Rolling Stone found guilty of defamation for rape hoax

The judge, unreasonably and improperly, set the very high bar of “actual malice”.

Either the jury ignored the judge’s direction, or, more likely, the jury consciously or subconsciously realized that when every single person connected to this case piously agreed that there was a whole lot of rape on campus, they did not actually mean that there was a whole lot of rape type rape on campus, or indeed any rape type rape on campus, that these pious proclamations were intended as a theological truth rather than a literal truth, intended to signify that the speaker feels the pain and traumatization that women are feeling in sexual jungle, not to signify that women were literally being raped.

If we realize that consensual sex is apt to be traumatic for women, maybe we should not be letting women make these decisions. Jackie Coakley was traumatized because Ryan Duffin would not have sex with her twice. The reverse decision, refusing to have sex with the father of one’s children, or refusing to have sex with one’s husband, is apt to be equally disastrous for women.

If two men agree to exchange apples and iron, we should conclude the deal makes both of them better off, that consent is proof that the deal should go through, and lack of consent is proof it should not. With fertile age women possessed by raging hormones, similar reasoning is inapplicable.

28 Responses to “Rolling Stone found guilty of defamation for rape hoax”

  1. […] Rolling Stone found guilty of defamation for rape hoax […]

  2. Cavalier says:

    Women are literally being raped, if every sexual act outside the bounds of paternal approval is rape. Which you tend to think it is, I tend to think it is, and the good little progs in the courtroom seem to think it is, even if they would never in a million years admit it.

    It seems to me that when a feminist complains of “rape epidemic” and “rape culture”, this is exactly what they mean. And if that is what they mean then she is entirely correct not only as to its conception and proliferation, but also the group of people who are ultimately responsible for it, high-IQ, high-status white men, and her cries of “rape epidemic” and “rape culture” should be viewed as entirely legitimate cries for help, like a stray blue-haired kitten meowing in the rain.

    Refusing to have sex with her husband and father of her children doesn’t seem to work very well unless her husband gives her that choice, or she is otherwise exposed to culture programming which makes her believe that she has that choice, namely public school and TalmudVision.

  3. Glenfilthie says:

    Whatever. It is an argument for stupid people.

    If you go around screwing every tire biter that spreads her legs for you – you’re gonna run into this – and deserve it.

    It is of less importance to me than the mud on my boots. I have a classical marriage, brought about by a classical courtship. Promiscuity is for idiots and degenerates.

    • jim says:

      But Ryan Duffin, the alpha who fucked Jackie Coakley once but refused to fuck her twice, had no problems.

      The people who got in trouble were the men who had never met Jackie Coakley and never had anything to do with her.

      The basic principle that feminists apply in the Jackie Coakley case is that because Jackie Coakley made bad decisions, men need to be punished. In this case, the men she would have rather liked to have sex with, but did not.

      • glenfilthie says:

        I see.

        It’s just a fad. For awhile the mob lynched innocent men with false accusations of child molestation too. These things seem to go in cycles and if I recall, mostly shitty women drove that craze too.

        All you can do is protect yourself. Avoid people of low character and treat everyone with stiff formality until you know them.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          Shut up, glen. Your advice is as useless as your generation was.

          http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/she-said-she-wasnt-raped-but-the-school-expelled-him-anyway/article/2589065

          The Shadowed Knight

          • Glenfilthie says:

            Silence yourself, fartling! You’re old enough to know only that you have a dick between your legs – but don’t know what to do with it. “Shadowed Knight”? No doubt the stereotypical cellar dweller living with his doting parents!

            We need to examine the recent postulations from our scholarly host about ‘de-emancipating women’ and how a society like that will arise and what that will mean for us men of worth.

            A woman’s virtue will become a marketable commodity again. And undoubtedly, societal taboos, traditions and rules will arise to safeguard it. It will be drilled into women that they are not to be alone with strange men without patriarchal consent. It will be drilled into men not to be caught in compromising positions with women that could cast doubt on the woman’s virtue and his own reputation. Failure to heed any of that will be grounds for legal action and possibly even blood feuds and murder. If anything, a society like that will be even harder on the phony ‘alphas’ and chads.

            All of which would put our (HAR HAR HAR) shadowed knight in the same position he is today: you cannot allow yourself to be caught in situations with women that will allow them to accuse you of misdemeanour. Initial interactions with women will need to be in public places with harmless, chaperoned social events. Courtships should be long, unrushed affairs that will allow the man to operate in a chivalric manner.

            Let me be clear, gentlemen: I do not approve of the political climate out there that allows women to destroy men and families out of childish spite. But – it is a reality and the smart man adapts to the new realities and capitalizes on them. If you choose to think with your dink rather than your brains – then your undoing will be your fault and your fault alone.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              Did you read the article or are you blistering with no idea of what you speak? Rhetorical question. You are a fool, and your years have brought you nothing but old age. When a man is expelled when the alleged victim denies the crime because of a third party report, then it does not matter if I live in my basement and only come out to go to classes.

              The accusation does not need to be real. I do not ever need to be ino a compromised position. That poor man was accused of rape, which is a felony, and there was no attempt at justice. Only punishment. They do not care about truth, only the opportunity to exercise power against white men.

              The Shadowed Knight

              • Glenfilthie says:

                He’s going to appeal it, and he’s going to win. He’s almost certainly going to cash in as he should. If you had an attention span – you would see that there is no need to shoot your young face off before all the facts are in.

                The Rolling Stone is being made to pay for their idiocy; your dummies will too.

              • Glenfilthie says:

                How long should a courtship last, Jim? I can see low women doing that – but the flip side is that they spread for any man that will bed them and ride that ‘cock carousel’ at the start of the relationship right off the bat. Is there a happy medium?

                • jim says:

                  Your presupposition is that a woman spends thirty years courting, therefore if she opens her legs after a very short period, she has opened her legs for a thousand men.

                  Women should not spend thirty years courting.

                • glenfilthie says:

                  Errrr…no, I don’t think a courtship should last 30 years, Jim.

                  I don’t think a year or two is unreasonable though…

            • jim says:

              Courtships should be long, unrushed affairs that will allow the man to operate in a chivalric manner.

              You are nuts.

              Courtships should resemble the courtship of Isaac and Rebeccah.

              Every woman I have ever slept with, I have not taken that much longer about it than the courtship of Isaac and Rebeccah, and things worked out pretty good for me.

              63 And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide: and he lifted up his eyes, and saw, and, behold, the camels were coming.

              64 And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel.

              65 For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself.

              66 And the servant told Isaac all things that he had done.

              67 And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death

              • Glenfilthie says:

                Didn’t work out all that well for SK’s boy or Ghomeshi, did it? Not that I am defending any of this – I’m just saying that promiscuity is an act of degeneracy and have seen no proof to the contrary. Alphas, for the most part, are liars and frauds and get the treatment they deserve eventually.

                I profess no authority on biblical mythology, but even so I have misgivings about your interpretation of it: that passage was penned in a time when the vast majority of marriages were arranged, and courtships were very different. I don’t think that passage means what you think it does, nor does it have any context in today’s society.

                • jim says:

                  That passage was penned in a time when the vast majority of marriages were arranged, and courtships were very different.

                  Yes, it was an arranged marriage. But my point is that long courtships are degenerate and immoral. Long courtships inevitably wind up as women riding the carousel, polyamory, beta orbits, and female driven drama. Courtship gives women too much power, which they abuse perversely.

            • Cavalier says:

              “long, unrushed affairs that will allow the man to operate in a chivalric manner”

              If beta-schlub had a face, it would be yours.

              • glenfilthie says:

                Lol.

                Been married 32 years, kiddo. I don’t have to beat my wife, or ride her like a rented mule or live in a trailer park either – like so many ‘alpha’ poseurs.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “Been married 32 years”

                  You have no what it’s like in the current year.

    • Dave says:

      Now that I, my siblings, and all our cousins are well into adulthood, I see a pattern emerging:

      Two men married to American women with two children apiece.
      Two men married to foreign women with four and five children apiece.
      Four men never married (one gay, one very autistic, one mildly autistic)
      Three women, none of whom has married or had children.

      We’re all white, our fathers were middle-class engineers, and our mothers were housewives.

      My sister, my dad’s sister, and his dad’s sister never married, so I’m really laying it on my 11-yo daughter to get married in the 16-20 age range and have lots of children. I tell her she needs a shunt in her brain to drain off the excess self-esteem which, as feminists, Muslims, and Jim would agree, devastates female fertility.

  4. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Any bad things that happen in a co-educational university are bound to happen because of the mixed sex environment, and any good thing that happens in such a place is only cocidental because they are mere echoes of the system which preceded them.

    A.J.P.

    • Cavalier says:

      I think you may be correct. I was raised a good little prog in virtually continuous mixed environments, but one year I was a little shit and I was sent to a male-only military academy in the South for the summer, and it was rough and it was tough, but still to this day I have no had an experience quite so _relaxed_ and _easy-going_ as that one.

      I suspect the traditional English public school approach to schooling is what we want to return to.

      • Theshadowedknight says:

        Homeschooling to a middle school level of education, and then IQ testing to select those destined for higher education and apprenticeships and vocational training for the rest. Let children learn from their parents and siblings. It really is not that difficult.

        The Shadowed Knight

  5. Cavalier says:

    > Jim, what is the secret to block quotes

    >Jim, what is the secret to block quotes

    “””Jim, what is the secret to block quotes”””

    • Cavalier says:

      /Secret

      \Secret

      \>Secret

      I’m out of ideas.

    • jim says:

      Somewhere there is a null string that should contain the web site location. Which afflicts people who edit in regular mode, but does not afflict me, because I edit in admin mode.

      But I cannot find it. There is a lot of code, and its management of the site string is mysterious. It takes me about an hour to go through a hundred lines of code, and I cannot figure out where the site string is intended to come from, cannot figure out what the code is intended todo and is not doing, cannot figure out how the the site string is intended to be supplied.

      The effect is that I can enter html in the comments, but you cannot.

    • peppermint says:

      Use guillamettes, they’re unicodes instead of angle brackets that the code thinks is html » 》

  6. peppermint says:

    http://www.dailystormer.com/repealthe19th-white-women-well-aware-their-black-pets-are-stupid-criminals/

    Anglin’s demands don’t look too different from Jim’s, though the whole giving other people’s money to young families thing sounds a bit like cuckoldry.

  7. JRM says:

    Two sides of the same college girl coin:

    Obverse: The “slut” persona: proud sluts, loud-mouthed girls who revile the old “double standard”, sluts who are “reclaiming” the word “slut”, etc.

    Reverse: “Rape culture” feminists; angry Andrea Dworkin acolytes. Activists.

    Common denominator: Anger, alienation from natural role; mistrust and hatred of men.

Leave a Reply