How is the presumption of guilt until you can prove your innocence fair to the accused?

I want to hear more about what it’s like to date Ryan Reynolds.

Dear Alanis,

Is it too late now to say Sorry?

My understanding is that she has since come out and denied that it was rape. Which...I mean I’m skeptical that she wasn’t coerced into backtracking, but you kind of have to let people own their own narrative, you know?

Yeah, my point is more that it seems people here like to really pull out the “always believe the victim” card whenever it’s a football player, fraternity member, rich white dude, Republican, etc., but then are suspiciously quiet when the accused is someone that they admire.

If she were raped at another time I think that is so far away from being our business. I bet she cries when she sees strangers discussing her personal life on the internet like she were an object.

The Columbia journalists found that contrary to what Jackie, Erdely, and Rolling Stone have suggested at various points, she never asked to be removed from the story, and there was no agreement that the magazine would not attempt to speak with her alleged attacker.

Pretty sure you don’t know what a “straw man” is. Has to do with refuting arguments which I am not attempting to do. Letting you know how “poor Jackie” statements undermine credibility. But keep doing what you’re doing if you want I guess.

So even when her statements are proven false, we should think them as true?

It doesn’t matter why Jackie is mentally ill. Outside of the circles you are in, what is perceived is that people like you will continue to deny the obvious in the face of the facts and insist that Jackie is a victim. Naturally, they will wonder if anybody you say is a victim really is.

It isn’t “scorched earth” it is the truth. She lied. About everything. That’s the truth.

Except when you have people like Jez advocating for never questioning rape allegations.

Uh. The blame is on Jackie for making this shit up in the first place. Not on the reporter who did exactly what people like you say she should do.

Yeah, my point entirely. You’ve made up your own mind far before any of this happened.

If you lived in the fraternity where the fake assault didn’t happen, with protesters round the clock, death threats, and cinder blocks crashing through your windows, you may disagree that there were no victims. Also, a couple of UVA administrators had their good names smeared.

You seriously need an education in critical thinking.

IIRC, every detail Jackie provided in her story has fallen apart. The guy doesn’t exist, there was no party on that date, etc. Nothing about anything she said can be verified. No one else can say, “Hey, I know the guy she’s talking about! She just gave him an alias.” It all seems very “catfishy.”

Yes, “fudged.” She invented a guy that didn’t exist, a gang rape that never happened, on a night that the fraternity in question did not throw a party. Any journalist with a shred of professionalism and integrity would have abandoned this non-story after doing the very basics of her job.

Maybe. We really know very little about Jackie, but what we do know indicates nothing good. Maybe she needs help, or maybe she’s just a spoiled kid who was always able to get away with making up stories that paint her to be the victim while she was growing up.