They mean that even after someone’s story is proven to be untrue and a fabrication, self-identifying as a “victim” should still net you special consideration and a completely baffling assumption of truth-telling.

Tell me, how do handle a story about someone who fabricated a rape story in a sensitive and graceful way, without calling that person a liar?

A Dance With Dragons was over 1000 pages and was released in July 2011. Since then I’ve read a full prequel story (A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms, released a few months ago) set around 150 years before the main events of the books and a huge compendium of lore (The World of Ice and Fire, released October 2014)…

Because all novels should just cut to the chase and be 25 pages long.

Or if the accuser is actually innocent (I know, novel idea) and intends to clear his name.

Just in case it wasn't clear, the shooter was a white male. Hope everyone got that part, a very important piece of this story, highlighting the consequences of spreading hate propaganda.

Your bias is evident:

1. Authorities don't take rape seriously? Because they're not provable? You just gave two opposing reasons in one statement. Not doing something about a crime because it's not provable doesn't mean you treat the issue lightly.

2. Anecdotally citing a college administrator's vague reference to…

she decided not to pursue disciplinary action against him for the same reasons many acquaintance rape survivors don't pursue justice against their attackers: it's just too much trouble.

I'm flabbergasted the extent to which this article goes out of its way to soft sell the fact that Erdley's piece was bullshit. Throwing out a non sequitor that a member should have believed a fictitious story because it was similar to an event before he was born? Disparaging the idea that "people would tell" others…

Great troll.

Most people now discredit the accounts of Jackie's horrific ordeal, the details of which were documented in Sabrina Erdely's article, "A Rape on Campus".