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdLWrsBiKBU

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7Z50V7tadg
  8. @Priss Factor
    I think I know what happened. Sabrina meant it to submit her story to Penthouse Letters but it got mailed to the wrong address.

    PS. Given Rolling Stone promotes rap, alcohol and drugs, hedonism, lewdness, materialism, and barbarism, isn't it rather disingenuous for the mag to preach about sexual-moral sobriety?

    Given Rolling Stone promotes rap, alcohol and drugs, hedonism, lewdness, materialism, and barbarism, isn’t it rather disingenuous for the mag to preach about sexual-moral sobriety?

    Rolling Stone never heard of Lady Gaga?

  9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Learning

    “Wayne confronts Kristen when she says the anti-sexism group is for women. Kristen later attends a rape awareness rally with Taryn. The Neo-Nazis attack an interracial couple while Remy looks on. Kristen asks to spend the night with Taryn. Taryn rebuffs her, saying she wants Kristen to be sure. While stretching on the track, Malik touts his newfound black ideology to Deja. Deja rebuffs this, saying he has opportunities that people would do anything for and he should take them. A montage shows the two training and falling in love while Kristen begins dating Wayne.””

    John Singleton directed “Boyz In Da Hood” which portrays Blacks in a negative light and he probably felt guilty about doing that to his own people, so he directed “Higher Learning” which portrays White people in a negative light. Just like Chris Rock, John Singleton got more politically correct as he got older.

  10. “I think I know what happened. Sabrina meant it to submit her story to Penthouse Letters but it got mailed to the wrong address.

    PS. Given Rolling Stone promotes rap, alcohol and drugs, hedonism, lewdness, materialism, and barbarism, isn’t it rather disingenuous for the mag to preach about sexual-moral sobriety?”

    In the 1990s Rolling Stone were big promoters of gangsta rap label “Death Row Records”, even having Suge Knight on their magazine cover even though he is a thug. And of course let’s not forget them putting a Chechen terrorist on their magazine cover and trying to make him look like a rock star even though he is a monster.

    Rolling Stone has no moral compass.

  11. • Replies: @Anonymous
    Why do you assume he should?
  12. @Wyrd
    UVa president Teresa Sullivan's response to today's RS article:

    To the University Community:

    I'm sure many of you are aware by now of today's reports from the Washington Post and the statement from Rolling Stone magazine. While all of us who care about the University of Virginia are upset by the Rolling Stone story, I write now with a different message.

    Over the past two weeks, our community has been more focused than ever on one of the most difficult and critical issues facing higher education today: sexual violence on college campuses. Today's news must not alter this focus. Here at U.Va., the safety of our students must continue to be our top priority, for all students, and especially for survivors of sexual assault.

    We will continue to take a hard look at our practices, policies, and procedures, and continue to dedicate ourselves to becoming a model institution in our educational programming, in the character of our student culture, and in our care for those who are victims.

    Now is the time for us to come together as a community to lead the way on this critical issue.

    Very truly yours,

    Teresa A. Sullivan

    “Now is the time for us to come together as a community to lead the way on this critical issue.

    Very truly yours, …”

    It’s a measure of the plight of our civilisation that the boss of a university should write such horrible English.

  13. Given that only the true believers will cling to this case, we shouldn’t disregard the fact that if a student reports a rape on campus, the police (not the campus police, the real police) should always be called in.

  14. Steve, the Rolling Stone issuing it’s statement that they can no longer stand behind the rape story they published was the lead story on the noon Shepard Smith hour on Fox.

    Unfortunately, Smith credited the WAPo as the entity responsible for questioning the truth of the story.

    • Replies: @e
    its, not it's
  15. @Wyrd
    UVa president Teresa Sullivan's response to today's RS article:

    To the University Community:

    I'm sure many of you are aware by now of today's reports from the Washington Post and the statement from Rolling Stone magazine. While all of us who care about the University of Virginia are upset by the Rolling Stone story, I write now with a different message.

    Over the past two weeks, our community has been more focused than ever on one of the most difficult and critical issues facing higher education today: sexual violence on college campuses. Today's news must not alter this focus. Here at U.Va., the safety of our students must continue to be our top priority, for all students, and especially for survivors of sexual assault.

    We will continue to take a hard look at our practices, policies, and procedures, and continue to dedicate ourselves to becoming a model institution in our educational programming, in the character of our student culture, and in our care for those who are victims.

    Now is the time for us to come together as a community to lead the way on this critical issue.

    Very truly yours,

    Teresa A. Sullivan

    Well, I start to feel vindicated. Of course this RS article didn’t contain a true word or syllable, but at least it turned our attention to this huge problem of mostly blond Southern WASP kids raping innocent girls, and let’s not lose focus: we should be concentrating on this problem even harder, because the fact that the problem doesn’t even exist makes it all the harder to tackle it.

  16. In defense of the Cosby Show (not Cosby) the Huxtables at least provided a positive role model for blacks.

    In fact the show always seemed to me to be as much about encouraging blacks to, er, ape white middle class culture as persuading whites that African Americans aspired to do that.

    Look what black role models appeared towards the end of the Cosby Show’s regime: Tupac Shakur, Biggie Smalls, Public Enemy and so on.

    Was that really an improvement?

  17. Erin Keane over at Salon is now moving on to the next great white defendant rape case.

    http://www.salon.com/2014/12/05/rolling_stones_uva_disaster_why_this_story_is_a_brutal_setback_for_women/

    Rape victims and their advocates stand to lose the most from this development, especially on campuses, where sexual assaults are underreported and often dismissed by officials as trivial morning-after regrets. Jackie’s story resonated for a reason — cases like those in Steubenville, Ohio, and Norman, Oklahoma, where photo and video evidence of rape circulated through text messages and social media forced small conservative communities to act instead of cover up these crimes, and the mounting evidence against celebrities like Bill Cosby and Jian Ghomeshi accused of sexual assault, have helped tip momentum toward presumed credibility for people who step forward with stories of sexual assault. This could have been the year the myth of the “girl who cried rape” was relegated to the statistical improbability pile where it belonged. Instead, the assumed credibility of all victims, not just Rolling Stone’s, is likely to take a hit.

    Erin Keane is referring to this case in Norman Ok.

    But is this case really a rape or just a major case of teenage high school male idiocy?
    http://jezebel.com/after-protest-alleged-serial-rapist-teen-arrested-in-n-1665787711
    http://rt.com/usa/211207-oklahoma-protest-student-rape/
    http://www.sunherald.com/2014/12/03/5948023/suspect-in-oklahoma-rape-case.html
    http://www.people.com/article/arrest-rape-oklahoma-norman-yes-all-daughters

    Here is the Steubenville case referred to in the article which is rather shocking and depraved but was the sentencing a bit harsh?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_High_School_rape_case#Trial_and_sentencing

    Hard to imagine what it is like to live as a teenager when any idiot can video your drunken sexual missteps.
    Kids beware!!!

    • Replies: @Jonathan Silber
    This could have been the year the myth of the “girl who cried rape” was relegated to the statistical improbability pile where it belonged.

    What the tyrannical Left refers to as "myths" are usually incontrovertible but inconvenient truths.

  18. Steve, you deserve all the credit for exposing this hoax. As you wrote in the Takimag article, Bradley’s blog post wasn’t getting any attention or comments until you did an isteve piece and linked to it.

    And all you did was apply common sense critical analysis to the story, like the weird element that she was raped by 9 people on top of broken glass. So what really stands out is all these major news outlets employing no common sense critical analysis whatsoever.

    On CSPAN’s morning call-in, a Brooklyn caller said that the truth of the Eric Garner matter is that Garner was running a crew of petty thieves who broke into cars. Of course, nothing like that is in any of the news reporting but since I remember that it took 3 months to break the news to the public that the “N” word was mirror image on Tawana’ s forehead, I don’t automatically think news reports are more reliable than a C-SPAN caller. I once called CSPAN myself in late 1992 and got to confront Drummond Ayres about the 6 months it took for the NY Times to break the story of Sen. Fulbright’s top aide writing a memo to help Bill Clinton avoid the draft. The NY Post had broken that story during the primary season, with a photo of the memo. Ayres’ answer to me was that the story took 6 months to “mature.”

    Applying common sense critical analysis to the Eric Garner matter, the caller’s take is more logical than the news reports. Why did Garner resist arrest and cause a big disturbance doing so, necessitating a half dozen cops or more to deal with him? He’d been arrested many times so he knew it was just a matter of a few hours in the station and he’d be free to go. A very likely explanation would be that Garner was (1) alerting the rest of the crew and (2) drawing the cops over to him so that the others could run away.

    Why were there so many cops on the scene in the first place? The police commander isn’t a lunatic that he’d put so many man hours into arresting someone who really was just selling loose cigarettes. A very likely explanation is that the cops intended to arrest several people.

    Why did the store owners call the cops in the first place? They weren’t thinking that Garner was stealing their business (and just how many cigarettes did he have on him anyway and do people buy loose cigarettes?) but they might well have wanted a crew of petty thieves cleared out. And the cops take those thieves seriously because the thieves are very capable of pulling a knife on someone who tries to stop them. A likely explanation is that the store owner’s recognized that Garner was a 400 lb. decoy/look-out/distraction. I was told by a cop in Jamaica, Queens once that they knew that certain traffic accidents were, in fact, decoys to get them to respond so that a robbery could take place somewhere else.

    The more I thought about it, the more I felt certain that the CSPAN caller is right and its the best explanation for the episode. The narratives from Obama/Holder/DeBlasio that its al racism, racism, racism are no worse than Rand Paul, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity saying the moral of the story has something to do with the evils of the cigarette tax. The cigarette tax was a tool, like using the income tax to get Capone.

    • Replies: @Marty
    Good points all, but for what it's worth, blacks do buy loose cigarettes. Around '00 I personally witnessed a black guy beg a store owner in Berkeley, where cigs were sold in packs, to sell him a single fag. The owner, a native of Egypt, declined. This was the same store where a few years later I listened to a young black woman cry "racism" when told that a certain obscure brand of smokes was no longer available because the State of California had banned their further sale. The cashier that day was the owner's son-in-law, also Egyptian. He said to me, "you believe that? I could be her cousin and she's calling me a racist." This guy was fully aware that American blacks are insane. He told me that at military school in Georgia, blacks "made me fight every day."
  19. @Danindc
    Goldberg didn't credit Bradley or Steve. Coward.

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-goldberg-uva-rape-rolling-stone-20141202-column.html

    Why do you assume he should?

    • Replies: @Danindc
    Because he wouldn't be writing about it if it wasn't for both of them.
  20. @Wyrd
    UVa president Teresa Sullivan's response to today's RS article:

    To the University Community:

    I'm sure many of you are aware by now of today's reports from the Washington Post and the statement from Rolling Stone magazine. While all of us who care about the University of Virginia are upset by the Rolling Stone story, I write now with a different message.

    Over the past two weeks, our community has been more focused than ever on one of the most difficult and critical issues facing higher education today: sexual violence on college campuses. Today's news must not alter this focus. Here at U.Va., the safety of our students must continue to be our top priority, for all students, and especially for survivors of sexual assault.

    We will continue to take a hard look at our practices, policies, and procedures, and continue to dedicate ourselves to becoming a model institution in our educational programming, in the character of our student culture, and in our care for those who are victims.

    Now is the time for us to come together as a community to lead the way on this critical issue.

    Very truly yours,

    Teresa A. Sullivan

    That’s one of the most disgusting responses I’ve yet read from the insane, pc world of academia. Her male students, once reviled, each and every one of them “possible rapists,” are now vindicated, yet she tosses that fact away as unimportant and starts talking about a “different message.”

    Screw you, woman.

    She should be fired.

    I am embarrassed for my sex.

  21. Just as a reminder, here are the number of easily identifiable questions/discrepancies from the Rolling Stone UVA rape hoax

    1. The fraternity house does not have pledges during the fall semester.
    2. Phi Kappa Psi said it did not host “a date function or social event” during the weekend of Sept. 28, 2012
    3. Soltis said she did not notice any apparent wounds on Jackie’s body at the time that might have indicated a brutal attack.
    4. Under questioning, “Jackie” did not know if her main attacker actually was a member of Phi Kappa Psi
    5. No member of Phi Kappa Psi worked at the university’s Aquatic and Fitness Center in 2012

    Getting further understanding/answers on just those 5 points is what, a half day’s work?

    How terrible at her job is Sabrina Rubin Erdely?

  22. If you liked that one, you’ll love this Sullivan statement prompted by the Garner grand jury decision yesterday:

    Dear Students, Faculty, and Staff:

    In light of recent court decisions in New York and Missouri, I write today to add my voice to the national chorus of voices condemning the use of violent force, and even deadly force, against persons who have not been convicted of any crime.

    In this season of celebration, we celebrate our shared values above all. These values include the belief that every life matters, that every person deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, and that every person should enjoy equal protection and treatment under the law. This should hold true in every corner of our community and all across our nation, regardless of race, ethnicity, religious belief or any other mark of human diversity.

    Can’t you just hear the social justice angels singing in the background? Brings a tear to my eye, it does.

  23. No one has mentioned it yet, but one reason this has taken on a sizable chunk of media attention is that the US has nothing better to fill up the news.

    No one cares about new, more favorable job numbers. Or stock indices at record highs. Or Ukraine (since no one knows where it is, and among the few that do, no one cares).

    So, we have emotional wedge issues filling the gaps. Especially ones that involve one or very few people in a country of 350 million people,

    The US is Fat City, and young educated Eastern Europeans would love to come here for economic opportunity.

    • Replies: @peterike
    No one cares about new, more favorable job numbers.

    Possibly because it's all a gigantic lie.

    Or stock indices at record highs.

    Because most people don't benefit from this.

    Or Ukraine (since no one knows where it is, and among the few that do, no one cares).

    They've only just begun to gin up the neocon war with Russia. Give it some time.

    The US is Fat City, and young educated Eastern Europeans would love to come here for economic opportunity.

    Great idea. They can join the other 92,447,000 people who are not participating in the labor force.
  24. Also … what’s with all the broken glass bottles.

    Anyone that sees beer sotted undergrads wandering around also see the ubiquitous red plastic cups.

  25. @e
    Steve, the Rolling Stone issuing it's statement that they can no longer stand behind the rape story they published was the lead story on the noon Shepard Smith hour on Fox.

    Unfortunately, Smith credited the WAPo as the entity responsible for questioning the truth of the story.

    its, not it’s

  26. No one has mentioned it yet, but one reason this has taken on a sizable chunk of media attention is that the US has nothing better to fill up the news.

    Nothing better? What about recent news about the IRS scandal, or several other ongoing Obama regime scandals?

    No one cares about new, more favorable job numbers.

    What new, more favorable job numbers? The U.S. labor force participation rate continues to shrink.

    Or stock indices at record highs.

    Let’s wait a few months and see in the Dow and the SnP are still that high. NASDAQ and the Russell 2K is not making making new highs — an ominous divergence.

    In regard to falling oil prices, note that one cause, or at least positively correlating event, of the 2008-2009 stock market slump was an abrupt drop in oil prices… the oil price decline back then started before the deep losses in other stock sectors.

    What about China becoming the #1 economic power?

    Never mind about this false rape scandal stuff, folks, just move along. Life in post-Constitutional America is getting better and better. Be happy. Hey! Lookit that squirrel over there!

    Really, what is your angle here? Are you trying to say that the general public prefers sensational, tawdry stories to serious news? There, I said it for you in one sentence.

  27. @Rapparee
    A classic sign that you're dealing with a witch-hunt, rather than a sincere and ardent desire to see justice done: the anger and sanctimonious moralizing don't abate when new facts emerge to contradict the original narrative, but instead stay the same, or intensify further.

    It’s like everyone forgets that Shel wrote the lyrics for the band Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdLWrsBiKBU

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7Z50V7tadg

  28. I’m not a cop, but …Why were there so many cops on the scene in the first place? The police commander isn’t a lunatic that he’d put so many man hours into arresting someone who really was just selling loose cigarettes. A very likely explanation is that the cops intended to arrest several people.

    One of the methods Rudy Giuliani used to improve the crime statistics in NYC was to instruct the cops to crack down on the petty stuff including. Theory being that if the cops left graffiti alone, gangs ruled, but where they cleaned up, it was taken as a sign that cops ruled. (Reference Tipping Points)

    A likely explanation was that they did wanted to stop illegal activity.

    • Replies: @Hersh
    The NYC police do not send a squad of cops to arrest one person for a "quality of life" violation. We know there were more cops on the scene than are in the video because we now know that the cop in charge was a black female sergeant who is not in the video.

    Its not like some cops saw Garner selling cigarettes and went over to arrest him either, nor that the explanation for the large squad is that the first cops called for back up. The cops were called by the business owners. Why did the business owners want cops to remove Garner? They're probably all scared to saying anything now, of course, as "snitches get stitches." The notion that they had a problem with Garner because he was an illegal competitor is absurd.
  29. The women are worried. Everyone senses that things are unstable. Families are anxious sending their daughters off to college. They say there is a rape crisis, and a culture of rape. It’s declasse to blame the blacks, and maybe facile. But no one can get their hands around the big ass problems; why are they not having grandchildren? why are their kids epicene, and why does their country suck now.

    There is a show trial on the tv. Blonde boys are guilty of something and need to be punished.

    (Break out the whips and costumes. Heeyaa!)

    They are united in their anger, what have white men done to deserve it and what are they doing now?

    They are not raping enough women, to deserve what they are getting. They are not raping enough women, to deserve what they are getting … wait a minute, is that supposed to be clever, because it’s not funny … they are not raping enough women, to deserve what they are getting …

    White women are angry at their men for letting them go.

  30. Let me add another idea or two no one is willing to notice:

    The Left, as usual, created this disaster as a response to the fallout of their other disasters of the sexual revolution.

    Why is there any issue of rape culture on any campus? Because about 20-25 years ago, the full force of the sexual liberation movement began to arrive on college campus. It wasn’t just the students who had free love, like in the 60s. It was that every college was staffed by administrators who believed in it, and how great sex and drugs had been for their own “college experience”. So they destroyed any social mores that would protect men and women from each other.

    By the 1990s, young women going off to college had *not been told by any generations above them that men are different than women. They didn’t know that men REALLY want sex. They didn’t know that what a woman might think of as a platonic interaction was likely NOT that for a man. They didn’t know that their own clothing, looks, speech, and behaviors, might be alluring, let alone provocative.

    By 2000, the last gasp of anyone defining male-female interactions at college was gone–BU president John Silber held on til 1996 (and as chancellor til 2002). AFter 2000, basically all campuses did away single sex dorms, and mostly with single sex floors. Suites were co-ed. Bathrooms co-ed. You couldn’t find a way to be in a situation where sexual interactions could be self-policed at all. I am Charlotte Simmons was not ahead of its time (as most Wolfe books are). By 2000, women didn’t even know that “men might behave boorishly, so you should not put yourself into situations that cause you discomfort.” Men and women were the same, right?

    Instead, they knew that women were supposed to be just as comfortable as men with sex, and with all kinds of sex, and that sex was really unrelated to relationships. And they knew that they had NO RIGHT to be uncomfortable with this idea, so there really was no way to regret any intimate interaction with a man–because it was all supposed to be a-ok, no emotional pain, no confusion, just loads of rutting for fun.

    But there remained ONE way to be allowed to feel pain and regret and confusion about sexual experiences–if the woman had been raped. So women, finding that their typical weekly (if not daily) interactions with men led to overtures and passes that they had no articulatable reason to reject, no principle on which to say “no”, found that they had even more pain and regret—and rape has become the name for those unwanted sexual experiences.

    and they may truly not be consensual, in the sense that the woman, BEING UTTERLY NOT LIKE A MAN, does not want sex the way a man does.

    But the woman can’t notice this, and even if she does, lacks a vocabulary for it.

    There is no vocabulary left for a young woman who wishes to have sex only in a deeply committed, loving, monogamous relationship. There is only one word of vocabulary left for the feelings of pain, sadness, loneliness, or humiliation after a sexual experience: rape.

    • Replies: @Gallo-Roman
    Excellent comment, Alice. I saw this problem in nascent form even way back in the '70s, when I was in college. There was a great deal of sneering (by a lot of guys, too, not just the women's libbers) at any sign in a girl of a desire for traditional courtship, marriage, and family - though one could still find secular social niches at a large university where the older ways were maintained, more or less. But, as is always the case with inexperienced kids at large impersonal institutions, a lot of them were left to flounder around and wound up outside of those niches, with "experiences" they regretted.

    Even at that early stage they were already, as you say, losing the vocabulary to articulate their feelings - what little of it may have been left was being shouted down with all that groovy '60s and '70s liberation-psychology. (Anybody else here old enough to remember "hang ups"?) We laugh now, but one can follow the chain of reaction all the way to your nicely-turned summary of the current state of affairs.

    The adults have been asleep at the wheel for a long time.
    , @anonymous
    Alice, your comment above truly deserves a post of it's own. Whaddya say, Steve?

    ...There is no vocabulary left for a young woman who wishes to have sex only in a deeply committed, loving, monogamous relationship. There is only one word of vocabulary left for the feelings of pain, sadness, loneliness, or humiliation after a sexual experience: rape"
  31. How about exchanging the current set of American white women for some Eastern European girls?

  32. @FWIW
    No one has mentioned it yet, but one reason this has taken on a sizable chunk of media attention is that the US has nothing better to fill up the news.

    No one cares about new, more favorable job numbers. Or stock indices at record highs. Or Ukraine (since no one knows where it is, and among the few that do, no one cares).

    So, we have emotional wedge issues filling the gaps. Especially ones that involve one or very few people in a country of 350 million people,

    The US is Fat City, and young educated Eastern Europeans would love to come here for economic opportunity.

    No one cares about new, more favorable job numbers.

    Possibly because it’s all a gigantic lie.

    Or stock indices at record highs.

    Because most people don’t benefit from this.

    Or Ukraine (since no one knows where it is, and among the few that do, no one cares).

    They’ve only just begun to gin up the neocon war with Russia. Give it some time.

    The US is Fat City, and young educated Eastern Europeans would love to come here for economic opportunity.

    Great idea. They can join the other 92,447,000 people who are not participating in the labor force.

  33. @Anonymous
    Why do you assume he should?

    Because he wouldn’t be writing about it if it wasn’t for both of them.

  34. Steve, have you seen this comment?

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/12/05/the-uva-false-rape-fabulists/#comment-635394

    Perhaps this warrants some more sleuthing.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    "Steve, have you seen this comment?

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/12/05/the-uva-false-rape-fabulists/#comment-635394

    Perhaps this warrants some more sleuthing."

    Excellent suggestion. When I was young I suffered problems with a boss who was a crook. I was enormously bucked up when a wise old colleague told me not to worry, other cases of his misbehaviour would turn up, and I'd be vindicated. And so it proved.
  35. @Hal
    I'm not a cop, but ...Why were there so many cops on the scene in the first place? The police commander isn’t a lunatic that he’d put so many man hours into arresting someone who really was just selling loose cigarettes. A very likely explanation is that the cops intended to arrest several people.

    One of the methods Rudy Giuliani used to improve the crime statistics in NYC was to instruct the cops to crack down on the petty stuff including. Theory being that if the cops left graffiti alone, gangs ruled, but where they cleaned up, it was taken as a sign that cops ruled. (Reference Tipping Points)

    A likely explanation was that they did wanted to stop illegal activity.

    The NYC police do not send a squad of cops to arrest one person for a “quality of life” violation. We know there were more cops on the scene than are in the video because we now know that the cop in charge was a black female sergeant who is not in the video.

    Its not like some cops saw Garner selling cigarettes and went over to arrest him either, nor that the explanation for the large squad is that the first cops called for back up. The cops were called by the business owners. Why did the business owners want cops to remove Garner? They’re probably all scared to saying anything now, of course, as “snitches get stitches.” The notion that they had a problem with Garner because he was an illegal competitor is absurd.

  36. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Late in her first year at UVA, depressed and in danger of flunking out, Jackie talks to Dean Nicole Eramo, Chair of the Sexual Misconduct Board.”

    I ascribe a considerable part of the weirdness of the US today to the stress that modern universal college education puts on young people, many of whom fail. Just about anyone can get in, somewhere, but the filter classes do their work with no remorse. I have seen a number of students develop problems/distractions/fixations that I’m sure were essentially a form of psychological excuse. (I had to drop out to save the world. My ex-boyfriend is out to get me. The evil patriarchy exists, so I can’t succeed, now that I think about it, it’s all their fault.)

  37. @Filmer
    Steve, have you seen this comment?

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/12/05/the-uva-false-rape-fabulists/#comment-635394

    Perhaps this warrants some more sleuthing.

    “Steve, have you seen this comment?

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/12/05/the-uva-false-rape-fabulists/#comment-635394

    Perhaps this warrants some more sleuthing.”

    Excellent suggestion. When I was young I suffered problems with a boss who was a crook. I was enormously bucked up when a wise old colleague told me not to worry, other cases of his misbehaviour would turn up, and I’d be vindicated. And so it proved.

  38. Apparently there was an earlier highly publicized date rape case at the University of Virginia that ended with the man being found not guilty but the woman being awarded $150,000 because he failed to take proper care of her when she was passed out drunk. She’s quoted as saying at the end of it all:

    “The overall process was more important than the verdict itself because it brought a lot of attention to the issue.”

    There’s an overview of the case here:
    The True Story Of A False Rape Claim At UVA
    http://www.returnofkings.com/49470/the-true-story-of-a-false-rape-claim-at-uva

  39. Instead, they knew that women were supposed to be just as comfortable as men with sex, and with all kinds of sex, and that sex was really unrelated to relationships. And they knew that they had NO RIGHT to be uncomfortable with this idea, so there really was no way to regret any intimate interaction with a man–because it was all supposed to be a-ok, no emotional pain, no confusion, just loads of rutting for fun.

    But there remained ONE way to be allowed to feel pain and regret and confusion about sexual experiences–if the woman had been raped.

    This pretty much nails it.

    Ok, now that this is understood, what’s the next problem. Race in America?

    ********

    I would dispute the suggestion elsewhere in the comment that women (or what are often called girls) are unaware of the effect they have on men, and that they don’t know the difference in the nature of sexual desire. (The frequent assertion that girls, ehhrr women, don’t have as much sexual desire as men, is dubious. Apparently an Arab proverb says the opposite, that women’s sexual desire is ten times that of men.)

    But since the topic is on the table, for the record let it be said that the most marked qualitative difference between male and female sexual desire is that men get blue balls, which hurt. They are about a four on the hospital’s subjective pain scale.

    That aside. The comment from Alice quoted above is the explanation for the “rape crises on campus”. Minus some quibbles here and there, what more is there to say. That explanation though, is the rape crises on campus: the problems between young white men and young white women: why aren’t they getting along? what is missing from their relationships? are they just about screwing or shouldn’t there be something more?

    When that is the background noise, the milieu, it causes much discontent and worse, on down the scale of anxiety and dysfunction … for white girls and boys. Yes it causes the boys pain too. As the manosphere has accurately attested, the new state of things, the confused sexual marketplace, has its winners and they are called alphas. Are they dogs or wolves or chimps or bonobos? i would not compare them to noble lions, but that is neither here nor there.

    White America, middle class middle America, regular white people, this group is decimated by the chaos of the sexual marketplace. And then to make matters worse, the black man and his place in America. And then to make things even more complicated, immigrants. Black Americans and immigrants are different in most every way; but both groups play into and benefit from the confusion around the mating rites of young whites.

    • Replies: @Gallo-Roman
    I would dispute the suggestion elsewhere in the comment that women (or what are often called girls) are unaware of the effect they have on men, and that they don’t know the difference in the nature of sexual desire.

    Yeah, the average 18-22 year old is just so knowledgeable and sophisticated about sexuality, their own and that of the opposite sex.

    Really, no difference at all between "being aware that one has an effect on men" vs. "understanding men" and the complications of sex. Hey, 14 year old girls (er, women?) have also been known to "be aware", very aware, that they've started to have an effect on men. Having once been one myself, I can also confirm that they get really randy. QED, their sexuality is no different from that of boys, and they are experts on the emotional consequences of sex.

    (The frequent assertion that girls, ehhrr women, don’t have as much sexual desire as men, is dubious. Apparently an Arab proverb says the opposite, that women’s sexual desire is ten times that of men.)

    Yeah, and Ovid made a similar observation about women and sexual pleasure but he somehow managed not to be a sperg about sex differences.

    But since the topic is on the table, for the record let it be said that the most marked qualitative difference between male and female sexual desire is that men get blue balls... [emphasis added]

    Wow, you're like Kinsey and Masters and Johnson and Penthouse Forum all rolled into one, aren't you? (Yeah, I know I'm dating myself here.) Lol, "most marked qualitative difference".
  40. “How terrible at her job is Sabrina Rubin Erdely?”

    How terrible at her job is Teresa A. Sullivan?

    • Replies: @EriK
    Paco wins the thread.
  41. Just like Chris Rock, John Singleton got more politically correct as he got older.

    And richer, and more steeped in elite society mores, and further removed from his origins.

    Dear Students, Faculty, and Staff:

    In light of recent court decisions in New York and Missouri, I write today to add my voice to the national chorus of voices condemning the use of violent force, and even deadly force, against persons who have not been convicted of any crime.

    WTF? So, they condemn self-defense. Against people with no criminal record, anyway. Because when you have to defend yourself against someone attempting to commit a violent crime against you, someone with no criminal record, you can’t use force against him. And since you have no reliable way of knowing if the person attempting to commit a crime against you has a criminal record, you have to err on the side of caution, meaning, in practical terms, they condemn all self-defense.

    It helps when they just come right out and announce that they’re nuts.

    • Replies: @Wyrd
    Sullivan is a sociologist, which means she's never been required to acknowledge to reality.
  42. @Alice
    Let me add another idea or two no one is willing to notice:

    The Left, as usual, created this disaster as a response to the fallout of their other disasters of the sexual revolution.

    Why is there any issue of rape culture on any campus? Because about 20-25 years ago, the full force of the sexual liberation movement began to arrive on college campus. It wasn't just the students who had free love, like in the 60s. It was that every college was staffed by administrators who believed in it, and how great sex and drugs had been for their own "college experience". So they destroyed any social mores that would protect men and women from each other.

    By the 1990s, young women going off to college had *not been told by any generations above them that men are different than women. They didn't know that men REALLY want sex. They didn't know that what a woman might think of as a platonic interaction was likely NOT that for a man. They didn't know that their own clothing, looks, speech, and behaviors, might be alluring, let alone provocative.

    By 2000, the last gasp of anyone defining male-female interactions at college was gone--BU president John Silber held on til 1996 (and as chancellor til 2002). AFter 2000, basically all campuses did away single sex dorms, and mostly with single sex floors. Suites were co-ed. Bathrooms co-ed. You couldn't find a way to be in a situation where sexual interactions could be self-policed at all. I am Charlotte Simmons was not ahead of its time (as most Wolfe books are). By 2000, women didn't even know that "men might behave boorishly, so you should not put yourself into situations that cause you discomfort." Men and women were the same, right?

    Instead, they knew that women were supposed to be just as comfortable as men with sex, and with all kinds of sex, and that sex was really unrelated to relationships. And they knew that they had NO RIGHT to be uncomfortable with this idea, so there really was no way to regret any intimate interaction with a man--because it was all supposed to be a-ok, no emotional pain, no confusion, just loads of rutting for fun.

    But there remained ONE way to be allowed to feel pain and regret and confusion about sexual experiences--if the woman had been raped. So women, finding that their typical weekly (if not daily) interactions with men led to overtures and passes that they had no articulatable reason to reject, no principle on which to say "no", found that they had even more pain and regret---and rape has become the name for those unwanted sexual experiences.

    and they may truly not be consensual, in the sense that the woman, BEING UTTERLY NOT LIKE A MAN, does not want sex the way a man does.

    But the woman can't notice this, and even if she does, lacks a vocabulary for it.

    There is no vocabulary left for a young woman who wishes to have sex only in a deeply committed, loving, monogamous relationship. There is only one word of vocabulary left for the feelings of pain, sadness, loneliness, or humiliation after a sexual experience: rape.

    Excellent comment, Alice. I saw this problem in nascent form even way back in the ’70s, when I was in college. There was a great deal of sneering (by a lot of guys, too, not just the women’s libbers) at any sign in a girl of a desire for traditional courtship, marriage, and family – though one could still find secular social niches at a large university where the older ways were maintained, more or less. But, as is always the case with inexperienced kids at large impersonal institutions, a lot of them were left to flounder around and wound up outside of those niches, with “experiences” they regretted.

    Even at that early stage they were already, as you say, losing the vocabulary to articulate their feelings – what little of it may have been left was being shouted down with all that groovy ’60s and ’70s liberation-psychology. (Anybody else here old enough to remember “hang ups”?) We laugh now, but one can follow the chain of reaction all the way to your nicely-turned summary of the current state of affairs.

    The adults have been asleep at the wheel for a long time.

  43. Alice says:
    December 6, 2014 at 4:20 am GMT

    “By the 1990s, young women going off to college had *not been told by any generations above them that men are different than women. They didn’t know that men REALLY want sex. They didn’t know that what a woman might think of as a platonic interaction was likely NOT that for a man. They didn’t know that their own clothing, looks, speech, and behaviors, might be alluring, let alone provocative. ”

    No – they know it’s provocative and react hysterically when people point out that it’s provocative because they don’t want people to know that they know that it’s provocative. The aim is to remake the social landscape to never acknowledge that women can be provocative. That way they get the best of both worlds – being provocative and claiming innocence.

  44. The Jewish community has long since perfected the response to outrageous smears. I’d suggest that others incorporate elements of their proven tactics. These include:

    1) Call a spade a spade. Right now, it is a regrettable yada yada. No, it is obscene blood libel. Always emphasize that the storyteller, Erdeley, was working with malicious intent to do grave damage to a targeted group. It isn’t an innocent mistake, a failure of fact checking, and so forth. The creation and dissemination was an evil deed primarily intended to do harm.

    2) Evil deeds are done by evil people, in this case Erdeley. What is the matter with her? Question her motives, not something like a neutral lapse due to incompetence. Somebody who produces something as obscene as this blood libel is either mentally deranged or wicked. There is no third alternative that would ameliorate her role in this. Personalize and focus and don’t get distracted by debates on technical details.

    3) Demand justice – why is Rolling Stone employing someone as mentally deranged or wicked as Erdeley? If she goes somewhere else, follow her. Dog her footsteps relentlessly and stigmatize. Never forgive, only perhaps allowing some probation for good behavior after a long and excruciatingly vindictive campaign that will ensure she will never, and that means never, even dream of slandering frat boys. And it will encourage the other admirals as well.

    Actions like these are the only way to start taking action on these things which, already occurring at an astronomical rate, seem recently to be even spiralling further upward. Normal people are usually reluctant to take these actions, as they give the BOD, don’t want to be seen started a war. They fail to realize that the war has been on, at least on Erdeley’s part, before she formulated the first sentence of the article. Reason and measured responses aren’t going to work with her because her goal is not journalism, but destruction of an enemy. She certainly isn’t going to be dissuaded by pointing out to her the damage her actions have done because that was her goal.

    Destroying her as a journalist is the only reaction that will have any effect on her and her ilk. Anything less than that is useless and a waste of time. And forget Jackie – Steve is taking the proper, and factual approach, which is showing her as a victim of Erdeley, a sad, confused young lady abused by a psychotic, mendacious journalist in pursuit of of her obsessive deranged vendetta against, well, in this case it seems frat boys, maybe narrowed down to southern ones.

    Other besieged communities beside the Jewish one, practice these tactics, and it works for them as well.

  45. “By the 1990s, young women going off to college had *not been told by any generations above them that men are different than women. They didn’t know that men REALLY want sex. They didn’t know that what a woman might think of as a platonic interaction was likely NOT that for a man. They didn’t know that their own clothing, looks, speech, and behaviors, might be alluring, let alone provocative. ”

    No – they know it’s provocative and react hysterically when people point out that it’s provocative because they don’t want people to know that they know that it’s provocative. The aim is to remake the social landscape to never acknowledge that women can be provocative. That way they get the best of both worlds – being provocative and claiming innocence.

    Yes. My criticism of Alice’s post would be along these lines. It might be said that girls provoke at a level that often is not entirely conscious, but the level of their consciousness in their provocation is not the point.

    That whole dynamic was parodied by that anti-intellectual, Woody “the nebbish looking athlete” Allen in Annie Hall, where he is set up with a woman who tells him she is a nymphomaniac but when he tries to move in she flips. Oh poor Woody, if only someone understood …

  46. @Paco Wové
    "How terrible at her job is Sabrina Rubin Erdely?"

    How terrible at her job is Teresa A. Sullivan?

    Paco wins the thread.

  47. If Jackie were a victim, she’d be distancing herself from the story and doing an on record interview clearing up exactly what happened. Instead, her deceit and maliciousness continue unabated. Currently, she’s ginning up sympathy by acting like RS took advantage of her story for their own sinister purposes (which is true), while still defending the story as a basically accurate account of her rape, that needed to be told even if it weren’t true because of rape culture and victim shame.

    Don’t fall for it.

  48. 4) Always tailor your argument to your audience, like Abe Lincoln did. Pretend to care about what they care about, and craft your argument so that you’re defending those things, and your target is threatening them. Lean toward universalism when your audience is white.

    Don’t worry if you’re totally contradicting yourself from one conversation (one audience) to the next (different audience). This is a feature, not a bug.

    5) Your audience is nothing but rubes to be fleeced.

    6) Don’t worry about rigor. Just make your arguments plausible enough to last in the short term.

    7) Concede nothing.

    8) Start the “conversation” over again at a point of your choosing – one advantageous to you – as if all the stuff that was talked about that you didn’t like had never been mentioned.

  49. “There is a show trial on the tv. Blonde boys are guilty of something and need to be punished.”

    I knew all blond haired males are evil ever since I saw one of them bullying the dark haired Italian Ralph Macchio in “The Karate Kid”.

  50. ^^ this won’t work against Jews. Indeed it will backfire, with counter-accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘persecution’ putting you rather than them on the defensive.

  51. @Reg Cæsar

    …I haven’t fully trusted Cosby’s America’s Dad reputation since 1971. I recall him spending a lot of the 1970s at the Playboy Mansion.
     
    More disturbing is the fact that Shel Silverstein was part of that clique. "A Boy Named Sue" was inspired by a lawyer he met on assignment for Playboy.

    The YouTube comments on his "You're Always Welcome at Our House" express shock at the lyrics. But he wasn't writing for kids in those days!

    Shel Silverstein was an obvious degenerate. I made sure my kids were never exposed to a word of his effluent.

  52. Great comment!

    I’m not a “natural law” or “Platonic forms” type; I’m aware there are two bell curves which do overlap. So I wouldn’t be all “Women and men are UTTERLY NOT LIKE one another.” Men aren’t “supposed to” want sex alla time and women “supposed to” only want sex in a committed relationship because some designer thought it would be funny to set us against each other.

    That important caveat said, I agree with you on what “the typical female” and “the typical male” are like, and how that plus cultural shifts have led to the current situation.

    “There is no vocabulary left for a young woman who wishes to have sex only in a deeply committed, loving, monogamous relationship.”

    There is, among SJW/SWPL types at least: “demisexual.”

    In fact, males exist who are also this way, so I do think it’s good that there’s now a word that applies to them too.

    OTOH, I doubt it’s such a great situation that a type of person who used to be described as a “normal woman” at worst and “the best kind of decent human being” at best, is now seen as the exception instead of the rule (or at least, the rule among women).

    “Instead, they knew that women were supposed to be just as comfortable as men with sex, and with all kinds of sex, and that sex was really unrelated to relationships. And they knew that they had NO RIGHT to be uncomfortable with this idea, so there really was no way to regret any intimate interaction with a man”

    Yes, that’s what happened.

    A reminder: That’s not, actually, what *feminists* wanted to happen.

    It’s what happened when “a woman can be like a man / a man can be like a woman”–a feminist sentiment–interacted with the pre-existing, anti-feminist cultural tendency to take males as the default. If the culture had taken females as the default, females would be happy and we’d have males thinking they were crazy nymphos. Instead males were taken as the default, leading to what you described.

    But baby boomer feminism was in general a reaction to *this exact phenomenon*, back when it happened during the “free love” ’60s.

    A baby boomer feminist reminisces:

    It was all supposed to be essentially the same for boys and girls: two, three, or however many long-haired persons communing. It was especially the lessening of gender polarity that kept the girls entranced…. And the dream for the girls at base was a dream of a sexual and social empathy that negated the strictures of gender…. It was a desire for a sexual community more like childhood–before girls were crushed under and segregated…. It was–for the girls–a dream of being less female in a world less male; an eroticization of sibling equality, not the traditional male dominance….

    Wishing did not make it so. Acting as if it were so did not make it so. Proposing it in commune after commune, to man after man, did not make it so. Baking bread and demonstrating against the war together did not make it so. The girls of the sixties lived in what Marxists call, but in this instance do not recognize as, a “contradiction.” Precisely in trying to erode the boundaries of gender through an apparent single standard of sexual-liberation practice, they participated more and more in the most gender-reifying act: fucking….

    Empirically speaking, sexual liberation was practiced by women on a wide scale in the sixties and it did not work: that is, it did not free women. Its purpose–it turned out–was to free men to use women without bourgeois constraints, and in that it was successful.

    Baby boomer feminism was a reaction against this development.

    And now?

    We’ve come all the way around to it happening again and worse.

    Many young folk blame feminism for this. It wasn’t feminism. Just um saying. 😉

  53. @Wyrd
    UVa president Teresa Sullivan's response to today's RS article:

    To the University Community:

    I'm sure many of you are aware by now of today's reports from the Washington Post and the statement from Rolling Stone magazine. While all of us who care about the University of Virginia are upset by the Rolling Stone story, I write now with a different message.

    Over the past two weeks, our community has been more focused than ever on one of the most difficult and critical issues facing higher education today: sexual violence on college campuses. Today's news must not alter this focus. Here at U.Va., the safety of our students must continue to be our top priority, for all students, and especially for survivors of sexual assault.

    We will continue to take a hard look at our practices, policies, and procedures, and continue to dedicate ourselves to becoming a model institution in our educational programming, in the character of our student culture, and in our care for those who are victims.

    Now is the time for us to come together as a community to lead the way on this critical issue.

    Very truly yours,

    Teresa A. Sullivan

    so she’s doubling down on the bullshit?

  54. @Suburban_elk

    Instead, they knew that women were supposed to be just as comfortable as men with sex, and with all kinds of sex, and that sex was really unrelated to relationships. And they knew that they had NO RIGHT to be uncomfortable with this idea, so there really was no way to regret any intimate interaction with a man–because it was all supposed to be a-ok, no emotional pain, no confusion, just loads of rutting for fun.

    But there remained ONE way to be allowed to feel pain and regret and confusion about sexual experiences–if the woman had been raped.
     

    This pretty much nails it.

    Ok, now that this is understood, what's the next problem. Race in America?

    ********

    I would dispute the suggestion elsewhere in the comment that women (or what are often called girls) are unaware of the effect they have on men, and that they don't know the difference in the nature of sexual desire. (The frequent assertion that girls, ehhrr women, don't have as much sexual desire as men, is dubious. Apparently an Arab proverb says the opposite, that women's sexual desire is ten times that of men.)

    But since the topic is on the table, for the record let it be said that the most marked qualitative difference between male and female sexual desire is that men get blue balls, which hurt. They are about a four on the hospital's subjective pain scale.

    That aside. The comment from Alice quoted above is the explanation for the "rape crises on campus". Minus some quibbles here and there, what more is there to say. That explanation though, is the rape crises on campus: the problems between young white men and young white women: why aren't they getting along? what is missing from their relationships? are they just about screwing or shouldn't there be something more?

    When that is the background noise, the milieu, it causes much discontent and worse, on down the scale of anxiety and dysfunction … for white girls and boys. Yes it causes the boys pain too. As the manosphere has accurately attested, the new state of things, the confused sexual marketplace, has its winners and they are called alphas. Are they dogs or wolves or chimps or bonobos? i would not compare them to noble lions, but that is neither here nor there.

    White America, middle class middle America, regular white people, this group is decimated by the chaos of the sexual marketplace. And then to make matters worse, the black man and his place in America. And then to make things even more complicated, immigrants. Black Americans and immigrants are different in most every way; but both groups play into and benefit from the confusion around the mating rites of young whites.

    I would dispute the suggestion elsewhere in the comment that women (or what are often called girls) are unaware of the effect they have on men, and that they don’t know the difference in the nature of sexual desire.

    Yeah, the average 18-22 year old is just so knowledgeable and sophisticated about sexuality, their own and that of the opposite sex.

    Really, no difference at all between “being aware that one has an effect on men” vs. “understanding men” and the complications of sex. Hey, 14 year old girls (er, women?) have also been known to “be aware”, very aware, that they’ve started to have an effect on men. Having once been one myself, I can also confirm that they get really randy. QED, their sexuality is no different from that of boys, and they are experts on the emotional consequences of sex.

    (The frequent assertion that girls, ehhrr women, don’t have as much sexual desire as men, is dubious. Apparently an Arab proverb says the opposite, that women’s sexual desire is ten times that of men.)

    Yeah, and Ovid made a similar observation about women and sexual pleasure but he somehow managed not to be a sperg about sex differences.

    But since the topic is on the table, for the record let it be said that the most marked qualitative difference between male and female sexual desire is that men get blue balls [emphasis added]

    Wow, you’re like Kinsey and Masters and Johnson and Penthouse Forum all rolled into one, aren’t you? (Yeah, I know I’m dating myself here.) Lol, “most marked qualitative difference”.

    • Replies: @Suburban_elk
    I can also confirm that they get really randy.

    You don't say.

    QED, their sexuality is no different from that of boys, and they are experts on the emotional consequences of sex.

    But actually it's an impossible comparison, the sexuality of boys versus girls, and men versus women.

    Yeah, and Ovid made a similar observation about women and sexual pleasure but he somehow managed not to be a sperg about sex differences.

    So it was the girls versus women comment that drubbed you the wrong way. We all get older, oh gracious oh my. How was your turkey pie?

    Wow, you’re like Kinsey and Masters and Johnson and Penthouse Forum all rolled into one

    You'll have to be more original.

    *****************


    Really, no difference at all between “being aware that one has an effect on men” vs. “understanding men” and the complications of sex.
     
    This remark is off the rails, missy. You are suggesting an equivalency there, not me. It is dumb to suggest those two things are equivalent; you made that suggestion.
    , @Suburban_elk

    I would dispute the suggestion elsewhere in the comment that women (or what are often called girls) are unaware of the effect they have on men, and that they don’t know the difference in the nature of sexual desire.

    Really, no difference at all between “being aware that one has an effect on men” vs. “understanding men” and the complications of sex. Hey, 14 year old girls (er, women?) have also been known to “be aware”, very aware, that they’ve started to have an effect on men. Having once been one myself, I can also confirm that they get really randy. QED, their sexuality is no different from that of boys, and they are experts on the emotional consequences of sex.
     

    This paragraph is non-sense start to finish, and as it was directed at humble old me, I can not let it pass.

    Where do you get the idea that there is no difference between "being aware that one has an effect on men" vs. "understanding men" and the complications of sex. That is your statement but it seems you wanted to attribute it to a post of mine. I did not make that statement. You are making that false statement.

    Your next sentence is also a misattribution. I said, and clearly, that I was disputing the suggestion in Alice's comment that girls are unaware of their effect on men. See where it says that in my statement? it's right there. And then you come back with your cries that 14-year old girls have been known to "be aware" blah blah. Yeah that is just i was saying, that girls that age are aware of their effect. Again go back and check in the italics in the blockquote.

    So i am right and you are unable to follow a thought because it doesn't fit with what you are prejudiced to see. Hey you know what? that is ironic, because that prejudice not allowing you to follow my thought, is a theme on this blog as of recent, in regard to purveyors of the narrative as opposed to facts.

    Wow, that is like an amazing recursive coincidence! All this irritation as least has that for a payoff! great stuff R-C, great stuff. Did you set that up for me, deliberately? You make a post pretending to be a feminist shrew, so it is seen how they dissemble and misrepresent.

    At this point, the rest of your paragraph, where you tell us that boys and girls are the same because you were a randy teenager so there. That level of argument speaks for itself.

    Yeah, ok.

  55. @Hersh
    Steve, you deserve all the credit for exposing this hoax. As you wrote in the Takimag article, Bradley's blog post wasn't getting any attention or comments until you did an isteve piece and linked to it.

    And all you did was apply common sense critical analysis to the story, like the weird element that she was raped by 9 people on top of broken glass. So what really stands out is all these major news outlets employing no common sense critical analysis whatsoever.

    On CSPAN's morning call-in, a Brooklyn caller said that the truth of the Eric Garner matter is that Garner was running a crew of petty thieves who broke into cars. Of course, nothing like that is in any of the news reporting but since I remember that it took 3 months to break the news to the public that the "N" word was mirror image on Tawana' s forehead, I don't automatically think news reports are more reliable than a C-SPAN caller. I once called CSPAN myself in late 1992 and got to confront Drummond Ayres about the 6 months it took for the NY Times to break the story of Sen. Fulbright's top aide writing a memo to help Bill Clinton avoid the draft. The NY Post had broken that story during the primary season, with a photo of the memo. Ayres' answer to me was that the story took 6 months to "mature."

    Applying common sense critical analysis to the Eric Garner matter, the caller's take is more logical than the news reports. Why did Garner resist arrest and cause a big disturbance doing so, necessitating a half dozen cops or more to deal with him? He'd been arrested many times so he knew it was just a matter of a few hours in the station and he'd be free to go. A very likely explanation would be that Garner was (1) alerting the rest of the crew and (2) drawing the cops over to him so that the others could run away.

    Why were there so many cops on the scene in the first place? The police commander isn't a lunatic that he'd put so many man hours into arresting someone who really was just selling loose cigarettes. A very likely explanation is that the cops intended to arrest several people.

    Why did the store owners call the cops in the first place? They weren't thinking that Garner was stealing their business (and just how many cigarettes did he have on him anyway and do people buy loose cigarettes?) but they might well have wanted a crew of petty thieves cleared out. And the cops take those thieves seriously because the thieves are very capable of pulling a knife on someone who tries to stop them. A likely explanation is that the store owner's recognized that Garner was a 400 lb. decoy/look-out/distraction. I was told by a cop in Jamaica, Queens once that they knew that certain traffic accidents were, in fact, decoys to get them to respond so that a robbery could take place somewhere else.

    The more I thought about it, the more I felt certain that the CSPAN caller is right and its the best explanation for the episode. The narratives from Obama/Holder/DeBlasio that its al racism, racism, racism are no worse than Rand Paul, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity saying the moral of the story has something to do with the evils of the cigarette tax. The cigarette tax was a tool, like using the income tax to get Capone.

    Good points all, but for what it’s worth, blacks do buy loose cigarettes. Around ’00 I personally witnessed a black guy beg a store owner in Berkeley, where cigs were sold in packs, to sell him a single fag. The owner, a native of Egypt, declined. This was the same store where a few years later I listened to a young black woman cry “racism” when told that a certain obscure brand of smokes was no longer available because the State of California had banned their further sale. The cashier that day was the owner’s son-in-law, also Egyptian. He said to me, “you believe that? I could be her cousin and she’s calling me a racist.” This guy was fully aware that American blacks are insane. He told me that at military school in Georgia, blacks “made me fight every day.”

  56. @Gallo-Roman
    I would dispute the suggestion elsewhere in the comment that women (or what are often called girls) are unaware of the effect they have on men, and that they don’t know the difference in the nature of sexual desire.

    Yeah, the average 18-22 year old is just so knowledgeable and sophisticated about sexuality, their own and that of the opposite sex.

    Really, no difference at all between "being aware that one has an effect on men" vs. "understanding men" and the complications of sex. Hey, 14 year old girls (er, women?) have also been known to "be aware", very aware, that they've started to have an effect on men. Having once been one myself, I can also confirm that they get really randy. QED, their sexuality is no different from that of boys, and they are experts on the emotional consequences of sex.

    (The frequent assertion that girls, ehhrr women, don’t have as much sexual desire as men, is dubious. Apparently an Arab proverb says the opposite, that women’s sexual desire is ten times that of men.)

    Yeah, and Ovid made a similar observation about women and sexual pleasure but he somehow managed not to be a sperg about sex differences.

    But since the topic is on the table, for the record let it be said that the most marked qualitative difference between male and female sexual desire is that men get blue balls... [emphasis added]

    Wow, you're like Kinsey and Masters and Johnson and Penthouse Forum all rolled into one, aren't you? (Yeah, I know I'm dating myself here.) Lol, "most marked qualitative difference".

    I can also confirm that they get really randy.

    You don’t say.

    QED, their sexuality is no different from that of boys, and they are experts on the emotional consequences of sex.

    But actually it’s an impossible comparison, the sexuality of boys versus girls, and men versus women.

    Yeah, and Ovid made a similar observation about women and sexual pleasure but he somehow managed not to be a sperg about sex differences.

    So it was the girls versus women comment that drubbed you the wrong way. We all get older, oh gracious oh my. How was your turkey pie?

    Wow, you’re like Kinsey and Masters and Johnson and Penthouse Forum all rolled into one

    You’ll have to be more original.

    *****************

    Really, no difference at all between “being aware that one has an effect on men” vs. “understanding men” and the complications of sex.

    This remark is off the rails, missy. You are suggesting an equivalency there, not me. It is dumb to suggest those two things are equivalent; you made that suggestion.

  57. @Svigor

    Just like Chris Rock, John Singleton got more politically correct as he got older.
     
    And richer, and more steeped in elite society mores, and further removed from his origins.

    Dear Students, Faculty, and Staff:

    In light of recent court decisions in New York and Missouri, I write today to add my voice to the national chorus of voices condemning the use of violent force, and even deadly force, against persons who have not been convicted of any crime.
     

    WTF? So, they condemn self-defense. Against people with no criminal record, anyway. Because when you have to defend yourself against someone attempting to commit a violent crime against you, someone with no criminal record, you can't use force against him. And since you have no reliable way of knowing if the person attempting to commit a crime against you has a criminal record, you have to err on the side of caution, meaning, in practical terms, they condemn all self-defense.

    It helps when they just come right out and announce that they're nuts.

    Sullivan is a sociologist, which means she’s never been required to acknowledge to reality.

  58. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Alice
    Let me add another idea or two no one is willing to notice:

    The Left, as usual, created this disaster as a response to the fallout of their other disasters of the sexual revolution.

    Why is there any issue of rape culture on any campus? Because about 20-25 years ago, the full force of the sexual liberation movement began to arrive on college campus. It wasn't just the students who had free love, like in the 60s. It was that every college was staffed by administrators who believed in it, and how great sex and drugs had been for their own "college experience". So they destroyed any social mores that would protect men and women from each other.

    By the 1990s, young women going off to college had *not been told by any generations above them that men are different than women. They didn't know that men REALLY want sex. They didn't know that what a woman might think of as a platonic interaction was likely NOT that for a man. They didn't know that their own clothing, looks, speech, and behaviors, might be alluring, let alone provocative.

    By 2000, the last gasp of anyone defining male-female interactions at college was gone--BU president John Silber held on til 1996 (and as chancellor til 2002). AFter 2000, basically all campuses did away single sex dorms, and mostly with single sex floors. Suites were co-ed. Bathrooms co-ed. You couldn't find a way to be in a situation where sexual interactions could be self-policed at all. I am Charlotte Simmons was not ahead of its time (as most Wolfe books are). By 2000, women didn't even know that "men might behave boorishly, so you should not put yourself into situations that cause you discomfort." Men and women were the same, right?

    Instead, they knew that women were supposed to be just as comfortable as men with sex, and with all kinds of sex, and that sex was really unrelated to relationships. And they knew that they had NO RIGHT to be uncomfortable with this idea, so there really was no way to regret any intimate interaction with a man--because it was all supposed to be a-ok, no emotional pain, no confusion, just loads of rutting for fun.

    But there remained ONE way to be allowed to feel pain and regret and confusion about sexual experiences--if the woman had been raped. So women, finding that their typical weekly (if not daily) interactions with men led to overtures and passes that they had no articulatable reason to reject, no principle on which to say "no", found that they had even more pain and regret---and rape has become the name for those unwanted sexual experiences.

    and they may truly not be consensual, in the sense that the woman, BEING UTTERLY NOT LIKE A MAN, does not want sex the way a man does.

    But the woman can't notice this, and even if she does, lacks a vocabulary for it.

    There is no vocabulary left for a young woman who wishes to have sex only in a deeply committed, loving, monogamous relationship. There is only one word of vocabulary left for the feelings of pain, sadness, loneliness, or humiliation after a sexual experience: rape.

    Alice, your comment above truly deserves a post of it’s own. Whaddya say, Steve?

    …There is no vocabulary left for a young woman who wishes to have sex only in a deeply committed, loving, monogamous relationship. There is only one word of vocabulary left for the feelings of pain, sadness, loneliness, or humiliation after a sexual experience: rape”

  59. @Gallo-Roman
    I would dispute the suggestion elsewhere in the comment that women (or what are often called girls) are unaware of the effect they have on men, and that they don’t know the difference in the nature of sexual desire.

    Yeah, the average 18-22 year old is just so knowledgeable and sophisticated about sexuality, their own and that of the opposite sex.

    Really, no difference at all between "being aware that one has an effect on men" vs. "understanding men" and the complications of sex. Hey, 14 year old girls (er, women?) have also been known to "be aware", very aware, that they've started to have an effect on men. Having once been one myself, I can also confirm that they get really randy. QED, their sexuality is no different from that of boys, and they are experts on the emotional consequences of sex.

    (The frequent assertion that girls, ehhrr women, don’t have as much sexual desire as men, is dubious. Apparently an Arab proverb says the opposite, that women’s sexual desire is ten times that of men.)

    Yeah, and Ovid made a similar observation about women and sexual pleasure but he somehow managed not to be a sperg about sex differences.

    But since the topic is on the table, for the record let it be said that the most marked qualitative difference between male and female sexual desire is that men get blue balls... [emphasis added]

    Wow, you're like Kinsey and Masters and Johnson and Penthouse Forum all rolled into one, aren't you? (Yeah, I know I'm dating myself here.) Lol, "most marked qualitative difference".

    I would dispute the suggestion elsewhere in the comment that women (or what are often called girls) are unaware of the effect they have on men, and that they don’t know the difference in the nature of sexual desire.

    Really, no difference at all between “being aware that one has an effect on men” vs. “understanding men” and the complications of sex. Hey, 14 year old girls (er, women?) have also been known to “be aware”, very aware, that they’ve started to have an effect on men. Having once been one myself, I can also confirm that they get really randy. QED, their sexuality is no different from that of boys, and they are experts on the emotional consequences of sex.

    This paragraph is non-sense start to finish, and as it was directed at humble old me, I can not let it pass.

    Where do you get the idea that there is no difference between “being aware that one has an effect on men” vs. “understanding men” and the complications of sex. That is your statement but it seems you wanted to attribute it to a post of mine. I did not make that statement. You are making that false statement.

    Your next sentence is also a misattribution. I said, and clearly, that I was disputing the suggestion in Alice’s comment that girls are unaware of their effect on men. See where it says that in my statement? it’s right there. And then you come back with your cries that 14-year old girls have been known to “be aware” blah blah. Yeah that is just i was saying, that girls that age are aware of their effect. Again go back and check in the italics in the blockquote.

    So i am right and you are unable to follow a thought because it doesn’t fit with what you are prejudiced to see. Hey you know what? that is ironic, because that prejudice not allowing you to follow my thought, is a theme on this blog as of recent, in regard to purveyors of the narrative as opposed to facts.

    Wow, that is like an amazing recursive coincidence! All this irritation as least has that for a payoff! great stuff R-C, great stuff. Did you set that up for me, deliberately? You make a post pretending to be a feminist shrew, so it is seen how they dissemble and misrepresent.

    At this point, the rest of your paragraph, where you tell us that boys and girls are the same because you were a randy teenager so there. That level of argument speaks for itself.

    Yeah, ok.

  60. @anonymous-antimarxist
    Erin Keane over at Salon is now moving on to the next great white defendant rape case.

    http://www.salon.com/2014/12/05/rolling_stones_uva_disaster_why_this_story_is_a_brutal_setback_for_women/

    Rape victims and their advocates stand to lose the most from this development, especially on campuses, where sexual assaults are underreported and often dismissed by officials as trivial morning-after regrets. Jackie’s story resonated for a reason — cases like those in Steubenville, Ohio, and Norman, Oklahoma, where photo and video evidence of rape circulated through text messages and social media forced small conservative communities to act instead of cover up these crimes, and the mounting evidence against celebrities like Bill Cosby and Jian Ghomeshi accused of sexual assault, have helped tip momentum toward presumed credibility for people who step forward with stories of sexual assault. This could have been the year the myth of the “girl who cried rape” was relegated to the statistical improbability pile where it belonged. Instead, the assumed credibility of all victims, not just Rolling Stone’s, is likely to take a hit.
     
    Erin Keane is referring to this case in Norman Ok.

    But is this case really a rape or just a major case of teenage high school male idiocy?
    http://jezebel.com/after-protest-alleged-serial-rapist-teen-arrested-in-n-1665787711
    http://rt.com/usa/211207-oklahoma-protest-student-rape/
    http://www.sunherald.com/2014/12/03/5948023/suspect-in-oklahoma-rape-case.html
    http://www.people.com/article/arrest-rape-oklahoma-norman-yes-all-daughters

    Here is the Steubenville case referred to in the article which is rather shocking and depraved but was the sentencing a bit harsh?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_High_School_rape_case#Trial_and_sentencing

    Hard to imagine what it is like to live as a teenager when any idiot can video your drunken sexual missteps.
    Kids beware!!!

    This could have been the year the myth of the “girl who cried rape” was relegated to the statistical improbability pile where it belonged.

    What the tyrannical Left refers to as “myths” are usually incontrovertible but inconvenient truths.

  61. I knew all blond haired males are evil ever since I saw one of them bullying the dark haired Italian Ralph Macchio in “The Karate Kid”.

    And juuust to make sure nobody missed their point, his evil Karate instructor was a blond guy, too.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS