Seriously. Lady is freaking gorgeous.

I haven't read the article where he releases her information, so I don't know whether she was identified as "Jackie" or "Jaclyn" etc. (And please don't tell me, I'd rather not know). So I'm going to write from here on out as if he had said her name is "Jackie SoandSo."

Yes, it absolutely is. The only time journalists…

Yes, you did. "Fagtavist" and "Gamer gate dyke." Maybe not specifically directed at me, but I still protest that you used them at all. And I don't blame those women for leaving their houses, if they were receiving death threats because they were doxxed.

Did I ever say I wanted to out him? No. Did I ever use any sort of derogatory term against you?No. So kindly take yours elsewhere.

This post would be valid, except no one ever named the accused. So I'm really not sure why you're getting your panties in a twist.

It's just such a terrible situation, all around. And he is a terrible human being. And the amount of awful in the world right now is legitimately exhausting to me.

Yes, the Rolling Stones writer absolutely did commit some pretty atrocious missteps when writing that story. Yes, the editorial staff should absolutely have done better fact-checking than they did, and yes it was a bad idea to honor Jackie's request not to get in contact with the accused.

You are a brave soul to have entered into those murky depths.

***OUTLANDER SPOILER, JUST IGNORE IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK AND CARE ABOUT BEING SPOILED***

***OUTLANDER SPOILER, JUST IGNORE IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK AND CARE ABOUT BEING SPOILED***

***OUTLANDER SPOILER, JUST IGNORE IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK AND CARE ABOUT BEING SPOILED***

***OUTLANDER SPOILER, JUST IGNORE IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK AND CARE ABOUT BEING SPOILED***

I dunno, it was pretty freaking graphic. I'm going to try to be very calculating and scientific in my next few sentences, even though that scene made me feel physically ill. It might come off as cold, but I'm trying to be clinical.

I read all of them, but I fail to see how it changes the fact that Johnson should absolutely never have published her name. Did the Rolling Stones journalist do her due diligence? Apparently not. Does that mean the Jackie was never assaulted? No. She might have gotten some details wrong, but there are lots of…

Yeah. Like I said somewhere else, if we could know 100% for sure that it wouldn't affect anyone but him, and that he wouldn't be physically harmed as a result, I'd be all for a good does of harassment so that he'll know what it's like to seriously fuck with someone's life.

Eh, I think Gawker is more like a big network of blogs. They'd be safe.

I know what you mean. I don't remember the majority of the time I spent in an abusive relationship, because I have intentionally blocked it out (even though it was mostly just verbal abuse). There's one instance of sexual abuse that is equally parts incredibly vivid and also blurry, because I think I just need to…

Wut.