You're dumb as fuck if you think that's what I was saying. She didn't actually tell a story, the link to the 'full story' says at most 'he sexually assaulted me' no more. Just saying those four words does not magically entitle you to be believed. I say all this as a woman who was raped, so go fuck yourself you…

"That's admittedly what everyone would've preferred from Conor Oberst—but then again, you can also read the mention of a lawsuit as the implicit threat of a lawsuit."

"That's admittedly what everyone would've preferred from Conor Oberst—but then again, you can also read the mention of a lawsuit as the implicit threat of a lawsuit.''

Or you could pull your head out of your ass. and realize that you don't know shit. Nice word salad though.

That's nice that you feel a modicum of compassion for Oberst. What's your compassion level for rapists with bad childhoods? Hugs or no hugs.

Umm no. You don't get a cuddle and gentle soothing as reward for flippantly accusing someone of rape, then letting it drag on for months before shrugging and saying "my bad, hope no harm was done, kthxbye!" Her lack of privilege (if she even has gone through any hardship) doesn't excuse or mitigate the damage she's…

Because this person said this so perfectly. Oh, and you are a crazy person.

"we shouldn't assume the accused is guilty in general, EXCEPT for rape cases."

"we can't discount the possibility that the rape happened."

You're like the female equivalent of an MRA. How gross.

So it's his job to prove he didn't do it? Do you know how the justice system works?

So I guess if someone's accused of rape or whatever else, their name can never truly be cleared because of folks like you? Cool.

The author responded to my post, defending her initial article as completely balanced. She then dismissed my response when it got more upvotes than hers (or so I'm told; I don't really know how this stuff works). I have pasted my response below so people can see it:

"Because slander is not a thing." No one can harbor a hatred of someone and realize that saying something false about them would, provided they were not discovered, result in positive attention toward themselves and negative attention toward the other party. Absolutely not reason exists to lie about anything. You are…

Yeah, now that she admitted to lying. The comments in the original thread were way more supportive of her despite the glaring holes and inconsistencies in her story.

Not to defend the MRA clusterfuckbrains on the other article, but Jezebel did say (in their original reporting on the article):

Especially when that article claimed: "Why would she want to hurt Oberst? And why would someone lie about being sexually assaulted? What could be gained from that? Nothing, really."

"However, as Jezebel reported, Faircloth had a long history of making contradictory statements online[...]"

"Good for her" is not where I would go with this.

I find it bothersome how women's websites feel the need to run these "exclusive unretouched photo!" articles. They serve no purpose other than to make everyone feel better about themselves by pointing out all the flaws on famous people.

Sports organizations fall for scams all too often unfortunately. The people doing the hiring don't know the research, and the people trying to get jobs are trying to prove that they're "cutting edge" and "innovative" because it doesn't look all that impressive to go into an interview for a six-figure job and say that…