[Dusty]

By the way "massage Johnny" = "misogyny"

[Days of Broken Arrows]

The writer/editor who picked apart the Rolling Stone article, Richard Bradley, just received some online blowback and published a new blog entry: "Jezebel on the Attack—Against Me." Definitely worth reading -- and lending support to in his comments section.

The guy has over 30 years experience in the upper echelons of journalism and seems a bit bewildered after getting criticized by someone barely out of college who hits him with the usual stuff we deal with all the time (his ideas being mis-characterized, straw man arguments, childish sarcasm in place of facts, etc.).

Richard, if you're reading -- welcome to the New Girl Order! And the next time you come across younger guys complaining about feminism, well, keep in mind this isn't our dad's feminism. The generations that came after you had to deal with this stuff every day.

That said, I hope he keeps his frame here and doesn't apologize or remove his blog post. You know what happens once they smell blood...

[Grange]

Bloomberg calls attention to the doubts. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articl...e-scrutiny

Is it remarkable that the doubts a) are getting aired more prominently than before and b) sooner? I hope I am seeing the tide turning, not just wanting it to.

[Dusty]

The house of cards is starting to wobble:

Author of Rolling Stone article on alleged U-Va. rape didn’t talk to accused perpetrators

Quote:

The writer of a blockbuster Rolling Stone magazine story about an alleged gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity has said that she was unable to contact or interview the men who supposedly perpetrated the crime.

Quote:

“I reached out to [the accused] in multiple ways,” Erdely said in the Slate interview. “They were kind of hard to get in touch with because [the fraternity’s] contact page was pretty outdated. But I wound up speaking . . . I wound up getting in touch with their local president, who sent me an e-mail, and then I talked with their sort of, their national guy, who’s kind of their national crisis manager. They were both helpful in their own way, I guess.”

Quote:

Sean Woods, who edited the Rolling Stone story, said in an interview that Erdely did not talk to the alleged assailants. “We did not talk to them. We could not reach them,” he said in an interview.

Quote:

Erdely declined to address specific questions about her reporting when contacted on Sunday and Monday.

“I could address many of [the questions] individually . . . but by dwelling on this, you’re getting sidetracked,” she wrote in an e-mail response to The Post’s inquiry. “As I’ve already told you, the gang-rape scene that leads the story is the alarming account that Jackie — a person whom I found to be credible — told to me, told her friends, and importantly, what she told the UVA administration, which chose not to act on her allegations in any way — i.e., the overarching point of the article. THAT is the story: the culture that greeted her and so many other UVA women I interviewed, who came forward with allegations, only to be met with indifference.”

Quote:

She added, “I think I did my due diligence in reporting this story; RS’s excellent editors, fact-checkers, and lawyers all agreed.”

Quote:

In her interview with The Post, Erdely said that she “corroborated every aspect of the story that I could.” She said that she did not identify any of the alleged attackers in the article “by Jackie’s request. She asked me not to name the individuals because she’s so fearful of them. That was something we agreed on. She was nervous about naming the frat, too. I told her, ‘If we’re trying to shine a light on this, we have to name the fraternity.’ ”

Erdely declined to say whether she knows the names of the alleged perpetrators, including “Drew.”

“I can’t answer that,” she said. “This was a topic that made Jackie extremely uncomfortable.”

[Days of Broken Arrows]

The comments over at Richard Bradley's blog are now getting to the point where they're dismantling the story. They're moving the focus from the writer to the actual frat, who no one seems to have thought to question directly after the story came out.

A few of the important points being made:

Tim Worstall comments that he looked up the frat and they only pledge 20 new members each year. With that small a number, it wouldn't be hard to get to the bottom of what happened, he says: ("That’s not a population that it’s going to be difficult to question...It strikes me that an actual criminal investigation into this just isn’t going to be that difficult.").

Someone with the name Mad Bowl says he knows "many of the brothers of the fraternity in question" and has asked questions and learned facts that won't appear in the mainstream media. These include:

"1. No Phi Psi brother worked at the Aquatic Fitness Center pool as a lifeguard during the entire year of 2012. No brother even worked at the Aquatic Fitness Center at all. They can prove this.

2. Phi Psi did not have a date function the weekend of September 28th. They did not even have a party. UVA Greek life is required to document any and all social events with the IFC in the week leading up to them. Phi Psi has this schedule available and the IFC can also show that there were no events at the house that weekend.

3. The article claims that this was some sort of pledging initiation for new brothers. While this is unbelievable from the start, it is also factually inaccurate. Phi Psi (like almost every other IFC fraternity) does not, and has not ever, taken pledges in the fall. UVA greek life rushes in the spring exclusively. Phi Psi is required to provide their national organization with proof of a formal initiation of every new brother when it happens. The entire pledge class was formally initiated in the Spring of 2012. The entire narrative of this being some savage rite of passage was the first red flag of this story, and it absolutely should have been."

So now I'm wondering why the fraternity in question hasn't come forward with a strong defense, like the Duke lacrosse players did. Maybe the lawyers at their national headquarters are preparing one?

[Genghis Khan]

(12-01-2014 09:04 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

The comments over at Richard Bradley's blog are now getting to the point where they're dismantling the story. They're moving the focus from the writer to the actual frat, who no one seems to have thought to question directly after the story came out.

A few of the important points being made:

Tim Worstall comments that he looked up the frat and they only pledge 20 new members each year. With that small a number, it wouldn't be hard to get to the bottom of what happened, he says: ("That’s not a population that it’s going to be difficult to question...It strikes me that an actual criminal investigation into this just isn’t going to be that difficult.").

Someone with the name Mad Bowl says he knows "many of the brothers of the fraternity in question" and has asked questions and learned facts that won't appear in the mainstream media. These include:

"1. No Phi Psi brother worked at the Aquatic Fitness Center pool as a lifeguard during the entire year of 2012. No brother even worked at the Aquatic Fitness Center at all. They can prove this.

2. Phi Psi did not have a date function the weekend of September 28th. They did not even have a party. UVA Greek life is required to document any and all social events with the IFC in the week leading up to them. Phi Psi has this schedule available and the IFC can also show that there were no events at the house that weekend.

3. The article claims that this was some sort of pledging initiation for new brothers. While this is unbelievable from the start, it is also factually inaccurate. Phi Psi (like almost every other IFC fraternity) does not, and has not ever, taken pledges in the fall. UVA greek life rushes in the spring exclusively. Phi Psi is required to provide their national organization with proof of a formal initiation of every new brother when it happens. The entire pledge class was formally initiated in the Spring of 2012. The entire narrative of this being some savage rite of passage was the first red flag of this story, and it absolutely should have been."

So now I'm wondering now why the fraternity in question hasn't come forward with a strong defense, like the Duke lacrosse players did. Maybe the lawyers at their national headquarters are preparing one?

I'll answer that question for you. I've been part of the National Executive Board of a national fraternity.

Every single national fraternity know they're an easy target. We constantly emphasize to all our undergrads a policy of risk management (for fuck sake's, fraternities have the worst insurance rating in the world, our policy coverage is outrageous --- 50% of our national budget is just insurance). So when shit hits the fan, national organizations go into full-blown action mode.

The fraternity hasn't come forward for one simple reason: due diligence. Their national organization told them to shut up completely (as to avoid having anything used against you). We all know the horror stories of fraternity and sorority members opening their mouths and making things worse. The national organization is definitely (not likely, maybe or probably, but most absolutely 100% definitely) looking into this and fact checking the shit out of it. I don't know what will come of it, though I really hope Phi Psi will sue Rolling Stones for defamation.

[Dusty]

(12-01-2014 09:41 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

I don't know what will come of it, though I really hope Phi Psi will sue Rolling Stones for defamation.

Even the threat of a lawsuit can give Phi Psi huge leverage. I bet they can force them to do a very embarrassing retraction. If Rolling Stone instead decides to dig in and defend this article, then Phi Psi has a chance to win some big $$$.

[kmhour]

(12-01-2014 09:04 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Someone with the name Mad Bowl says he knows "many of the brothers of the fraternity in question" and has asked questions and learned facts that won't appear in the mainstream media. These include:

"1. No Phi Psi brother worked at the Aquatic Fitness Center pool as a lifeguard during the entire year of 2012. No brother even worked at the Aquatic Fitness Center at all. They can prove this.

2. Phi Psi did not have a date function the weekend of September 28th. They did not even have a party. UVA Greek life is required to document any and all social events with the IFC in the week leading up to them. Phi Psi has this schedule available and the IFC can also show that there were no events at the house that weekend.

3. The article claims that this was some sort of pledging initiation for new brothers. While this is unbelievable from the start, it is also factually inaccurate. Phi Psi (like almost every other IFC fraternity) does not, and has not ever, taken pledges in the fall. UVA greek life rushes in the spring exclusively. Phi Psi is required to provide their national organization with proof of a formal initiation of every new brother when it happens. The entire pledge class was formally initiated in the Spring of 2012. The entire narrative of this being some savage rite of passage was the first red flag of this story, and it absolutely should have been."

[Genghis Khan]

I looked a bit more into it.

UVA Phi Kappa Psi Chapter --- letter definitely written with help of alumni to make it as professional as possible (that's solid risk management on their part + honestly, just being good and honest men):
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/5...85/photo/1

National fraternity
http://www.phikappapsi.com/news

Quote:

Finally, Phi Kappa Psi has also launched its own independent investigation intended to determine the facts surrounding these allegations. We are committed - above all else - to accountability with regard to these serious matters.

[alexdagr81]

(12-01-2014 07:37 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

The writer/editor who picked apart the Rolling Stone article, Richard Bradley, just received some online blowback and published a new blog entry: "Jezebel on the Attack—Against Me." Definitely worth reading -- and lending support to in his comments section.

The guy has over 30 years experience in the upper echelons of journalism and seems a bit bewildered after getting criticized by someone barely out of college who hits him with the usual stuff we deal with all the time (his ideas being mis-characterized, straw man arguments, childish sarcasm in place of facts, etc.).

Richard, if you're reading -- welcome to the New Girl Order! And the next time you come across younger guys complaining about feminism, well, keep in mind this isn't our dad's feminism. The generations that came after you had to deal with this stuff every day.

That said, I hope he keeps his frame here and doesn't apologize or remove his blog post. You know what happens once they smell blood...

I'd be bewildered too for the lack of respect this woman has for her elders and predecessors.

[Genghis Khan]

(12-01-2014 10:25 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(12-01-2014 09:41 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

I don't know what will come of it, though I really hope Phi Psi will sue Rolling Stones for defamation.

Even the threat of a lawsuit can give Phi Psi huge leverage. I bet they can force them to do a very embarrassing retraction. If Rolling Stone instead decides to dig in and defend this article, then Phi Psi has a chance to win some big $$$.

Honestly though, they're not going to threaten a lawsuit unless they know they can win. I can't speak for all fraternities obviously, but most (if not all) NIC fraternities are run by business professionals. (Imagine a retired CEO working for his fraternity - at least on the Board of Trustees level). They're acutely aware of their image and will not risk damaging their reputation further. Heck, they may even decide not to sue despite all the evidence in their favor, simply to avoid further publicity to the case (though I imagine if this is a fake story, a lot of brothers across the nation will demand action).

I guess what I'm trying to say: fraternities are not women. We (national organizations) don't jump into shit without very seriously considering the repercussions. When a fraternity goes to court, it's like them bringing a nuclear bomb to a gun fight. They know they're going to win 100%.

Another way fraternities distinguish themselves: we don't go to court for big $$$, we go to court for our image. A classic example in my opinion is when a huge amount of fraternities and sororities sued a vendor in Texas. The vendor had been printing their letters for decades without paying royalties (Greek letters are trademarked). The litigation was not so much about the money, but the shear fact that someone dared selling stuff with their name without their permission.

Check out https://greeklicensing.com/faq

Quote:

As values-based organizations, our clients must ensure that their marks are only used in ways that positively reflect their standards. And, they must maintain the integrity of their brand identity. Each product or service that displays one or more of our clients' marks will have an impact on their reputation as an organization, so they have a responsibility (and a legal right) to uphold certain guidelines related to the use of their marks.

[Shortest Straw]

I'm wondering if Jackie is having an Aw Shit moment.

See, I'm guessing that she concocted this story to cover for some academic distress.

Then it kind of took on a life of its own. She stuck with it because it fit with her ideology. When she spoke with the Rolling Stone reporter, she never imagined that the story would be subsequently scrutinized because, being young and naive, did not realize the sheer atrocity of the crimes she was alleging.

My guess is she will go into hiding. She could recant, but I don't believe she will.

The entire case will turn into nothing, but unfortunately the public will not remember the debunking.

[The Lizard of Oz]

This is a very important episode and its outcome can matter a great deal.

People often -- too often -- talk about turning points in connection with trivial events. But this is different. If this despicable hoax is thoroughly debunked; if all the facts as they are, whatever they are, come to light; if Rolling Stone is forced into a shamefaced retraction and Erdely's career is finished because of her journalistic malpractice -- if those things happen, that could be a real turning point in today's society. It could mark the beginning of the end of the current dark age of rape hysteria. Not the end, certainly; but the beginning of the end.

I don't think people here fully realize just how big this story has become, and just how much the SJW powers that be are invested in trying to keep the lid on it. They are all in; and we should be too.

A young journalist who would have the moxie and the the initiative to go to UVa, to investigate the facts on the ground, and to establish the truth of what did and did not happen, and of what could not have possibly happened, will make a great contribution, and a permanent name for himself. I hope someone rises to the challenge.

[Dusty]

I think there should be a RoK article ready for when the damn bursts on this story. Something like...

"UVa Hoax Proves That Women Lie About Rape on Campus - There Is No Rape Epidemic"

Steve Sailer has been all over this story. In one of his comments, he says "Jackie" could go to jail for making a false report to the police.

My prediction is that she will buckle under the pressure and admit the hoax. She will be pressured to file police charges against "Drew" et al, but knows doing so would jeopardize going to jail, so she will buckle and confess it's a fabrication.

Like you Lizard, I think this unfolding saga has the potential to be huge. I'm surprise there isn't more interest on the manosphere at this point.

[runsonmagic]

I just turned in an ROK article on this topic that comes at it from a totally different angle I haven't seen anyone talking about yet. Might change the nature of the debate. We'll have to see.

[Glock]

Here's another skeptical article -- from a WSJ writer:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/bret-step...1417478164

Quote:

In March 2007 the New York Times Magazine ran a stunning 12,000-word cover story on the subject of “The Women’s War.” It told the story of several female veterans of the war in Iraq, of the sexual assault some had endured in the military, and of their subsequent struggles with alcoholism, depression, PTSD and other effects of combat.

Among the most compelling characters in the piece was a woman named Amorita Randall, who claimed she had barely survived an IED attack on her Humvee and that she had been raped twice in her six years of Navy service. She claimed to have reported the second incident to her commanders only to be told “not to make such a big deal about it.”

The details are gruesome: “I remember there were other guys in the room too,” Ms. Randall told the Times. “Somebody told me they took pictures and put them on the Internet.” Ms. Randall, added reporter Sara Corbett, “says she has blocked out most of the details of the second rape—something else experts say is a common self-protective measure taken by the brain in response to violent trauma—and that she left Iraq ‘in a daze.’ ”

Only one problem: “Ms. Randall did not serve in Iraq, but may have become convinced she did,” as the Times later acknowledged in an Editors’ Note. Instead, her overseas service was spent in Guam, 6,200 miles away from the combat zone. The Navy, the Times added, “had no record of a sexual-assault report involving Ms. Randall.”

I was reminded of Ms. Corbett’s article while reading another blockbuster piece, this one in Rolling Stone by Sabrina Rubin Erdely. Ms. Erdely tells the story of an undergraduate at the University of Virginia, identified only as “Jackie,” who claims to have been gang-raped by seven young men at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity over the course of three hours. The account is graphic and stomach-turning. No less disturbing is the article’s description of UVA as a campus saturated with institutional misogyny and governed by a de facto law of omerta when it comes to sexual assault.

The article has stirred a national outcry. The university has shut down Greek life through January. Congressional Democrats are calling for hearings. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is using the UVA case as an opportunity to push a campus sex-crime bill.

All of this may do a great deal of good. With apologies to Bluto, there’s not a lot to be said in favor of Greek life, much less of the toxic blend of partying, drinking and hooking up. Nor is there much doubt that rape is a serious problem on college campuses, all the more so because an astonishing number of young men do not seem to understand that coerced sex is rape.

But using the Rolling Stone story as an opportunity to promote a worthy cause should not acquit the media from looking closely at the details of the story itself. And here there are some serious reasons to exercise caution.

The most intelligent dissection of the article comes from a Nov. 24 blog post from Richard Bradley, the editor in chief of Worth magazine. Mr. Bradley picks up on some of the journalistic malpractice in the story, including the failure to get any statement (or “no comment”) from the accused rapists. He also notes lurid details that are also simply improbable, such as the suggestion that the victim was raped over shards of glass. (Wouldn’t that have wounded the rapists also?)

Which isn’t to say that the rape did not happen, even if it may not have happened precisely in the way described in the piece. But it ought to raise a skeptical eyebrow. Mr. Bradley’s sharpest observation is that the journalistic fabrications that most often make it into print are those that “play into existing biases.” In the UVA case, he notes, those include biases against fraternities, men and the South—exactly the kinds of biases that led to the fabricated rape charges against the Duke lacrosse players in 2006. . . .


***

It isn’t surprising that a generation of journalists schooled in the idea that “narrative” contains truth independent of fact are so easily taken in by stories that ultimately prove less than accurate, if not utterly untrue. Nor is it surprising that American distrust in the news media is near an all-time high. Bad journalism is bad for journalism, and good journalists have a responsibility and an interest in calling out sensationalist stories whose details ring false even as they play to what we’re inclined to believe is true.

The UVA story cries out for a much closer look.

[runsonmagic]

Does anyone know if Richard Bradley - of http://www.richardbradley.net/shotsinthedark/ - is on twitter?

[LouieG]

(12-01-2014 10:56 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

A young journalist who would have the moxie and the the initiative to go to UVa, to investigate the facts on the ground, and to establish the truth of what did and did not happen, and of what could not have possibly happened, will make a great contribution, and a permanent name for himself. I hope someone rises to the challenge.

I was thinking the exact same earlier. KC Johnson—though not a complete unknown before the Duke rape hoax—raised his profile 10x with his excellent Durham in Wonderland blog, which he reworked into a definitive (and bestselling) book on that entire saga.

Now at UVa, you once again have a scandalous accusation with gaping holes in it, plus the way universities handle sexual assault is shoddy business to begin with. Even so, a lot of powerful people are lining up to defend this story in particular and rape hysteria in general. If the story is anything less than the truth, they've set themselves up for quite a fall.

Anyone interested in investigating further should check out that Duke blog I linked above for a case study in how you pick apart false accusers and their enablers (especially their enablers). Another tidbit for someone interested in digging: WaPo mentioned that Jackie isn't a pseudonym. After I read that, it took me about two minutes to find her real name, Pinterest, blog posts, etc. I'd be careful about going after her personally since for all we know she told the truth, but it would be useful for anyone who wants to start connecting the dots.

[samsamsam]

(12-01-2014 11:55 PM)LouieG Wrote:  

(12-01-2014 10:56 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

A young journalist who would have the moxie and the the initiative to go to UVa, to investigate the facts on the ground, and to establish the truth of what did and did not happen, and of what could not have possibly happened, will make a great contribution, and a permanent name for himself. I hope someone rises to the challenge.

I was thinking the exact same earlier. KC Johnson—though not a complete unknown before the Duke rape hoax—raised his profile 10x with his excellent Durham in Wonderland blog, which he reworked into a definitive (and bestselling) book on that entire saga.

Now at UVa, you once again have a scandalous accusation with gaping holes in it, plus the way universities handle sexual assault is shoddy business to begin with. Even so, a lot of powerful people are lining up to defend this story in particular and rape hysteria in general. If the story is anything less than the truth, they've set themselves up for quite a fall.

Anyone interested in investigating further should check out that Duke blog I linked above for a case study in how you pick apart false accusers and their enablers (especially their enablers). Another tidbit for someone interested in digging: WaPo mentioned that Jackie isn't a pseudonym. After I read that, it took me about two minutes to find her real name, Pinterest, blog posts, etc. I'd be careful about going after her personally since for all we know she told the truth, but it would be useful for anyone who wants to start connecting the dots.

A comment in the WaPo article.

Quote:

Barno1
7:34 PM PST [Edited]
A year from now, the name Sabrina Rubin Erdely will be known throughout the world as a disgraced former journalist along with names like Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass. Her piece in Rolling Stone magazine will go down in history as one of the most shameful acts of "jounalism" in modern history. And her story of a girl being gang-raped by 7 frat brothers as the University of Virginia will be mentioned along with the Duke Lacrosse gang rape hoax and Tawana Brawley gang rape hoax as one of the famous lies of our time.

There is exactly 0.000000000000% chance that a girl was gang-raped by 7 men at UVA 2 years ago. The story is a complete sham, a disgraceful and utterly despicable hoax perpetrated by a disturbed young girl and a terrifyingly unethical magazine writer. None of the rapists were named because there were no rapists. There was no rape.

Mark my words: 2015 will be the end of Sabrina Rubin Erdely's career and this hoax will be exposed for the sick lie that it is.

And a quote of the author of the Roling Stone article. Obviously I cannot confirm what I am about to say, but it just seems like attention whoring and an agenda.

Quote:

“I was concerned, very late in the game, that no one would be willing to read this story,” she said in an interview. “I thought the reaction would be, ‘We know about this problem,’ and they’d turn the page. But this has really sparked a huge discussion. It’s really heartening.”

[iamdegaussed]

Been reading comments on every blogpost about this story. The comments almost all seem to be people talking about how bullshit the story seems. This is so different from a few years ago, where unquestioning belief would've been the comments. Now it seems like people are waking up to the lies and "listen and believe" is chucked out the window in favor of "listen and ask questions". The feminists have got to be very careful on this one. This will be a really bad hill to die on if this story gets proven to be false, which I think it will.

Either way this is going to be very interesting over the next few months. Apparently someone has claimed that they can prove there was no Frat party at that frat on the day in question, and that no brothers from that fraternity worked at the Aquatic Fitness center, and he can prove that.

There's a lot of information in the original story that can be timelined and fact checked, so the feminists had better hope to god it was all true to the letter or very soon they'll find it falling apart.

And think about that for a minute. They WANT, and NEED this story to be true, they WANT it to be true that a girl was brutally gangraped. They want that to have happened so they can capitalize on it to push their narrative. Who are the real monsters?

[Dusty]

Another article doubting the story:

Rolling Stone rape story sends shock waves -- and stretches credulity

[Duke Castile]

I just left a comment urging Bradley to investigate.

[Sp5]

There should be things going on with a criminal investigation now. Since the article describes a brutal rape, something worthy of psychopaths, surely society's interest is in prosecuting those responsible?

The DA in Charlottesville should subpoena the alleged victim and other witnesses and put them under oath in front of a grand jury. Her interest in "not being further traumatized" does not trump society's interest in being protected from these horrible sexual predators, right???

Quote:

Dels. Robert B. Bell, R-Albemarle; David B. Albo, R-Fairfax; and C. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, said they will propose that college administrators be required to immediately make a report of a violent felony to local law enforcement and that campus police inform the commonwealth’s attorney of any complaint they receive.
Del. Eileen Filler-Corn, D-Fairfax, on Monday introduced legislation requiring the reporting of campus sexual assaults by campus and local law enforcement to the local commonwealth’s attorney within 48 hours of the reported incident.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/as-cal...5eca0.html

Damn right. Time for the justice system to deal with all of these complaints, it's the only thing that will stop the hysteria. Some guys will get burned, though.

I bet lots of things going on behind the scenes now. Only question is whether there will be full disclosure, or a coverup and an "oh, never mind."

[Benoit]

Commenter at WaPo responding excellently to the usual rape culture BS statistics:

Quote:

If 1 in 4 women who go to college are raped there then it is criminally negligent for a parent to send their daughter into such a horrific environment. If your statistic had even a "smidgen" of truth it would mean all colleges in this country are a lawless hell and should all be shut down immediately.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

http://www.richardbradley.net/shotsinthe...he-attack/

Richard Bradley fires back after having been attacked personally by Jezebel.