As usual, Coulter throws out the baby with the bathwater.
"In fact, all serious studies of false rape claims put that figure at 27 percent to 40 percent."
This part is a blatant lie by the way. Unless a serious study is synonymous with studies Coulter agrees with.
Hope is the denial of reality
I appreciate how she opens with a sentence that makes it sounds like rape literally does not happen on college campuses.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Does Coulter always use CAPITAL LETTERS TO EMPHASIZE HER POINT? DOES SCREAMING HELP?
Reminds me of the Red-Top tabloids in the UK which employ similar tactics so that their dimwit readers know what they should be getting upset about this week.
Last edited by Timbuk2; 04-21-2015 at 04:14 PM.
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
She has a way of just shutting that whole knowledge thing down
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No no she says the left can't produce rapes, so I guess she means only rightwing people produce (i.e. commit) rapes.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Pretty obvious she's talking about the sensational rape cases that are being put out by the liberal media specifically targeting groups they hate (rich white people and/or fraternities).
Really is is no different than a professional speaker or politician who raises his voice or changes his inflection to interject an emotional appeal. Which BTW is done quite often. The point needs to be shouted out - where is justice for the falsely accused? Very rarely do people who falsely cry rape get prosecuted.
Quite a number of ways to look at studies. Do you have a specific one you would like to share that you feel is an appropriate one that looks at false rape claims? I'll be honest - I haven't looked at any studies on this issue so I'm open to being educated on it.
Applying her own standard of proof and rhetoric. . .
You neo-liberal apologist! You can't prove any college kid is guilty of rape. How dare you besmirch their names with your unsupported liberal bias!
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Only one study showed 40%, and that 40% occurred in one town decades ago and the numbers include women withdrawing their allegations, not admitting to lying. The fact that we have no reliable way of actually knowing how many women lie (vs. how many withdraw their allegations) means that we have no shot in hell of getting even semi-reliably figures.
Hope is the denial of reality
So essentially your position is that all the studies are crap - meaning the 40% (or 27% or 1%) all have equal chances of being right?
Consider how terrible ex-partners can be with each other I wouldn't be surprised if it was that high. They literally accuse each other of everything under the sun.
I agree that the studies could be difficult. For example if one person states that they were raped by 7-8 people is that one rape allegation or 7-8 rape allegations? What if one person has made the same accusation multiple times?
I'd say the bigger problem is determining what allegations are false. A withdrawn allegation does not have to be false, it can be dropped for various reasons. And an acquittal (or dismissal, etc.) doesn't mean the allegation was false either, just that it couldn't be proven without reasonable doubt. And, though likely a much smaller number, a conviction isn't 100% proof that the allegation was not false. And if you would like to compare it to the number of actual rapes, you'd need to know that - and a lot of those go unreported for various reasons.
Can't the victims/ex-suspects sue the magazine or the accuser for slander, and damages? I mean, you guys sue for everything over thereI mean, yes, freedom of the press is obviously important but if they neglect to do any proper checks before publishing, I'm not even sure it counts as press.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ust-hours.html
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
You should probably make a guess about what the real percentages are likely to be a priori.So essentially your position is that all the studies are crap - meaning the 40% (or 27% or 1%) all have equal chances of being right?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
True a withdrawn allegation doesn't mean its false but it is highly suggestive. Consider almost nothing happens to the wolf criers even when its obvious there are only a few possible reasons for them to do it.I'd say the bigger problem is determining what allegations are false. A withdrawn allegation does not have to be false, it can be dropped for various reasons. And an acquittal (or dismissal, etc.) doesn't mean the allegation was false either, just that it couldn't be proven without reasonable doubt. And, though likely a much smaller number, a conviction isn't 100% proof that the allegation was not false. And if you would like to compare it to the number of actual rapes, you'd need to know that - and a lot of those go unreported for various reasons.
Can't the victims/ex-suspects sue the magazine or the accuser for slander, and damages? I mean, you guys sue for everything over there
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ust-hours.html
They can sue and have sued. The issue is less to do with the magazine (though they are shit heads pushing an agenda obviously) but the actual people who make the false accusations. There is no justice for the young men who had their lives upended. What are they going to do sue the person who made the accusation? Good luck getting money there. It should a criminal offense that is actually enforced.
Congrats on finding the hyperbole... though I find it interesting that there hadn't been a whole lot of coverage of that one. There's been some but I recall hearing a lot more about Duke Lacross case for example. Gee I wonder what could be the reason the liberal media didn't push this story as hard... gosh there must be some reason for it...
It's not particularly suggestive.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattre...That_Weight%29
Another interesting case. The story is not as implausible as the Rolling Stones crap but still seems highly unlikely.
"Afterwards they communicated via Facebook messages, including Sulkowicz writing (two days after the incident), "I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz", but they saw each other progressively less.[2][16] Nungesser later released transcripts of these messages to journalist Cathy Young who has a history of reporting on rape. Sulkowicz expressed concern they would be used to present her as unreliable, and stated she had sent the messages because she was upset and wanted to talk to him about the incident but decided against doing so.[16][17] By the time of her last message, which she sent in March 2013, she said she had visited the university's Office of Gender-Based Misconduct and that they had asked whether she had tried talking to the accused. A university spokesperson said in February 2015 that its gender-based misconduct policy does not recommend informal resolution or mediation for such complaints.[2] Doing so would be a violation of the Title IX guidelines for colleges and universities' response to sexual assault.[18]
In response to criticisms regarding her delay in reporting, Sulkowicz said she initially didn't report the incident to avoid "emotional trauma".[19]
"
My read is that she really really like attention. She's pissed at him for some reason and won't let it go. I hope the school loses big.
Take a look at pictures of the accused and guess why liberals aren't quite as excited about this case compared to the one at Duke.
Because you're a racist bigot as well as a classist one and that's why you see "counter-racism" everywhere you look.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I mean that a withdrawn allegation isn't particularly suggestive.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The language you use speaks volumes. "Counter-racism" the fuck is that? Racism is racism to imply that we need a separate word for racism when it impacts whites is a joke. And you must be in denial if you don't think liberals would rather discuss rich white college students raping an 'underprivileged' black woman. Liberals are *all* about race and calling them on it is important. They are the the major party that still has racism in their party platform (defined as being in support of discrimination based on race, ie Affirmative Action). This is why liberals will hurl racial epitaphs at conservatives like Clarence Thomas.
Here is an example of PC bull shit with liberals and race:
http://www.mndaily.com/news/campus/2...alert-protocol
Ah I see I thought you were referring to my final comment. And I would then disagree - a withdrawn allegation would seem to be more likely when the charge was not genuine in the first place. I absolutely admit not ALL withdrawn allegations mean that no rape occurred but if you took two pools, one where the allegation wasn't withdrawn and one where it was I'd wager you find a lot more genuine rapes in the group that didn't withdraw their allegations.
The Columbia rape allegations leading to the "mattress" protest seem to be highly questionable.
There is a problem with all the wrong cases being sensationalized, and all the wrong steps taken to combat rape.
Looks like the Rolling Stone reporter's going to get spanked some more. Don't know how badly, damages TBD. IMHO, good, she deserves it, and this sort of fuck up needs to be discouraged. Personal damage to those named in the article aside, this case lent legitimacy to the attack-the-victim crowd in rape accusations, and that's very bad.
Link: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w..._campaign=newsJury Finds 'Rolling Stone,' Reporter Liable For Damages Over Rape Allegation Story
Merrit Kennedy
A federal jury has found that Rolling Stone, a reporter and the magazine's publisher are liable in a defamation lawsuit over a 2014 article about an alleged rape at the University of Virginia.
The trial centered on a article by reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely that told the story of a student identified as "Jackie" who said she was brutally gang raped at a fraternity party.
But "several outlets, including The Washington Post, identified major inconsistencies in the reporting," as The Two-Way has reported:
"Soon afterward, Rolling Stone retracted the story, saying the magazine had relied too much on "Jackie's" account and did not adequately work to confirm her story.
"An investigation found that repeated, systematic failures within the magazine led to the article's publication."
Nicole Eramo, a former associate dean of students, sued for $7.85 million over how she was portrayed. As we reported, she "said the article painted her as the 'chief villain' of the story, full of indifference toward a sexual assault allegation."
Damages have yet to be assessed.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
The thing is, this was merely an egregious example of reporting bias and the litigant was an administrator described as unhelpful. I question how much this will change the debate around the actual due-process that media and universities will use when these cases are reported.
I continue to believe the US Dept of Education is shitting the bed on rape victims by institutionalizing a parallel justice system within universities.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote