Kinja reply list

Read More
mazzieDStassa Edwards
3/30/16 2:51pm
So, I just want to make sure I understand what’s going on: Jackie is still holding to her side, right? Has anything been decided in this case?

Also, on the subject of “false” rape accusations, I encourage everyone to read this story about how when police don’t believe women, they can be convinced to redact their accusations, and how good policing makes the difference in catching serial rapists. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/12/16/an-...
Reply
- Read More
  Gross1mazzieD
  3/30/16 3:07pm
  Nothing has been decided in this case (hence the need for a deposition) but if you haven’t read into the details yet, reserve judgment. Sorry if that sounds condescending but this is such a minefield and this case is a really sorry example of how fucked up our entire culture/legal system/etc still is when it comes to sexual assault.
  Reply
- Read More
  JustinmazzieD
  3/30/16 3:17pm
  Well, Jackie’s case was never formally brought to law enforcement, and the point of the RS article was that regardless of due process by the state, the university should have taken action against the accused persons and the group they belonged to in order to keep the campus safe. Ms. Eramo was portrayed as the embodiment of indifference by the university, all on the word of the pseudonymous Jackie. Later accounts would shed light on how Eramo and the university tried to facilitate Jackie’s claims when she made them, leading to the current state of Eramo suing RS for defamation via shit journalism practices.
  Reply
Read More
dcgirl13Stassa Edwards
3/30/16 3:05pm
What miserable fallout from Rolling Stone’s shitty journalism. It doesn’t surprise me that a trauma victim doesn’t have things like dates right. But it does surprise me that a news organization didn’t due there due diligence and follow up on things like dates. The same with not getting other views on Eramo. Just shitty journalism.
Reply
- Read More
  reboundstudentdcgirl13
  3/30/16 3:11pm
  Um, well, it seems to be more than just getting dates mixed up. There are several eye witness accounts detailing how Jackie told them she’d just experienced a sexual assault after texting them, on that specific date. It also appears there’s a good chance she created a false online identity to get closer to one of her friends. Not only do the dates not fit, but there doesn’t seem to be anyone who fits the victim’s description of the main perpetrator (someone who presumably she had been on a date with when attending the location of the assault.) So, shitty journalism yes, but it does seem like there’s more than some minor discrepancies with the victim’s recollection.
  
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-poi...
  Reply
- Read More
  dcgirl13reboundstudent
  3/30/16 3:20pm
  And lots of that is consistent with trauma, so I don’t want to say nothing happened to Jackie. But Rolling Stone never should have published. In many ways Jackie is collateral damage.
  Reply
Read More
Adrastra predicts "Low Key" title for Taylor's new albumStassa Edwards
3/30/16 2:41pm
Y i k e s . For her sake, I hope her identity never gets revealed, I can’t imagine the unholy shitstorm that would rain down.
Reply
- Read More
  TheBestUEverHadAdrastra predicts "Low Key" title for Taylor's new album
  3/30/16 2:49pm
  Chuck Johnson has already “outed Jackie” three or four times, none of them were her, and all the girls were bullied off of social media. At least one of them was an actual rape survivor who was photographed at DC Slutwalk with a sign describing her rape. Chuck Johnson found her photo had been shared on an Instagram page belonging to a UVA student named Jackie, assumed that was the girl who owned the account (and that the girl who owned the account was Rolling Stone Jackie), and shared her image with all his MRA followers claiming this was proof she had made another rape allegation.
  Reply
- Read More
  A SPOOKY GHOST!TheBestUEverHad
  3/30/16 3:00pm
  I really hate to wish ill will on people, but I hope Chuck Johnson has an even worse life than that which already made him into the hateful shitstain he is today.
  Reply
Read More
BurlyqLawyerStassa Edwards
3/30/16 2:46pm
How does saying you were gang raped garner romantic attention? Fuck those lawyers.
Reply
- Read More
  Flow BeeBurlyqLawyer
  3/30/16 2:48pm
  It’s not a new outrageous claim or something. It was all laid out last year when the fallout occurred.
  Reply
- Read More
  You Get HoynesBurlyqLawyer
  3/30/16 2:59pm
  I’d suggest reading this article from January to learn more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-poi...
  Reply
Read More
CrogStassa Edwards
3/30/16 2:47pm
Are there other Jezebel articles relating to this? I somehow have heard about a Rolling Stone college rape story but have never read a thing about it. I'm gonna search tags but if anyone has a good place to start I'd appreciate it.
Reply
- Read More
  You Get HoynesCrog
  3/30/16 2:50pm
  Use the tags on this article. For example, the University of Virginia tag will get you the majority, if not all: http://jezebel.com/tag/university...
  Reply
- Read More
  paultoesCrog
  3/30/16 2:54pm
  In the little “Filed To” menu up top. Clicking on those will take you to the other articles about this.
  
  Reply
Read More
assmonkeysaysI'mBRITNEY, BITCH!Stassa Edwards
3/30/16 2:39pm
who fabricated the Rolling Stone story to garner romantic attention.

That always works as a romantic overture for me!
Reply
- Read More
  A SPOOKY GHOST!assmonkeysaysI'mBRITNEY, BITCH!
  3/30/16 2:42pm
  Women embarrassing Rolling Stone is my fetish.
  Reply
- Read More
  dancelikeithurtsassmonkeysaysI'mBRITNEY, BITCH!
  3/30/16 3:17pm
  Leaning on the wall at a party, “So, you’re ‘Jackie,’ right? I hear you got gang raped, that’s really cool. Want to come back to my place?” They think that was her plan?
  Reply
Read More
JennaD79Stassa Edwards
3/30/16 3:17pm
I know I’ll probably get a ton of flak for this, and trust me I sympathize as a survivor myself, but I feel that the dean has every right to depose Jackie, even if I find it repugnant that she’s going around branding Jackie as a liar.

Jackie decided to give an interview to a massive national publication where she trashed this woman and may have had major impacts on her professional and personal life. When you make claims like that you have to reasonably expect that that person may object to that and may bring a lawsuit where you may have to discuss your claims again.

I know it’s different but in a criminal context, I wouldn’t expect that I could take the stand and tell my side of the story and then refuse to let the other side cross examine me because it might be too upsetting or traumatic. That wouldn’t seem fair to me.

I don't wish trauma on anyone obviously, but I don't think you can use that as an argument to deprive another person of their only fair opportunity for justice. If I would be so traumatized by talking about it I just don't think I would have given the interview in the first place.
Reply
- Read More
  Firefly75JennaD79
  3/30/16 4:51pm
  Which is the exact opposite of the position taken by the National Organisation of Women who are claiming the Dean should cease her action as it only serves to retraumatise Jackie as a victim of sexual assault: http://now.org/media-center/p...
  Reply
- Read More
  JennaD79Firefly75
  3/30/16 5:04pm
  That’s interesting and I see some validity to what they are saying, I.e. If the dean has been making statements indicating that a rape didn’t occur because she didn’t report to the police etc. I have serious problems with that.
  
  That doesn't however change my position on the deposition. I don't think you can say it serves only to retraumatize Jackie as it would obviously serve to support or contradict the Deans claims against Rolling Stone, claims which arose based off of Jackies own actions. I don't see any way of achieving justice for the dean without allowing the deposition, and I think she has rights too.
  Reply
Read More
EffyewStassa Edwards
3/30/16 3:36pm
So little comments on this. I wonder why that is? I’ll bite. I hate this story because it puts people in a position of having to either defend this very convoluted story or acknowledge the thing that we don’t want to acknowledge because it puts undue pressure on women who are sexually abused or will be sexually abused in coming forward in the future, simply that she really really lied about this.

I don’t know what to make of it but the whole thing irritates me because it’s a very very fine line you have to walk to make sense out of this or discuss it, and I say that as a survivor. Parts of this story make no sense. It is a literal grey area for me.
Reply
- Read More
  AnarchyOfTasteEffyew
  3/30/16 4:24pm
  Yeah, I noticed the same thing. I also noticed that many of those who did decide to comment are very uninformed about the details of this case, and especially those details that cast doubt on Jackie.
  
  I think the right thing to do here is say “this time a woman almost certainly lied about being raped.” It’s not really such a bad admission. Any reasonable person who can still be convinced that campus rape is a problem won’t be swayed to join the MRAs over this one time a woman lied.
  
  I’ve noticed a pattern among activists that is worth pointing out. Often, the most controversial episodes of an alleged injustice are the ones that receive the most attention and protest. Take BLM and the Mike Brown shooting. Those who takes the time to investigate all of the evidence know that there is a whole bunch of uncertainty in that case. Meanwhile, Tamir Rice’s shooting was far more unjust. Tamir was only 12. The officer’s actions were recorded. There is no doubt that Tamir’s death was a grave injustice, but the officers were aquitted anyways. Even G W Bush thought the officer was in the wrong.
  
  Which shooting got more media attention? Which received the most protests? Which one caused rioting? Mike Brown’s did, and that’s just crazy. The same thing happened with Jackie. Activists decided that her case was a good battlefield to advance the cause. I think I know why.
  
  When we identify with a cause, we often make the cause part of our identity. I have a bit of a libertarian streak, so sometimes I feel a tribal obligation to defend libertarians, even if they act stupidly. I also find myself feeling a need to signal my identity in an attempt to reach out to the like-minded. I think we all do this, and I think it has the consequence of radicalizing the shared opinions of any tribe. If you identify with BLM, and you want people to know it, then standing up for Mike Brown at a protest is a really good way to signal that. If you try the same thing with Tamir Rice, you don’t send a very strong signal- after all, even GWB thought the Tamir Rice shooting was an injustice. As a libertarian, I’ve found myself expressing some pretty radical economic views, even though I don’t have very good reasons to hold said views- it’s not certainty that drives me, instead it’s a need to express a tribal identity. It’s pretty stupid and I try not to do it very often.
  
  I think this is part of why so many people were so vocal about the Jackie’s story when it first came out. Her story wasn’t a new one. Women have been the victims of injustices since... forever. But her story led many reasonable people to have doubts, and that made it the perfect battlefield for those who wish to express their membership to a certain kind of feminist Identity. You simply couldn’t be part of the tribe if you doubt that story, and the best way to gain status among feminist was to be extremely vocal about supporting Jackie. I think that’s what led to the type of comments we all witnessed early on, when Anna Merlin made a fool of herself trying to duke it out with Robby Soave from Reason magazine.
  
  Reply
Read More
Chet ManleyStassa Edwards
3/30/16 2:46pm
More likely her lawyer is worried that Rolling Stone will implead her as a necessary defendant.
Reply
Read More
GoldstarforyouStassa Edwards
3/30/16 4:29pm
This story is extremely upsetting to me. As a “survivor” that was too scared to report my assault, when people found out I was put down and people automatically assumed I was lying because of it. I was only 15, and my attacker was the most popular boy in school.

With that being said, I did not make up false illnesses, or fake profiles. I did not speak to magazines. I did not want this to get out and “ruin” my life....I was scared and didn’t know what to do. I don’t want to say she’s a lying liar, because trauma causes people to do strange things, but I’m also very suspicious of the whole situation, which is incredibly uncomfortable for me to admit given my past.

I also have (most likely) an unpopular opinion....she spoke out to Rolling Stone, but when she is deposed, she decides that she cannot speak? How does this work? I know being cross examined is difficult, especially in matters like sexual assault, but this other woman should have the opportunity to defend her name.

This just makes me so uncomfortable.
Reply