Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UVA Rape Story Full Retract - Apologies to men? NO

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • UVA Rape Story Full Retract - Apologies to men? NO

    See especially contrasting quotes in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the second of my five questions below. CJR's damning findings of who was WRONGED by the false reporting, versus the list of who she apologizes to. -4ML

    In the latest chapter of a series of stinging rebuke, Rolling Stone has issued a full retraction of its UVA rape story. Yahoo reportshttp://news.yahoo.com/rolling-stone-...162254195.html the story in part states:
    Rolling Stone magazine has officially retracted its explosive 2014 report about an alleged gang rape on the University of Virginia campus after a blistering independent investigation by the Columbia Journalism Review found the magazine failed in its "reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking" at virtually every step of the editorial process.

    The 12,000-word review, led by Columbia School of Journalism Dean Steve Coll, described in detail how writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely and her editors relied almost solely on "Jackie," whose accusations rocked the Charlottesville, Va., school, prompting police to launch an investigation and the fraternity to temporarily suspend its operations.

    “The magazine set aside as unnecessary essential practices of reporting that, if pursued, would likely have led the magazine’s editors to reconsider publishing Jackie’s narrative so prominently, if at all," the Columbia Journalism Review wrote. "The published story glossed over the gaps in the magazine’s reporting by using pseudonyms and by failing to state where important information had come from.”
    I have some questions:

    1) Why "regret" without an apology to the accused? Will Dana is managing editor:
    “We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault,” Dana wrote on Dec. 5, wrote, “and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account.”
    2) How about the writer? Who does she apologize to? This is what we hear:
    Erdely said in a statement. "Reading the Columbia account of the mistakes and misjudgments in my reporting was a brutal and humbling experience. I want to offer my deepest apologies: to Rolling Stone’s readers, to my Rolling Stone editors and colleagues, to the UVA community, and to any victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result of my article."
    Notice anyone missing? She apologized to "readers, editors and colleagues" and the UVA "community" and to "any victims of sexual assault" but NOT to the fraternity or the accused. I'm not crazy about fraternities, and abuses are well known (including against men, like hazing) and at UVA some disturbing past cases and allegations. But I do believe in fairness, and here's what the Columbia School of Journalism Dean Steve Coll wrote:

    Irresponsible journalism unjustly damaged the reputations of many innocent individuals and the University of Virginia. Rolling Stone falsely accused some University of Virginia students of heinous, criminal acts, and falsely depicted others as indifferent to the suffering of their classmate. The story portrayed university staff members as manipulative and callous toward victims of sexual assault.
    So the article by Sabrina Erdely "unjustly damaged" reputations of many "innocent individuals" and "falsely accused" some of criminal acts and "falsely" depicted others as indifferent. Why are these victims of the Rolling Stone article and of Erdely's writing not being apologized to?

    If she's so afraid of apologizing to someone who she isn't sure is innocent (probably equally out of concern for the PC police attacking her than her own views), that's not an excuse since she can still say that since "the report found that many innocent individuals were falsely accused in my article and I want to sincerely and deeply apologize to any innocent person whose reputation my article has..." and thus she cannot be accused of apologizing to someone who later turns out to be guilty in case even one single person turns out later to be guilty.he would have completely covered herself and done the right thing by apologizing to the innocent.

    Admittedly mere facts and merely sane and reasonable behavior would not have shielded her from being attacked by some PC police, but it's the least she could have done.

    It's right there in what the Columbia Dean wrote: "false" and more "false". Why no apologies to those victims, including her friends " falsely depicted others as indifferent" or whose whose reputations she "unjustly damaged" let alone those the Columbia report said were "falsely" accused of crimes?

    Instead, other than her colleagues and bosses and readers, she chooses to restrict her apologies to victims of sexual assault and only to the "UVA community" in general. I have no idea if in private she might have apologized to some of the falsely accused (if we try to be far more fair to her than she has been to others, that is at least conceivable) but that is of no comfort to those having to live in a culture where false accusations apparently, merit no apologies in public.

    If that's the best we can expect when things blow up spectacularly in the face of media, when they are mortified and cry mea culpa and have an independent Columbia University school of Journalism report they ask to be done about them, if that's the best we can expect in such extreme cases of being caught red handed in bad journalism that "unjustly" damages people's reputation and "falsely accuses" individuals, what does this say about the media and our culture?

    What does it say about the value (or lack thereof) of the lives of men (and some women) if they stand in the way of the apparent demand for no accountability at all for those making rape claim in journalism or otherwise?

    Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner said neither Dana nor Sean Woods, the editor of Erdely's article, would lose their jobs, and Erdely will continue to write for Rolling Stone. Dana said they're "committing ourselves to a series of recommendations about journalistic practices that are spelled out in the report" but wait, "It's not like I think we need to overhaul our process, and I don't think we need to necessarily institute a lot of new ways of doing things," Dana told CJR. "We just have to do what we've always done and just make sure we don't make this mistake again."


    3) Selective sensitivity to pain? Rape survivor Alex Pinkleton:

    In an interview with Yahoo Global News Anchor Katie Couric last month, Pinkleton said that while she came to doubt Jackie’s story, she never doubted her pain. “The pain was real,” Pinkleton said. “I would not have supported her for that long if that wasn’t true.”
    Does anyone realize that "the pain was real" for falsely accused?

    4) Selective sensitivity to "unfair shame and humiliation"? You can't make up quotes like this, for their irony:

    “We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault,” Dana wrote on Dec. 5, wrote, “and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account.”
    The Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) makes it clear, if common sense and basic human decency wasn't enough, to be able to understand that "unfair shame and humiliation" was felt by those CJR found to have been "falsely accused".

    And since this story is (they keep reminding us) about the "bigger picture" why not include male victims of rape? Not only are they not mentioning the "unfair shame and humiliation" by those who as CJR notes, were "falsely accused" but why are they excluding male victims of sexual assault? Would it have been so hard to say "shame and humiliation many people feel after a sexual assault"? Or "many women and men"?

    A slap to the face of the falsely accused, and to male victims of sexual assault. Then again, men are expected to take slaps to the face for as little as saying the 'wrong' words, especially to a woman, right?

    5) Can we stop being selective about hidden victims?

    Without question we will receive reminders that for every one woman who speaks out, many other women stay silent. Again this is extremely selective. Where are the reminders that for every one man who later turns out to have been falsely accused, there are likely to be many others who were falsely accused but who were never able to prove (or fully prove) their innocent, or were able to prove innocence in court, but not to heal their reputation in the community?

    Where are the reminders that for every one male who steps forward and speaks out about their sexual assault or sexual harassment, especially at the hands of women, there are countless other men who don't speak out? Or male children who cannot speak out against their often female abusers? Or adult men who start to speak out, and are not only often not believed, but even when believed, are ridiculed? When will the call that human lives be valued equally be listened to in the countless cases in which the "false" and "unjust" and "unfair humiliation" is directed at men?
    Last edited by 4malelib; 04-06-2015, 10:17 AM.

  • #2
    if this is true and this woman put these men through the hell accusing them of the worst thing a man could do aside from murder she should be sued for slander, extreme psychological distress, defamation of character etc etc, I'm not much for law suit culture but if she can afford a student loan she can over time find the money to pay these guys back who were NATIONALLY thrown under the hellish bus of 'evil rapists', i would be in utter pieces if the whole country thought i was something so awful as a rapist, did these men lose all their family and friends? did they get beaten up for this? were they looking over their shoulders at every sharp noise? they must have been put through the most horrible psychological torment
    "There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all."
    Mario Savio

    "A single, seemingly powerless person who dares to cry out the word of truth
    and to stand behind it with all his person and all his life, ready to pay a
    high price, has, surprisingly, greater power, though formally disfranchised,
    than do thousands of anonymous voters."
    Vaclav Havel
    'if you want to know who rules you, look at who you're not allowed to criticise' Voltaire

    Comment


    • #3
      I think a lawsuit would be appropriate. If nothing else but to warn journalists to fact-check their "victim's" stories more carefully.
      Gender is a grammatical distinction and applies to words only. Sex is natural distinction and applies to living objects.

      Comment


      • #4
        But... but.... patriarchy....
        https://christianrestoration.wordpress.com/

        Comment


        • #5
          Update: the fraternity plans to sue Rolling Stone. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/bu...icle.html?_r=0

          Excellent points by simeon on the devastation of the accused having to watch over their shoulder in fear, probably in terror, and effects on relations with family, friends. Also those smeared include the accuser's friends, which include at least one woman smeared, since all were "falsely depicted..as indifferent to the suffering of their classmate." according to CJR, when they did the opposite, support her and encourage her to contact police, and were not indifferent at all.

          The woman who put these men through hell was not the accuser, but the woman who wrote the article, Sabrina Erdely. The accusing woman is (at the very least, even if nothing happened) mentally disturbed, and possibly someone at some time did something to her, even if that someone, or that time, or that place, or those details, apparently are very different in many, many ways, than the story she told a journalist.

          But it was not s who put the men through hell: the writer did, and her editors.

          The writers made it National.

          The writer (and editors) played Judge and Jury, and as far as reputation, they were Executioner.

          The writer and editors chose not to contact the accused.

          the writer and editors put those men through hell, and the male and female friends, and the fraternity, and all of UVA through this mess.

          One disturbed individual who is in turmoil and suffering, talking to her friends, and talking to a journalist, yes, I'd put some responsibility on her shoulders, maybe 1% or 5% at most, the rest, 95 to 99% is on the woman who wrote the Rolling Stone article, her (male) editors, the female and male mainstream media festival over this, all of them, get some blame, more than 5% but less than Rolling Stone.

          Imagine a disturbed individual telling friends you beat them up. They do not go to the police, they just tell their friends. One of their friends much later gets them talking to a journalist.

          The journalist and the magazine then lynch you in the media playing Judge, Jury, and reputation Executioner...making your life a living hell, and also to a lesser extent, also unfairly portray the friends of this person as "uncaring" and on and on..and the mainstream media follow up on it. That's where the blame should be, probably 99% of it, certainly the lion's share.

          And those people who really did this to these men? Rolling Stone? Sabrina Erdely? Even after they chose CJR to write the definitive investigative review, and after CJR says who was damaged, "falsely" and "unfairly" , Erdely apologizes to everyone except those victims of what was (if we are charitable enough to not assume it was on purpose) at least de facto, a Hit Piece. But no apologies to them. CJR:
          Irresponsible journalism unjustly damaged the reputations of many innocent individuals and the University of Virginia. Rolling Stone falsely accused some University of Virginia students of heinous, criminal acts, and falsely depicted others as indifferent to the suffering of their classmate.
          Does Erdely apologize to these that CJR noted were falsely accused and falsely depicted? No, she apologizes to neither of these groups. Other than her business interests (namely bosses, colleagues, readers) she apologizes only to the "UVA community" in general and to "victims of sexual assault" that it:
          Erdely said in a statement. "Reading the Columbia account of the mistakes and misjudgments in my reporting was a brutal and humbling experience. I want to offer my deepest apologies: to Rolling Stone’s readers, to my Rolling Stone editors and colleagues, to the UVA community, and to any victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result of my article."
          The End of the apology.
          Last edited by 4malelib; 04-07-2015, 05:04 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            personally I'm of the opinion that false accusations of rape should carry the same penalty as the rape conviction would have.
            (the accuser should go to prison, in the case of false rape charges the accused is the victim)

            their victims are no less in the way of long term damage than the victims of actual rape, more often more damage because of the lack of services to help them and community support.
            if the victims are both facing similar challenges, trust issues, and trauma why should the punishment for their abusers be different?
            "It is the greatest inequality to try to make unequal things equal." - Aristotle

            Comment


            • #7
              Consequences should be serious. I'll take it one step further than you did, with this thought experiment: suppose you have to choose between two outcomes:

              A: You'll wake up tomorrow morning suddenly remembering a previous blacked out (from your memory) hour where you were raped

              B: You'll wake up tomorrow morning suddenly remembering that you did rape, during a previously blacked out hour

              All other things being equal (assuming the rape doesn't also give me HIV or kill me) I would avoid either of these at all costs but if a cruel god made me choose, I'd lean towards choosing A to happen to me. If that tells us how bad B) is, which does not excuse the rapist one bit, then C) must be worse to do to someone:

              C: Like B except instead of remembering a previously blacked out period where you were guilty of raping someone, you are 100% innocent...but still falsely charged.

              So having C) happen versus A) happen? Again they are both so horrible that I don't want to say "prefer" since any one of us would avoid both at practically all costs. But I think many of us, if forced by some malevolent force, might reluctantly choose A), to be raped, over C). And I say this having been not raped but having been sexually abused as a child so I do not take rape or any sexual abuse lightly.

              So I agree with your comment about how serious it is, and in some ways I take your point even further. At the same time if we want to be taken seriously, as individuals or speaking about the MHRM, I think our suggestions need to be nuanced enough to fit the world. The reason can't just demand "Exactly" the same penalty is there's a spectrum for false accusations, just as there is a spectrum for rape and even for murder we make distinctions. So we can't have one single punishment for false accusations.

              As uncomfortable as it is for some people to hear, there are shades of grey for rape in terms of the boyfriend might have honestly misunderstood, and that could lead to most of us saying he is completely not guilty, to some partial guilt, short of rape. Just like we have murder in first degree, second degree, then we have "negligent homicide" and other levels. But the same reasoning applies to false accusations, the malicious wife in a divorce or malicious deliberately lying friend or girlfriend, at one end of the spectrum, which I think we need to come down hard on...and at the other end, I would be much more sympathetic to a more lenient reaction, to a girlfriend that was just as confused about miscommunication with her boyfriend.

              After all, if we give the guy a break for misunderstanding (the girlfriend said yes to intercourse, they were both very sleepy, both some alcohol, noisy room etc...she says no....he doesn't hear her, and inserts his penis for a few thrusts before she either decides she likes it after all, or pushes him out, then sorry that is NOT "rape" of his girlfriend..I assume we agree on that) similarly if this same woman was confused and due to bad communication...and accused him, and then retracted it, no WAY would I be equally harsh on her, as on a woman who was deliberately lying (even if the liar then "retracted" her accusation, due to her feeling she's about to get caught) Does that make sense? I'm just saying, let's have a spectrum depending on circumstances. Anything else is not only unfair, but simply isn't accurately representing the many shades of grey of real life.

              In this particular case, there are even bigger reasons I don't see "Jackie" as anything like an outright false accuser: if I'm not mistaken, she did not file a report with police, and she did not file a report with UVA campus authorities. A woman freaking out and telling her story to her friends (no matter how many errors there are in it) is not the same as reporting it to police, or to the campus.

              There's a huge difference. The clearly guilty party is Erdely and her editors at Rolling Stone, who are responsible for false information, for information they knew or should have known is false or unreliable, for engaging in practices (like not interviewing any accused or even the friends of "Jackie" who were interviewed only after the article in RS was published)

              There are always going to be emotionally disturbed individuals or drunk (or maybe a male, or female molested Jackie when she was a kid and she had a flashback...the media like to prevent that females never molest kids) and it's not just that I have sympathy for those who have been molested or are disturbed, it's also that it's not the same as going off to police to claim something happened, versus just talking to her friends. And MOST of the time, it ends there. Except in this case RS acted terribly.

              I would give her a complete pass on speaking with her friends. I suspect drunk have even been known to make crazier false statements about aliens and some billionaire had sex with them and...you get the idea. What is more questionable is the interview she agreed to give RS. That's why I said some responsibility should be on Jackie's shoulders (how much? depends on not just the details of what she said in the article, but do we even trust RS to not misquote out of context what she really said? Or to violate an agreement of "I agree to answer questions but you have to be clear it's not formal accusations it's just my traumatic imperfect memories" who knows what Jackie said to them. If Rolling Stone screwed UVA as bad as it did, what makes us completely sure they didn't mis-represent Jackie too? For a good politically correct story, even Jackie is just a tool to them. I'm sure the author has herself convinced she cares, but in practice, in her actual actions? Jackie seems like just a tool for RS to use, right?)

              The overwhelming majority of the blame goes on RS. I say that not because they have much more money than Jackie but the facts of the case, of who did what, of who did most of the damage..it was not a confused very young woman who did NOT file any charges, but spoke with friends and later they got to her speak to Rolling Stone, not the damage was overwhelmingly done by: Judge, Jury, and reputation Executioner Rolling Stone, it was ethics violating Rolling Stone...Can anyone trust RS again? Anyway, before I blow off any more steam I'll end here..
              Last edited by 4malelib; 04-07-2015, 09:01 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                By the way, I'm still relatively new on this forum but got a spam email today, subject "hi!" and the content was just the website address for a Russian Dating site. It came from dubs but looking at their profile they are a senior member with lots of real posts, here since 2013...so I have to assume it is not a spam account, but maybe a virus sent the spam from Dubs' account without Dubs knowing?

                It was sent on Feb 24 (I somehow missed it until now) and I just noticed it says:

                Recipient Users:

                4malelib, Ikepuska, Phantom287, Thomas Johnston, Veritas
                meaning others got it too..I guess it was a one time thing accidentally from Dubs' account? By the way normally I'd expect Wikipedia to be so biased on MHRM and "rape culture" but in this case the article on wikipedia has a lot of damning information about the Rolling Stone article...

                lots of damning info there to maybe mention in this thread (even a male who was practically raped, according to the (now discredited) account given by RS, but the rape of a male, doesn't matter, so in the media hype who has even heard of it? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus) but enough for tonight..
                Last edited by 4malelib; 04-07-2015, 09:05 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jack H. View Post
                  personally I'm of the opinion that false accusations of rape should carry the same penalty as the rape conviction would have.
                  (the accuser should go to prison, in the case of false rape charges the accused is the victim)

                  their victims are no less in the way of long term damage than the victims of actual rape, more often more damage because of the lack of services to help them and community support.
                  if the victims are both facing similar challenges, trust issues, and trauma why should the punishment for their abusers be different?
                  My knee-jerk reaction is to think the same, but in the event of and actual rape that is failed to be proven, that doesn't mean it was a false accusation. So how to you delineate between malicious false accusations and case where there isn't enough evidence to convict?
                  Justice is the goal, not persecution of women who've been raped.
                  Gender is a grammatical distinction and applies to words only. Sex is natural distinction and applies to living objects.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by MrSonicAdvance View Post
                    My knee-jerk reaction is to think the same, but in the event of and actual rape that is failed to be proven, that doesn't mean it was a false accusation. So how to you delineate between malicious false accusations and case where there isn't enough evidence to convict?
                    Justice is the goal, not persecution of women who've been raped.
                    look how deep the feminist narrative has penetrated even your mind: you are assuming all accused rapists are male and all false accusers are female, the first is absolutely wrong the second I would like to think is correct but might not always be so.

                    but you put them on trial of course under the same standard of proof the 'rapist' would have been under. you don't want to persecute them not any more than their 'victims' were persecuted at least, you'd think if it was fair to the accused it should be equally fair to the accuser.

                    while it was not exactly a gender issue: I can think of no faster way to get the problems within the legal system fixed than for that system to start harming women the same way it currently harms men.
                    "It is the greatest inequality to try to make unequal things equal." - Aristotle

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Sure, you give a fair trial to those accused of false accusations. My main point there was, there's more than one level of "false accusations" just like there are different levels of murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide etc. There are different levels of evil

                      And while I'm a strong defender of the falsely accused (as well as of those who, in actual fact, were raped or otherwise sexually assaulted) the levels of evil include also a grey area where they get acquitted even though there was some evidence they might have done a false accusation. In other words, "either the accuser or the accused ends up in jail" does not have to be the outcome in all cases.

                      The other thing is, and I hope people agree because this is key to the strategy of fighting back against Rolling Stone...is that "Jackie" here did not go to the cops, did not go to UVA, but told her friends...Another article said she even "refused to cooperate" with the cops. Whether that's because she's "crazy" or a deliberate liar or other reasons, is separate from the fact she did not file a report.

                      If I asked: should those who file reports face (potential) charges of false accusation that are higher? Then I think most of us would say yes. By that logic, we have to have lower potential charges of "false accusation" against those who never did file any charges, who never filed any formal complaint.

                      I've come across more information that points even more strongly at the possibility that "Jackie" just lied to her friends. But before I post that, my worry is a huge LOSS for MHRM if the reaction is to just all jump on Jackie...WRONG. One disturbed individual who does NOT file any charges or any complaint at all, but lies to her friends (if that's what it was) does no damage to anyone unless you have a deliberately biased, loaded, hit piece propaganda by Rolling Stone.

                      If hypothetically a crazy guy lies to his friends that the President of the University, or say a professor, beat him up with a lead pipe, but then refuses to go to police, refuses to file any report with police or with university despite his friends suggesting he do it...Do I some down on this messed up guy? No damage. Then some magazine decides "screw the facts, let's publish a hit piece" and is Judge, Jury and reputation Executioner, THAT does the damage. In fact if she lied (rather than PTSD episode flashback) then it makes the case against Rolling Stone stronger: they had all that, and still ran this story...in fact knowing it's bogus would have been a motivation not to interview anyone else.

                      It's still an "if", but if this additional info does turn out to mean it was all a lie on her part to gain sympathy and love, the MHRM and journalistic ethics should "jump" more not on this messed up young woman but use it to really "jump" on Rolling Stone..and use that in the trial to strengthen the case

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Here is another article of interest: http://nypost.com/2015/04/06/facts-m...nce-be-damned/
                        ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
                        virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

                        It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
                        AVFM Mission Statement
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
                          Here is another article of interest: http://nypost.com/2015/04/06/facts-m...nce-be-damned/
                          Great article. This hoax has exposed "activists" vs true Journalist.

                          Glad to see the true victims suing Rolling Stones.


                          https://riversong.wordpress.com/yell...-rape-culture/
                          This is long but very well researched and a great example of real journalism.

                          http://townhall.com/columnists/annco...-club-n1930359

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Thanks for the hat tip, GOM. And Ellen Pao in the photo at the top? She's CEO of Reddit! Yes they still their men's rights forum there (which I do not use, can't be on every site) but the point is, how is someone like her in any position of power anywhere?

                            She lies in lawsuit and then her "reward" is CEO of Reddit?

                            And yes, men can be power hungry bastards too...often...except we're allowed to call them that, but to use the same words against a woman? It's back to "ban bossy" PC again

                            I hate the PC warriors, but I am on the political left and that is where I must disagree with the post article: it's not the real left it's the fake left, that is about PC warriors. I will defend conservatives too (even though I'm on the left) because the same is true there: Fake establishment type "conservatives" who don't care about religion or sexuality go on to "Demand!" this about religion, or that about same sex marriage, but they are in it for power, they don't really care about the issues either way...and the fake establishment "left" is the same - they pretend to care about justice and equality, but are there fore power, their own jihad. Condemn them all you like, I will agree with most or the criticism, I just say, they don't speak for me, they are not the real left, just like conservative friends of mine have said that the "Right" the official TV "conservatives" often do not speak for them, either.

                            We have fake culture warriors, left and right, we have Corporatists, we have war-mongers (and the fake "left" I have to admit, is now very often of being chicken hawks just like I hated about the right wing decades ago...it's corrupted all the political spectrum)

                            I do also blame the official "left" for acting like the police shootings are almost entirely about race...they are wrong on that..and the official right is (often, not always) guilty of pretending we don't have a systemic police brutality problem, when we do, it's more than just a few bad individuals....but it's not centrally about race, it's about the powerless, including poor whites but that gets fewer stories...let's say goodbye and good riddance to the fake warriors on all sides of the political spectrum..

                            A group of Hillary supporters, put out list of "banned" words...pretty much ANYTHING negative is "sexist"...it wasn't the official campaign but it was really, really bad, worse than previous examples, because the list was so long and so ridiculous even the left youtube show The Young Turks (after giving the devil its due more than they should have) made fun of this list of banned words how ridiculous it was to call it 'sexist' to use those against HRC...I do not agree with everything TYT says, but ti's nice to see a part sane left (TYT) call out the super crazy 'left' culture warrior and disown them...

                            Sadly, the culture warriors of the left and right extremes, including misandrist ones, have not finished jumping the shark, but I hope they get called out by their own (left or right) side of the political spectrum - no more lies, no more fake outrage, we're not buying it any more
                            Last edited by 4malelib; 04-14-2015, 07:19 AM.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X