[runsonmagic]

I just realized something.

The article refers to the rapists as pledges, and insinuates this is part of a hazing ritual.

"Don't you want to be a brother?" one says.

The article also says this rape occurred four weeks into the new school year... in the fall.

UVA students don't pledge till the spring.

The University want students to have at least half a year to make friends outside the Greek system before picking a frat.

Either these guys were still hazing NINE months after pledging, or a MAJOR factual detail has been changed.

[Engineer]

(11-29-2014 11:00 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  

I just realized something.

The article refers to the rapists as pledges, and insinuates this is part of a hazing ritual.

"Don't you want to be a brother?" one says.

The article also says this rape occurred four weeks into the new school year... in the fall.

UVA students don't pledge till the spring.

The University want students to have at least half a year to make friends outside the Greek system before picking a frat.

Either these guys were still hazing NINE months after pledging, or a MAJOR factual detail has been changed.

Excellent catch. This story is clearly about feelings and social justice, so a few factual errors won't get in the way. Anyone pointing this out will just be called "victim shaming, blah blah blah"

[Days of Broken Arrows]

'The Lizard of Oz' said:
People are starting to doubt this story:

Is the Rolling Stone Story True?

Not just any "people." But Richard Bradley.

Bradley is a respected author and former magazine editor and a graduate of both Yale and Harvard. Bradley also worked for George magazine and is definitely not part of the manosphere, the right wing, or any group that would be inclined to pick apart the story...yet there he is doing just that.

If Richard Bradley was questioning one of my articles on his blog, I would be an extremely unhappy reporter. If the story in question was even partially fabricated, I'd be in a lot of trouble.

I would urge everyone reading to click on that link above and read what he has to say. Having worked in newsrooms for two decades, I can't stress enough how significant it is that Bradley not just took the time to question this, but does a great job looking into why it doesn't ring true.

[2Wycked]

(11-29-2014 11:54 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

'The Lizard of Oz' said:
People are starting to doubt this story:

Is the Rolling Stone Story True?

Not just any "people." But Richard Bradley.

Bradley is a respected author and former magazine editor and a graduate of both Yale and Harvard. Bradley also worked for George magazine and is definitely not part of the manosphere, the right wing, or any group that would be inclined to pick apart the story...yet there he is doing just that.

If Richard Bradley was questioning one of my articles on his blog, I would be an extremely unhappy reporter. If the story in question was even partially fabricated, I'd be in a lot of trouble.

I would urge everyone reading to click on that link above and read what he has to say. Having worked in newsrooms for two decades, I can't stress enough how significant it is that Bradley not just took the time to question this, but does a great job looking into why it doesn't ring true.

Richard Bradley:

[placer]

One telling quote from Richard Bradley's blog entry about the Rolling Stone article:

Quote:

there’s the fact that Jackie apparently knew two of her rapists, but they are not named, nor does Rubin Erdley contact them, which is basically a cardinal rule of journalism: If someone in your story is accused of something, you’d better do your damnedest to give them a chance to respond. There’s no sign that Rubin Erdley did so. Why not? Did she not know their names? Would Jackie not tell her? Because if Rubin Erdley knew their names and didn’t call them, that is horrible journalism and undermines confidence in her reporting. And if she didn’t know their names—well, we’re back in Patrick Witt-land again.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(11-29-2014 09:55 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(11-29-2014 08:21 PM)Lord_Perseus Wrote:  

Quote:

Rape Rate per 100,000 population - rates reported to police

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Germany
10.6 10.7 9.9 9.8 9.1 8.8 8.9 9.4
Sweden
25.0 25.2 41.9 46.3 51.8 59.0 63.8 63.5


http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/11/do...hange.html

...

These Swedish numbers are completely insane and I don't believe them for a second.

You really have to stop and think about these claims. They are saying truly outrageous things, such as "Sweden has the second highest rate of rape in the world after Nigeria" (!!), and elsewhere they are claiming that there were 5 rapes a day in Stockholm during the summer of 2012. Finally, they extrapolate to reach the conclusion that 1 out of every 4 women in Sweden will be raped.

What are you talking about? 65/50.000 of the female population is not 1 in 4!

Rape is low and remains a rare incident there. It has just been on the rise - partly because of the new laws enacted since 1999 and also because of immigration from Muslim countries. Even Muslim preachers are talking about having a problem within their community.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-them.html

Nah - everything is fine - let Pakistani & Somali gang rapists do their work - I guess the 13-14 year olds just were looking for some honest work.

And I am not Muslim baiting here - a good friend of mine is a Player of Afghan origins. He too thinks that most girls are sluts, but he does it benevolently, though he knows guys that have a different more sinister mindset. Germany has a big Muslim population (though most 2nd or 3rd generation), but not much problem with rape.

Liberal laws regarding prostitution help cut down rape. That is a fact as much as the Rhode Island experiment shows. For some psychopaths it will be about power, but for the majority of Omega rapists, it will be simply about sex. Some men cannot get it, then they cannot buy it and after some time they snap.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(11-30-2014 03:25 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

What are you talking about? 65/50.000 of the female population is not 1 in 4!

This:

Quote:

1 in 4 Swedish Women Will Be Raped as Sexual Assaults Increase 500%

....

Sweden now has the second highest number of rapes in the world, after South Africa, which at 53.2 per 100,000 is six times higher than the United States. Statistics now suggest that 1 out of every 4 Swedish women will be raped.

....

The statistics are skewed by urban centers where the Islamic colonists cluster. In Stockholm this summer there was an average of 5 rapes a day.

Sorry, no. 1 out of 4 Swedish women will not be "raped". Sweden does not have the "second highest number of rapes in the world". There were not 5 rapes a day in Stockholm in the summer of 2012.

All of these claims are outrageous and could not possibly be true.

I don't know how they come by these deranged numbers but I have two guesses:

1. Since 2005 Sweden has been using a massively expanded definition of "rape". What they report as "rapes" would count as far lesser sexual infractions in other places.

2. There is a false rape reporting epidemic in Sweden. I first suspected this when that dude Julian Assange (remember him?) went to Stockholm and almost immediately two bitches that were obviously happy to fuck him accused him of "lesser degree rape" (really) because he apparently didn't treat them nicely (I think they were just pissed off that he was fucking both). The accusation against him was "non-consensual behavior within consensual sexual encounters". He had to flee and fight extradition to Sweden because of these ludicrous charges. And no, I don't believe this was set up by the CIA or anyone else. I think it's just a part of Sweden's false rape accusation epidemic and their outrageously expanded definition of what counts as "rape".

I don't want to derail this thread arguing about Sweden, but these claims cannot be allowed to stand. And the subject is relevant because some day soon, Swedish "rape" laws may be coming to a place near you, and then it will be suddenly discovered that the US too has a rate of rapes exceeding Nigeria and South Africa.

As far as the original point that Swedish model anti-prostitution laws that criminalize the "johns" are terrible and probably lead to some increase in sexual violence, I completely agree with that. But some increase is one thing, and claims about "5 rapes a day" in Stockholm are another. The latter is what I'm talking about.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(11-30-2014 09:10 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

...

Sorry, no. 1 out of 4 Swedish women will not be "raped". Sweden does not have the "second highest number of rapes in the world". There were not 5 rapes a day in Stockholm in the summer of 2012.

All of these claims are outrageous and could not possibly be true.
...

First of all the statistics include sexual assault which can mean anything from a gruff word being uttered to a boyfriend having called her fat.

The rape stats for the US are around 1:2200 at the most for young women. And if you discount all those crazy bitches who engage in very risky sexual behavior - you know those that follow the Bad Boy Drug dealer to his den and get gang-raped, then you may even come up with 1:5000 or 1:10000.

For Sweden to have rape statistics of 1:1000, it is awfully high. I agree that some of it is likely regret rape and false rape. The rest is based on the idiotic laws - the police stats have been rising rapidly ever since 1999.

Of course it is not comparable to sub-saharan African countries, where most rapes are not reported. No worries - anyone here who claims that 1 in 5 get raped will be banned within a day. Only idiots believe that crap. There would be 35 million raped women living in the US currently. Since statistics show that real rapists are in 95% of cases repeat offenders, then those buggers would be busy 24/7 to make it happen. Ladies would have to stand in line to be served.

Fucking mainstream morons.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(11-30-2014 09:32 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

First of all the statistics include sexual assault which can mean anything from a gruff word being uttered to a boyfriend having called her fat.

Yep. But they are being cited as "rapes".

(11-30-2014 09:32 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

For Sweden to have rape statistics of 1:1000, it is awfully high. I agree that some of it is likely regret rape and false rape.

Indeed. These numbers are absurd, and reflect both a massively expanded definition of what amounts to "rape" as well as a swelling number of regret rapes and false rape accusations.

If nowhere else, this forum should be a place where we take a stand against this disgusting rape inflation. If a source is quoting a ludicrous number of "rapes" where the definition of that word has been so diluted as to be rendered meaningless, we cannot just accept that. It has to be called out each and every time -- otherwise we become desensitized to these monstrous numbers and the BIG LIE that they serve keeps gaining strength.

[Duke Castile]

I think its time a "rape statistic debunking" thread is started as a resource for when this crap comes up.

Women believe this shit and love to toss out statistics like these.

[placer]

(11-30-2014 12:57 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

I think its time a "rape statistic debunking" thread is started as a resource for when this crap comes up.

I started a good rape statistic debunking thread last year.

It goes over the Kanin (40% of rape accusations are false) and McDowell (15-60% of rape accusations are false) studies, and talks about why newer surveys like the one from Lisle which claim only 6% of rape accusations are false are unreliable.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(11-30-2014 12:57 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

I think its time a "rape statistic debunking" thread is started as a resource for when this crap comes up.

Women believe this shit and love to toss out statistics like these.

But why?

Days of Broken Arrows Maxim #1: Women find comfort in being damsels in distress. Take away the distress and they'll invent some.

[Dusty]

There's an article today about the author of the UVA rape hoax (my new name for it).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/...story.html

Here's a quote (Erdely is the Rolling Stone article author, Jackie is the woman allegedly raped):

Quote:

Some elements of the story, however, are apparently too delicate for Erdely to talk about now. She won’t say, for example, whether she knows the names of Jackie’s alleged attackers or whether in her reporting she approached “Drew,” the alleged ringleader, for comment. She is bound to silence about those details, she said, by an agreement with Jackie, who “is very fearful of these men, in particular Drew. . . . She now considers herself an empty shell. So when it comes down to identifying them, she has a very hard time with that.”

[Hedonistic Traveler]

(11-30-2014 09:10 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 03:25 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

What are you talking about? 65/50.000 of the female population is not 1 in 4!

This:

Quote:

1 in 4 Swedish Women Will Be Raped as Sexual Assaults Increase 500%

....

Sweden now has the second highest number of rapes in the world, after South Africa, which at 53.2 per 100,000 is six times higher than the United States. Statistics now suggest that 1 out of every 4 Swedish women will be raped.

....

The statistics are skewed by urban centers where the Islamic colonists cluster. In Stockholm this summer there was an average of 5 rapes a day.

Sorry, no. 1 out of 4 Swedish women will not be "raped". Sweden does not have the "second highest number of rapes in the world". There were not 5 rapes a day in Stockholm in the summer of 2012.

Yep, it's bullshit. Just like the 1/4 stat in the US. I'd have to look into Sweden more, but I know that in the US it comes from this question being asked.

Quote:

Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?

So essentially regret rape, although out of the women who answer yes apparently only 27% considered themselves to have been raped, and 42% went on to have sex with their "rapist" again.

The numbers work to serve an agenda, and no one with the slightest interest in critical thinking believes them.

---

As for this "rape" case, I'm skeptical of anyone who refuses to press charges but still seeks media attention. If she was afraid of discussing the event she wouldn't have it published in a major publication.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(11-30-2014 04:43 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

the UVA rape hoax (my new name for it).

That is the exactly right name. Excellent coinage, and we should spread it as widely as possible.

(11-30-2014 04:43 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

Quote:

She now considers herself an empty shell.

That is very apt since the dreadful "Jackie" is indeed no more than an empty shell; a ghostly creation of rampant misandrist fantasy.

[Nolecbo]

(11-29-2014 11:54 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

'The Lizard of Oz' said:
People are starting to doubt this story:

Is the Rolling Stone Story True?

Not just any "people." But Richard Bradley.

Sabrina Rubin Erdely on Slate's doubleX Podcast also backs off the veracity of the story a bit. Transcribed from 16:20:

Rosin:
What made you believe that her story was true? What were the most convincing - if you were her lawyer in court, what would make you - how would you prove her case?

Erdely:
Um, well look I am not a lawyer, I am a journalist. But I will just say I found her story to be very- I found HER to be very credible. Um, she - you know, I put her story through the wringer to the extent that I could. I spoke to, you know, virtually all of her friends, um, to find out what she had told them at various points.

Rosin
And those, those match? Like the friends she spoke to at the time said 'yes she had bruises from going through the glass table' or whatever?

Erdely
Well you know I found it to be very convincing. And, and, I think that - And the degree of her trauma? There is no doubt in my mind that something happened to her that night. Um, what exactly happened? You know, I wasn't in that room. I don't know.


http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/d...rting.html

[The Lizard of Oz]

(11-30-2014 05:34 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 04:43 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

the UVA rape hoax (my new name for it).

That is the exactly right name. Excellent coinage, and we should spread it as widely as possible.

(11-30-2014 04:43 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

Quote:

She now considers herself an empty shell.

That is very apt since the dreadful "Jackie" is indeed no more than an empty shell; a ghostly creation of rampant misandrist fantasy.

I should make clear that it is Jackie's story that is aptly characterized as an empty shell. "Jackie" herself exists, but her "story" is an insane piece of fiction based on her lies and shaped and amplified by the hardline feminist writer who published it.

[Dusty]

Is the UVA Rape Story a Gigantic Hoax?

[SteveMcMahon]

Quote:

Change is the end goal of this article, and if any have been monitoring the news at UVa, there’s been so much positive action already.

So, it's not about truth, it's about change.

In other words, it's OK for "Jackie" and her collaborator Sabrina Erdely to lie. Because it's a noble lie, you guys!

So what if there wasn't actually a brutal premeditated three hour gang-rape like Erdely described? Fuck your patriarchal heteronormative facts!

There's a Rape Culture out there to be fought, and that's the truth. There's no actual evidence for it, but it is truth.

Feelings and hearsay and conjecture are a kind of evidence, right?

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Rape culture not doing so good - and even those statistics likely include the epidemic in false rape cases in recent years.



Feminists demand a change in the current trend of rape incidences.

[Dusty]

(12-01-2014 11:24 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Rape culture not doing so good - and even those statistics likely include the epidemic in false rape cases in recent years.



Feminists demand a change in the current trend of rape incidences.

We need an RoK article debunking all these false rape statistics and raising awareness of rape hysteria.

Better still, maybe we can have a coordinated "Rape Hoax and Rape Hysteria Awareness Week."

[placer]

The Wikipedia history of the Phi Kappa Psi article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi_Kappa_Psi ) is interesting:

• On November 20, a an editor with all of 38 edits (a very inactive editor), one Tim Oey, edited the article as if this incident reported in Rolling Stone was gospel truth
• This was accepted by a handful of editors until an anonymous IP editor corrected the wording to make it clear the only evidence this "rape" happened was the word of one woman.
  

[SteveMcMahon]

(12-01-2014 11:38 AM)placer Wrote:  

The Wikipedia history of the Phi Kappa Psi article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi_Kappa_Psi ) is interesting:

• On November 20, a an editor with all of 38 edits (a very inactive editor), one Tim Oey, edited the article as if this incident reported in Rolling Stone was gospel truth
• This was accepted by a handful of editors until an anonymous IP editor corrected the wording to make it clear the only evidence this "rape" happened was the word of one woman.
  

This is why I will never give a penny to Shittypedia.

It's Encyclopaedia Dramatica for Social Justice Warriors.

[Grange]

Reason ran with the link given above. http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/01/is-the...antic-hoax

Jezebel wrote a snarky and unhelpful response.

Quote:

In summary, what we have here are two dudes who have some vague suspicions and, on that basis, are implying that Ederley either fabricated her story or failed to do her due diligence and didn't fact check what Jackie told her. Never mind that she gave a long interview to the Washington Post this weekend about the weeks she spent fact-checking the story. Erdely explains in that interview, too, that she won't discuss some details about Jackie's alleged attackers because of an agreement she made with Jackie, who is, she tells the paper "very fearful of these men, in particular Drew. . . . She now considers herself an empty shell. So when it comes down to identifying them, she has a very hard time with that."

But never mind Erdely's months of work. Two guys who have no idea what they're talking about don't believe it. Case closed.

Correction: A previous version of this post incorrectly said Richard Bradley is retired. In fact, he is the current editor-in-chief of Worth. I regret the error. This is what a professional journalistic correction looks like, in the unlikely event that any editors at Worth or writers at Reason ever need to issue one.

Who needs professionalism when you pander to emotionally-driven (female) readers?

[Dusty]

The more this gets dragged out, the more fun it's going to be when the shit hits the fan.

There's enough details in the Rolling Stone article to find the so called rapist. But since they don't exist, any investigation will prove that the article was a complete hoax.

I want to see jizzable and others dig into their bunkers and defend the story and scream "massage Johnny" at the skeptics until the whole story falls apart.

Right now they are blinded by their dogma and hysteria and they will just make bigger fools of themselves until the house of cards that is this story inevitably falls.