New grounds is still around? My brother used to live on that site when we got our first computer 13 years ago.
The Jameis Winston case at Florida State shows just how messy this stuff can get. The girl apparently left a bar (either before or after having sex with her boyfriend) with three guys she didn't know to go back to Winston's apartment. I"m not going to go into the details, because I don't remember all of them, but it looks like there's nothing good to say about the conduct of anyone involved. My take is that at the very least she behaved irresponsibly and placed herself in a very dicey spot. (Again going on memory there's no indication that she was drunk) The young jocks were doing what young jocks tend to do: thinking with their dicks. The police half=assed the investigation, although given the fact that she never did get her story straight (even though getting a straight story from any rape victim is always tough for various reasons) it may be that the cop warning her that pursuing a rape charge would put her into a world of shit, may have been a well-meaning attempt to get her to rethink things. At any rate by the time the case got to the state attorney's desk it was such a mess there was no way to get a conviction. Of course that case raises a whole other question about why jocks at big-time football schools get preferential treatment but that's another story. In any case, Winston hasn't been charged with anything (he's a young idiot who can't stay out of trouble, but nothing else he's done rise to the felony/rape level) and if you got to any sports site with a story about FSU you'll see him repeatedly called a rapist. I'm not going to defend rape in any way, shape or form, but I have to wonder what it's going to take before we can get to the point where accused guys don't have the prospect of having their lives ruined by a false charge (see the USC rape case where the victim admitted lying but didn't want to give back the $1.5 million she got from the University to settle the case and the player spent a long time in prison) but victims can go to the police knowing that their claims will be taken seriously, investigated properly and prosecuted vigorously. I also am an advocate of women learning self-defense techniques that actually work and will help protect them against bigger, stronger attackers (which is almost always the case).
Which is stupid IMHO. They should be going after Jackie with everything they've got because Jackie has hurt real women who've been raped. False rape allegations make it easier for people to dismiss the real rapes. If the social warrior crowd had any brains they'd be screaming mad at Jackie so women would understand that making false reports is not something you should do.
The original story was deficient because it didn't give the alleged perpetrators' side, leaving us with insufficient information. But we shouldn't forget that the same is now true vice versa: We do not know that Jackie's allegations were false. We should neither condemn her nor her possible attackers, and not call for anyone else to do so, either. It's difficult to remember that we really don't know the things we don't know. That's a huge part of the problem of such publicity; it becomes almost impossible not to feel that you can and should come to some kind of judgement about some concrete instance about which you have not one piece of actually reliable information.
You mean besides the blatant lies....I mean "errors" about the stairways and two of the guys being out of the country and the fact there was no party that night? It's comical how desperate some of you are to still believe her...facts be damned.
Packard, It's clear now the whole thing is false. Right now Rolling Stone is just looking for ways to cover itself from a possible lawsuit.
You know this how? Where "know" means know, not having heard it or read it just as you previously heard about the alleged rapes themselves?
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2014/12/09/349293.htm UVA is reinstating the Greek system. It is pretty clear the claims were false and just made up whole cloth.
Reputable publications with a traditional liberal slant are all but calling it a fabrication. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...ngton_post_inches_closer_to.html?wpsrc=fol_tw
You're right. It does sound like something that Packard would be crying over had it been Rumsfeld saying it.
I'm on record as saying that the "known unknowns" bit was one of the few accurate and thoughtworthy things Rumsfeld has ever publicly said. The problem is that he then used that truth immediately in order to protect lies.
Jury finds reporter, Rolling Stone responsible for defaming U-Va. dean with gang rape story "...with actual malice." Fuck that writer and fuck Rolling Stone.
What shootER said. There are plenty of actually real rape culture stories to cover without making one up.
I wonder if Gul and the other defenders of the fake gang rape claim will do a mea culpa? Who am i kidding? Of course they won't.
Not incompetent. They didn't accidentally defame someone with malice. This was nothing less than valuing an agenda over the truth, and with no concern whatsoever for any innocent people rolled over by it.
Oh, please. He said they are wrong then webt on to defend them for two pages. Thanks, but most people cab see through that game of double play.