Rolling Stone backs away.
How has it come to pass that rape has become a crime where the accused is not entitled to due process?
13 thoughts on “The UVA Rape Story”
Comments are closed.
Rolling Stone backs away.
How has it come to pass that rape has become a crime where the accused is not entitled to due process?
Comments are closed.
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Remember the assurances last week that the author had checked into everything personally, even if she couldn’t share the details?
Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie’s account.
Ooookaaay then.
In this run up to Hillary! 2.0 (or whatever) I think we are going to see more and more of not only narrative crash-and-burn but specific examples where one can respond by asking honestly “Are you self-aware?”.
On the other hand, maybe they’re just in pure-fabrication mode at this point.
Several of the woman’s close friends and campus sex assault awareness advocates said that they also doubt the published account.
Ready for pillory?
Don’t worry everyone, were assured by leftists this is another “Fake, but accurate” story so everything is fine. Carry on.
Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie’s account.
So activists are more invested in Jackie being brutally raped than finding out that nothing may have in fact happened as the story crumbles apart. Isn’t that akin to them wishing for Jackie to be brutally raped?
I think it was in the Slate article (Hanna Rosen,…) that the author said that she was told that the “survivor support” people have been trained to never show doubt about the victim’s story; it would turn the victim away and stop her from revealing what happened. Understandable as a therapeutic technique, but not helpful in law enforcement.
I once heard from a priest that he hears a lot of lies in confession…
Journalists, or even journolists, should never rely on activists regardless of political stripe.
http://www.rollingstone.com/search?q=uva
Doesn’t look like Rolling Stone is taking this seriously.
Quelle Surprise.
What is due process necessary when “women don’t lie about rape?” An accusation of rape is like a blood test. If you fail the test, you’ve got the disease. If you’re accused of rape you’re guilty.
Kulak. Rapist. Untermench. Bad Element. Wrecker. The most effective choice (by longevity) by socialists for their hate has been to repurpose old words (“rapist”) rather than introduce new words (“capitalist-roader”).
By opposing rapists, socialist/nazis/feminists can pursue their goals with widespread assent, for who is in favor of rape? When opposing capitalist-roaders, socialists discovered quite a few people were in favor of capitalism despite its ideological and official condemnation.
I would like to suggest that it’s less a case of feminazi social control than an unconscious reaction to the old-school approach to rape investigations, wherein the victim was put on trial as much as the man. The burning question of the hour was “did she ask for it?”
So the feminists and the progs over-reacted and went the other direction; instead of a woman is never believed, they flippet to a woman is always believed. Anyone who disagrees with this is factually wrong, hence morally wrong. And evil. And sexist. Etc. One of the problems of modern progressives is that they’re convinced that -given their motives are good- their actions & conclusions must also be good.
since the “Miranda act” is named after a real rapist who was set free because he was allegedly denied due process because no one told him he didn’t have to confess, I’m equally baffled.