Yet another bombastic rape claim bites the dust

[Derec]

A few weeks ago, Rolling Stone published a rather emotional article detailing a gang rape claim at a UVA fraternity.
A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA

Reactions were as predictable as they were misguided: hysteria over "rape-culture" and "patriarchy", the frat in question suspended etc.

Now it turns out RS failed to conduct even most basic vetting and that the story is most likely BS.
Key elements of Rolling Stone’s U-Va. gang rape allegations in doubt

This is why rape allegations should not be believed automatically out of misplaced concern to not "revictimize" the accuser.

 

[Ford]

Speaking of predictable reactions...

Now that the "no woman is ever raped" crowd has chimed in, how's the actual criminal investigation going?

 

[Derec]

Now that the "no woman is ever raped" crowd has chimed in,

Basic logic failure. Rejecting "no woman lies about rape" does not imply affirming "all women lie about rape".
What I am against is blindly accepting accusations as facts and instead going on evidence, with the benefit of the doubt being in favor of the accused.

how's the actual criminal investigation going?

Given that she didn't file a criminal complaint when it allegedly happened (over two years ago) and that she can't get her story straight, I am guessing it's purely pro-forma. Did you even read the article?

 

[Ford]

Basic logic failure. Rejecting "no woman lies about rape" does not imply affirming "all women lie about rape".

I've asked before, and I know I won't get an answer this time, but I have to ask again:


Derec, when was the last time you defended a woman who claimed she was raped?


Edit.


Derec, when was the last time you defended a woman?

 

[Axulus]

Speaking of predictable reactions...

Now that the "no woman is ever raped" crowd has chimed in, how's the actual criminal investigation going?

So your belief is that there are only two camps: those who believe women never lie about rape and those who believe women always lie about rape? Are you able to imagine a middle ground: women sometimes lie about rape and, therefore, we need additional collaborating evidence before punishing the accused?

 

[Ford]

So your belief is that there are only two camps: those who believe women never lie about rape and those who believe women always lie about rape?

No, I believe that there is one person here who believes women always lie about rape. His posting history is very clear on that point, and this thread is but the latest example.

 

[mrp]

I agree

Derec posts articles, posters flood the thread discussing Derec and not the articles or stories he posts.

<snip>

 

[laughing dog]

Near the end of the linked Rolling Stone story:

iSuspect Jesse Matthew Jr., a 32-year-old UVA hospital worker, will be charged with Hannah Graham's "abduction with intent to defile," and a chilling portrait will emerge of an alleged predator who got his start, a decade ago, as a campus rapist. Back in 2002, and again in 2003, Matthew was accused of sexual assault at two different Virginia colleges where he was enrolled, but was never prosecuted. In 2005, according to the new police indictment, Matthew sexually assaulted a 26-year-old and tried to kill her. DNA has also reportedly linked Matthew to the 2009 death of Virginia Tech student Morgan Harrington, who disappeared after a Metallica concert in Charlottesville. The grisly dossier of which Matthew has been accused underscores the premise that campus rape should be seen not through the schema of a dubious party foul, but as a violent crime – and that victims should be encouraged to come forward as an act of civic good that could potentially spare future victims.

 

[Derec]

Near the end of the linked Rolling Stone story:

A very different case, completely unrelated to the Jackie case except that they were both at UVA.

 

[laughing dog]

Near the end of the linked Rolling Stone story:

A very different case, completely unrelated to the Jackie case except that they were both at UVA.

I'll repeat the relevant bold-faced italicized underlined part that you apparently missed - underscores the premise that campus rape should be seen not through the schema of a dubious party foul, but as a violent crime

 

[J842P]

A very different case, completely unrelated to the Jackie case except that they were both at UVA.

I'll repeat the relevant bold-faced italicized underlined part that you apparently missed - underscores the premise that campus rape should be seen not through the schema of a dubious party foul, but as a violent crime

Who here has claimed that campus rape should be seen as anything else but a violent crime? Indeed, it seems Derec of all people has been the one to consistently argue that reports of rape should be treated as criminal matters to be investigated by the police.

So I'm not sure what the relevance of your post is.

 

[laughing dog]

I'll repeat the relevant bold-faced italicized underlined part that you apparently missed - underscores the premise that campus rape should be seen not through the schema of a dubious party foul, but as a violent crime

Who here has claimed that campus rape should be seen as anything else but a violent crime? Indeed, it seems Derec of all people has been the one to consistently argue that reports of rape should be treated as criminal matters to be investigated by the police.

So I'm not sure what the relevance of your post is.

I think our reading of someone's posting history radically differs.

 

[J842P]

Who here has claimed that campus rape should be seen as anything else but a violent crime? Indeed, it seems Derec of all people has been the one to consistently argue that reports of rape should be treated as criminal matters to be investigated by the police.

So I'm not sure what the relevance of your post is.

I think our reading of someone's posting history radically differs.

So when it comes to the issue of rape on college campuses, Derec has argued that police shouldn't be the ones investigating those sorts of claims? Really?

 

[laughing dog]

I think our reading of someone's posting history radically differs.

So when it comes to the issue of rape on college campuses, Derec has argued that police shouldn't be the ones investigating those sorts of claims? Really?

Derec has argued lots of things about college rapes. For an example of his attitude, I refer you to the OP title.

 

[J842P]

So when it comes to the issue of rape on college campuses, Derec has argued that police shouldn't be the ones investigating those sorts of claims? Really?

Derec has argued lots of things about college rapes. For an example of his attitude, I refer you to the OP title.

Quite frankly, I'm not much concerned with his attitude. It's abrasive. I get that.

What I am concerned with are his claims.

 

[Derec]

A very different case, completely unrelated to the Jackie case except that they were both at UVA.

I'll repeat the relevant bold-faced italicized underlined part that you apparently missed - underscores the premise that campus rape should be seen not through the schema of a dubious party foul, but as a violent crime

The case referenced with that statement (Hannah Graham) was very far removed from anyone's idea of "dubious party fouls", so it is kind of dubious what kind of point the author of the article seems to be making. The problem is that too many of the claims of rape on campus recently have been "dubious party fouls" or regretted consensual, often drunken, hookups. That is very different than forcible rape or incapacitated (due to date rape drugs or alcohol) rape.
Besides, Hannah Graham was also murdered, so that makes it even more removed from the usual campus rape discussion.

Let me reiterate my position. Police should be investigating claims of sexual assault and rape. College tribunals are very ill equipped to handle such cases. But police should concern themselves with actual claims of rape. Unfortunately college tribunals have been under pressure to increase what is defined as "sexual assault" to such extent that "dubious party fouls" have become expellable offenses - for example consensual sex that the girl (and invariably the girl) regrets, especially if she had been drinking at all.
So we must differentiate between things. A person forced to have sex, or which had sex performed on him or her while incapacitated - police should investigate such claims and bring charges if appropriate.
A person having consensual sex, even while drunk, and regretting it at some later point should be filed under "life experience". It is not sexual assault.
In neither case are college tribunals a competent investigative body, in the former case because it's above their pay grade, in the latter because consensual sex their students have is frankly none of their business. Where colleges appropriately come in is to take results of police investigation and use it to dole up their own penalties, if warranted.

Have I made my position even a little bit clear?

 

[Derec]

Derec has argued lots of things about college rapes.

I have never, however, said that police should not investigate claims of rape. I merely said that people should not automatically believe such claims a priori.
What Jackie was alleging was an actual rape, not a regretted consensual hookup. Unfortunately for her, even if she was actually raped, she waited very long and her recollection of when, where and with whom the alleged rape happened is very inconsistent. As such any police investigation would at this point be very brief.

For an example of his attitude, I refer you to the OP title.

What's wrong with the title? The initial RS article was bombastic, biased, overly emotional and lacked even a shred of journalistic skepticism.

 

[laughing dog]

What's wrong with the title? The initial RS article was bombastic, biased, overly emotional and lacked even a shred of journalistic skepticism.

Too bad the OP title does not reflect that since it refers to the claim not the article.

 

[thebeave]

Speaking of article titles, I love this one from Jezebel:

http://jezebel.com/is-the-uva-rape-story-a-gigantic-hoax-asks-idiot-1665233387


She does issue an apology later though:

http://jezebel.com/rolling-stone-partially-retracts-uva-story-over-discrep-1667329573



As usual, the comments are priceless. Especially in the first one. Get out your torches and pitchforks!!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I agree

Derec posts articles, posters flood the thread discussing Derec and not the articles or stories he posts.

Truly a predictable reaction that I see has spanned years and forums with no moderation in sight.. in fact i'm sure a couple will be here shortly to join in.

Indeed. Derec has his hobby horse and rides it often, but he also makes some good points here and there and so many on this forum react with simple Ad Homs. Predictable indeed.