Assuming Winston is a public figure, he can prove that she showed reckless disregard to the truth when making the statements. If he’s considered not a public figure (or a limited-purpose public figure, which I think is the more likely of the three options), he just has to show negligence.

She already sued; this is his countersuit.

“They got an incredibly intelligent and thoughtful Jewish woman to play an incredibly intelligent and thoughtful Jewish woman. Sounds pretty perfect to me.”

My point that from the school’s perspective it would have been legally safer for them to at least ask.

Uhhhh...dude....you might not be aware of this but yikyak CAN be disabled over a limited area. It IS disabled for places like high schools.

I absolutely believe it happens to women, too; the difference is at least there is some level of honesty in our culture that it happens. The effect on overweight or unattractive men is almost a form of mass gaslighting. We’re told it doesn’t happen, even when we experience it happening again and again.

I’m no biblical scholar but I thought they didn’t so much manipulate social customs as just obey them so completely and utterly that they rewarded for it. It seems like a fable to motivate women to subordinate themselves completely to the rules and to men.

By “personal relationship” the implication is a romantic or intimate one; that doesn’t mean that “roommate” is not a personal relationship at some level.

Extremely sad. I am wondering what exactly the school was expected to do. In theory if all the yikyak messages were brought to the school’s attention, they might have some legal obligation to do something under Title IX, maybe at a minimum request yikyak disable the service on campus. They probably won’t but at least…

Huh? She was murdered by her roommate. You honestly don’t think it’s likely that whatever the motive was it was something personal and not political?

From a modern, egalitarian, humanist standpoint the Ruth story makes very little sense. From a feminist standpoint it makes even less sense.

“We’ve been accepting schlubby men in sitcoms and in some instances even holding them up as sex symbols for years.”

“In my experience most guys have pretty high self esteem”

I’m quite familiar with the English language and semantic structure; your sentence is semantically unsound unless you are arguing that even though society doesn’t abhor them, they should be convinced that it does.

“I related to Nirvana’s music when it came out, all post-Reagan frustration and middle-class-value-smashing.”

Wait, you’re arguing two different things—that society abhors them, but that abuse is socially acceptable.

A lot of groups do “awareness raising” because it’s easier than actually getting into the messiness of real-world problems. What would you rather do, create an ad campaign from your SoHo loft office, or actually volunteer at a shelter? “Raising awareness” lets you think you did the important work and it’s up to…

They loved watching him fight but were usually mad that the fight lasted such a short time.

Actually more than 30% now. 30% is a lot though.

The funny thing is back the Duke’s time you studied for a few years but didn’t take a degree, because that was for the lower classes who would become clerks and priests.