Jackie said members of a specific fraternity raped her; specific friends of hers were cartoonishly unsympathetic; and specific university employees failed to help her. None of that may be life-ruining, but I’d consider it pretty detrimental to their reputations. One might even call it ... reprehensible.

She ruined the life of Erdely Rubin and Eramo too, is that not reprehensible, or, can Jackie do no wrong in your eyes?

So you’re one of those rare folks who don’t believe in getting the pitch forks, hot tar, and feathers at the first accusations? Unfortunately more people aren’t as rational as you. Hopefully one day.

Thats right sister! Accusations should be enough to convict! Down with that “innocent until proven guilty” nonsense! Fuck due process! In order to show support for victims women should be able to point a finger at a man and have him sent to jail as a rapist!

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.

I think it’s pretty shitty to lie about sexual assault—but given the fact that Jackie didn’t falsely accuse any real person whose life might have been ruined, I don’t know that I consider her actions quite “reprehensible”.

However, and this is a big but, Jackie could very well be lying

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.

“So I have some empathy for Jackie. Something’s wrong there. The blame should go exactly where it belongs: on the Rolling Stone for not fact-checking.”

No you’re right she only accused an entire fraternity.

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.

The sort of cultural conditions you seem to triumph are no more than allowing ourselves to be dragged to the bottom of humanity.

IF her story was completely false? It was, right down to the existence of her assailant. It’s all out there for anyone to learn.

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.

I’m confused. Are you upset that they wrote this after having someone made up an elaborate, fabricated story that had implications on the reputations of everyone involved? Because as far as I can tell, what they wrote is true. There are no facts to conclude at this point that she was a victim. That doesn’t mean facts…

How do you not realize that desperately clinging to this is counterproductive to the cause?

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?