Yes, hurt them pockets. Of course, the bill is being footed by tax-paying citizens.

Hold on. No, this can’t be right. Everyone knows that women can’t lie about sexual assault. Something isn’t adding up here.

You’re my goddam hero. I seriously wish more people would wise up and wait for proof when these sorts of allegations are made. Of course, if you do that on here you get labeled a ‘rape apologist’ and berated by the masses. It sure sucks being reasonable, doesn’t it?

You know, I was thinking just the same thing. Michael knows his audience. He knows how to pander to them. And of course he means ‘all white people’ every single time. He’s not a man terribly concerned about nuance. Or accuracy. But that doesn’t really matter in this colourful corner of the internet. Welcome to The…

Reparations. Oh, I got a good chuckle out of that one.

I think you might be missing the point. You can label anything ‘evil’. It’s pure abstraction, and as such its meaning depends solely on the experience of the observer. It’s like looking at a Rothko or a Kandinsky. You might call it angry, I might call it passionate, then next guy might call it psychotic. But it’s not…

Really well said. It’s astonishing how few people are willing to acknowledge moral relativism. I wonder how these people manage to function in the adult world when they dichotomize nuanced problems into ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ like children.  

I don’t want to see this fella in prison. Not this guy. No no no.

Stephen, you might want to give this piece a quick proof-read.

What’s your beef with Scientology? It’s is no different than any other church. They profit by selling people lies. How’s that any different than Christianity or Islam?

Actually, I think the onus of proof would fall solely to Dykstra. But again, I think there may be a loophole that allows claims of a sexual nature to be excluded from a standard libel case.

I think you summed it up neatly: Rape is notoriously hard to prove. Dykstra can scream it to the world if she see’s fit, but that doesn’t mean we should subscribe to her narrative without evidence. And I expect said evidence will be non-existent. Thus, my opinion on Hardwick remains as it always has been, perfectly…

Absolutely accurate. The remarkable thing about Salem was not that it was fuelled by superstition and hysteria, but that an actual court of law saw fit to legitimize that hysteria and convict women of a crime that (debatably) doesn’t exist. We’ve gotten better at filtering supernatural offences from the real, but not…

First of all, can I just take a second to applaud your volume and quality of input on this? You’ve taken pains to craft a thorough response, and I do appreciate that.

My goodness, that’s a great deal of outrage. I think if we dial that back for just a second, it really boils down to this: Everyone assumes this is racism, but they don’t know it is. They don’t know because it was entirely non-explicit. If that guy had made any mention of their race in his confrontation, we would be…

I didn’t miss your timely quotation marks, I’m suggesting bad journalism and mob justice are central to this entire issue.

I don’t know where you have to go to find balanced content anymore, but it certainly isn’t here. The quality of discourse on the left end of the political spectrum has plummeted to nil. It’s degenerated into militant fanaticism.

Not to one-up your pessimism, but public opinion has been propagating destructive stupidity in America for centuries. Salem, 1692 comes to mind.

I didn’t realize this was such a common thing. I had never had a post deleted before. If they’re not interested in facilitating an open discussion, I wonder why they bother allowing comments at all. I don’t object to removing hate speech and foul language, but intolerance of contrary opinions is another thing…

I just want to make sure I’m following your logic. So you’re advocating bad journalism and mob justice to shelter someone from public opinion after she’s deliberately broadcasted the details of her personal life to the world?