The Rolling Stone / UVA Rape Hoax One Year Later
Here's something in the Washington Post.
It's referred to as a 'debacle' in the the title, but the more accurate term is 'hoax.'
Several morals might reasonably be drawn from this case and the reaction to it. It goes without saying that the following is not one of them: there is no sexual assault problem on campuses. It's absurd that we'd need to say that. It's also absurd that some freak out if it isn't said...
Some of the most important morals have to do with rape crisis feminism and rape crisis hysteria. Rape is a terrible crime. But that doesn't mean that it is impossible to exaggerate its frequency. And that is exactly what a certain sector of the PC left / feminism is dedicated to doing. So far as I know, just as an example, Amanda Marcotte has never explicitly admitted that "Jackie" was lying--and has dissembled several times. (For that matter, she has never explicitly admitted that the accuser in the Duke lacrosse case was lying...and she's suggested at least that she doesn't believe that she was.) Somebody at Shakesville claimed, basically, that even though Jackie is lying, anyone who didn't initially believe her is a "rape denialist"... Perhaps most significantly, Jackie's story was represented by many feminists as conclusive evidence of "rape culture" and so forth when they thought it was true...but when it was shown to be false, they refused to count it as evidence that their claims are overblown. This is almost definitive of pseudoscience--evidence is only evidence when it proves what we want it to prove; otherwise, it's irrelevant...
One thing many feminist writers on the web have gotten right, though, is that this case doesn't tell us a lot about false accusations of rape. "Jackie" didn't accuse a real person--she made up a guy and accused him. The writers in question are probably wrong that the case tells us nothing about false accusations...but if it tells us anything about false accusations against real people, it doesn't tell us a lot.
Anyway. There's that.
It's referred to as a 'debacle' in the the title, but the more accurate term is 'hoax.'
Several morals might reasonably be drawn from this case and the reaction to it. It goes without saying that the following is not one of them: there is no sexual assault problem on campuses. It's absurd that we'd need to say that. It's also absurd that some freak out if it isn't said...
Some of the most important morals have to do with rape crisis feminism and rape crisis hysteria. Rape is a terrible crime. But that doesn't mean that it is impossible to exaggerate its frequency. And that is exactly what a certain sector of the PC left / feminism is dedicated to doing. So far as I know, just as an example, Amanda Marcotte has never explicitly admitted that "Jackie" was lying--and has dissembled several times. (For that matter, she has never explicitly admitted that the accuser in the Duke lacrosse case was lying...and she's suggested at least that she doesn't believe that she was.) Somebody at Shakesville claimed, basically, that even though Jackie is lying, anyone who didn't initially believe her is a "rape denialist"... Perhaps most significantly, Jackie's story was represented by many feminists as conclusive evidence of "rape culture" and so forth when they thought it was true...but when it was shown to be false, they refused to count it as evidence that their claims are overblown. This is almost definitive of pseudoscience--evidence is only evidence when it proves what we want it to prove; otherwise, it's irrelevant...
One thing many feminist writers on the web have gotten right, though, is that this case doesn't tell us a lot about false accusations of rape. "Jackie" didn't accuse a real person--she made up a guy and accused him. The writers in question are probably wrong that the case tells us nothing about false accusations...but if it tells us anything about false accusations against real people, it doesn't tell us a lot.
Anyway. There's that.
Labels: feminism, hoax, rape, rape crisis hysteria, Rolling Stone, UVA
posted by Winston Smith at
10:59 AM
6 Comments:
She says apparently lying, Capt. Ahab:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/sorry-rape-deniers-the-rolling-stone-report-isn-t-what-you-hoped
Hey! She...apparently...did...sorta...admit it! Thanks for the info, DA... Though I see you're still out there defending every criticism of Mad Mandy... How about Duke Lacrosse?
"Mad Mandy?" Were you hitting the sauce when you came up with that one? That would explain why you think I would be defending every criticism of her. Do yo think I'm a GG, perchance?
As for the Duke rape case, that she deleted her initial comments about the case is not to her credit, but you seem to think that it invalidates all that she's done before and afterward, demonstrates sloppy thinking, Winston. Why don't you see if you can dig up her response and criticize thepat, instead of trying to be a second-rate insult comic on this subject?
LOLOLOL oh, DA..."Mad Mandy Marcotte" is not a phrase of my coinage...her lunacy is widely-recognized...
You mean: she deleted her initial, crazy comments, then has never subsequently admitted that she was completely wrong about the case... Add to that that her admission that "Jackie" is a liar is less than perfectly unequivocal... And, more importantly, that these are just a very few examples that fit her overall pattern.
Marcotte isn't particularly smart, nor particularly well-informed, nor particularly insightful. She's an ideologue who issues a steady drumbeat to rally the troops in a certain segment of the political spectrum. She cares little about the truth, and little for what's right...she has a radically distorted view of...basically everything she writes about. She's about as intellectually dishonest as it's possible to be.
I know you get all weepy when people criticize her... But that's not my problem, DA, it's yours.
She's just terrible. She's a (small, insignificant) part of the problem with political discussion in this country. She's about a half-notch above Glenn Beck.
The difference in you and me is: I detest and criticize both the crazy left and the crazy right. But you only think that the latter project is permissible. The former you consider blasphemy.
Who gets weepy, Winston? She has a gig with Salon now, so she doesn't need any cheerleading or defense on my part.
You, as she's the one you write about and obsess over, not me. She's made a few mistakes, but who among us is without sin and entitled to throw the first stone?
And I'm for criticizing the crazy left, but after reading her writings, I don't think she's one of them. Many of her positions are mainstream feminsm, even though I understand you'd rather walk barefoot a mile on broken glass before admmiting to the same.
I'm trying to be a voice of sanity here, Winston, whilst you want to make her out to be some sort of non-violent version of Valerie Solanas.
Good luck with that, Capt. Ahab.
Serious question...are you suggesting that "a gig with Salon"...what? Is some measure of quality or intelligence or something? I mean...you know that site is a joke, right? It's a site for left crap of exactly the type of crap I've noted that MMM tends to produce.
And, um, the very fact that you think that I "obsess" over now that's weird dude. She's one of a very large number of bad commentators that I criticize. However, she's one of the only ones who brings you out in defense... So...as for obsession...you win.
Really DA. You're a smart guy. I'm not pressuring you to admit it here, but only to admit it to yourself: *I* know that *you* know that "many of her positions are mainstream feminism* is *not* a good reason to think she's not a nut. Many of Trump's positions are mainstream...but those aren't the ones that matter...
I know you're exaggerating with the Solanas thing, so I'll interpret it more charitably. I do think Marcotte is bad. I don't think she's worse than the majority of the Vanguard Of Feminism...I think she's very much part of it and representative of it. Obviously I don't think that they're wrong about everything...but they're too wrong about too much to go uncriticized.
Case in point: AM was one of the many, many feminists who shrieked to high heaven that the UVA/Rolling Stone "rape" proved something something rape culture something predatory something universities something something... Now, that she/they couldn't tell that a patently false story was false is one problem... And it's a problem that they called anyone who smelled a rat a "rape denialist." But the bigger problem is that, when it became undeniable that it was false, the demurred and dissembled (or semi-acknowledged it)...: *and then claimed it didn't matter and didn't show anything.* It's evidence when it's for our theory, it's not evidence when it's against our theory: that's an approach almost definitive of pseudoscience...
Leaving aside for the moment my own excesses...I just don't see how, in a cool hour, you can defend that stuff. And I don't see how you can defend someone on the basis of the fact that *sometimes* they're not loony.
Peace man. I do appreciate your efforts to keep me on the straight and narrow, frustrating as it must be.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home