Sex

Liberal Feminists, Stop Smearing Critics As Rape Apologists

|

Consent
CUTV

People who oppose the death penalty do not sympathize with murderers. Critics of U.S. drone warfare policy are not on the side of the terrorists. Most self-identifying liberals understand this. So why do feminist liberals smear every person who dissents from their extreme, unhelpful, and legally dubious positions on preventing rape as a rape apologist?

Feminist writer Jessica Valenti provides the most recent and infuriating example of this contemptible, authoritarian demonization campaign. Her response to Yale Law School professor Jed Rubenfeld's thoughtful entry in the campus sexual assault debate was titled "If you can't talk about rape without blaming victims, don't talk about rape."

How about this, Valenti: If you can't talk about rape without attempting to shut down the discussion about how to actually prevent rape, maybe you are the one who shouldn't talk about it.

Nowhere in Rubenfeld's New York Times op-ed did he blame rape victims for being raped, but Valenti levels this totally unsubstantiated charge repeatedly. First, she writes that any amount of worrying about false charges and convictions is akin to rape apology:

The worst offense is Rubenfeld's apparent belief that there is a "debate" to be had – as if there are two equal sides, both with reasonable and legitimate points. There are not. On the one side, there are the 20% of college women who can expect to be victimized by rapists and would-be rapists; on the other side is a bunch of adult men (and a few women) worrying themselves to death that a few college-aged men might have to find a new college to attend.

Rubenfeld, for instance, writes that colleges "are simultaneously failing to punish rapists adequately and branding students sexual assailants when no sexual assault occurred", making it sound as if these two things occur at equal rates. This conflation – that false accusations are as serious a problem as rape itself – is, for some unfathomable reason, apparently a widely-held belief among seemingly-intelligent male pundits.

In this manner, Valenti established that critics of her liberal feminist view are not opponents in a public policy debate—they are the enemies of rape victims. This is totally unjustified demagoguery. She might as well be saying, "You're with me or you're with the terrorists." In fact, that's precisely what she is saying. Just substitute "terrorist" for "rapist."

Valenti charges that Rubenfeld is a rape apologist throughout her piece. His skepticism of affirmative consent laws is up next:

Rubenfeld writes, in reference to California's new "yes means yes" law for public universities and Yale University's sexual assault policy, that "a person who voluntarily gets undressed, gets into bed and has sex with someone, without clearly communicating either yes or no, can later say – correctly – that he or she was raped". But that's just false, no matter how many uninformed newly-minted rape pundits claim otherwise. Both California and Yale make clear that affirmative consent can be given through nonverbal cues – like getting undressed, getting into bed, and having sex with someone.

Again, why is Rubenfeld branded a rape apologist for disputing the coherence of affirmative consent? Does Valenti not comprehend the possibility that he is merely misinformed about affirmative consent as policy, rather than seeking to empower rapists? Really, what is more likely?

I happen to think Rubenfeld is exactly right about affirmative consent. California's "Yes Means Yes" law does indeed establish that consent can be given through nonverbal cues, but it also must be given continuously, at the onset of each new act during a sexual encounter. What if one party nonverbally consents to kissing and then nonverbally withdraws consent when it escalates to touching? And how are college adjudicators supposed to sort out blame after the fact in a situation like that? I see affirmative consent creating a fair amount of confusion while failing to prevent rape. The serial predator, after all, is hardly deterred by the new, vague requirement to receive incessant consent.

The "rape apologist" accusation doesn't end there. Valenti also accuses Rubenfeld of rape apology when he blames campus drinking culture:

Rubenfeld doesn't get any more creative with his rape apology as the op-ed goes on. He also writes that we need to stop being "foolish" about booze on campus and that "a vast majority of college women's rape claims involve alcohol".

The truth: A vast majority of rapists attack drunk women. Rapists – deliberately and with forethought – use alcohol as a weapon in their assaults. They do this because they know that women are less likely to be believed if they've been drinking, so they depend on our culture's continued insistence that alcohol-facilitated rape is a "misunderstanding". That's what helps them get away with their attacks. We help them get away with their attacks.

This is just quibbling over phrasing. Rubenfeld says rape involves alcohol, Valenti says society permits rapists to use alcohol to rape women. Okay… so rape involves alcohol, right?

Because I actually want less rape, I want to talk about alcohol policy. I assume Valenti also wants less rape, although she comes off as extremely dismissive regarding all practical suggestions to achieve precisely that. (I don't consider her own suggestion—teaching people to telepathically pick up on each other's nonverbal cues—very practical in the immediate future.)

Binge drinking, as I have noted many times, is the condition that leads to campus rape. If fewer men and women drank themselves to the point of incapacitation at wild college parties in strangers' basements, there would undoubtedly be less rape.

This does not mean women who drink too much and become victims of rape are themselves responsible for being raped. Their rapists are solely responsible and should be punished. If I leave my front door unlocked and someone robs me, I am not responsible—my robber is. Nevertheless, fewer unlocked doors would produce fewer robberies. Similarly, a more responsible drinking culture would produce a safer party scene for both men and women in college.

I contend the National Minimum Drinking Age Act encourages binge drinking by restricting teens from drinking in public, in bars, and in moderation. And I expect that repealing the law—something Congressional Republicans and President Obama could do right now if they were so motivated—would have a positive impact on campus drinking culture and rape.

It would be great to be able to discuss this important reform without being labelled a rape apologist, but people like Valenti make that impossible. They appear to care more about ensuring that no one accused of rape gets away with anything less than expulsion after a due-process-free hearing than they do about actually convicting rapists for their crimes and discouraging future rapes.

I would hate to live in a universe where everyone who disagreed with my approach to dealing with bad people was branded a proponent and ally of the bad people. But that's the world in which the liberal feminist lives. The debate over campus sexual assault suffers because of it.

Advertisement

NEXT: The un-boycott: universities active in occupied territory

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You’re trying to talk reason to a Shrieking Eel. It’s not going to work and all that’s going to happen is your eardrums will hurt.

    1. Careful, that kind of phallic metaphor can get you burned at the stake.

      1. Stakes are phallic.

        Steaks are rape enablers.

        1. But tube steaks are phallic.

    2. “So why do feminist liberals smear every person who dissents from their extreme, unhelpful, and legally dubious positions on preventing rape as a rape apologist?”

      Maybe they’re not liberals? I’m even less convinced they’re Shrieking Eels. If you actually expect to come up with an answer to the question, and the author never does, it helps to start with the right premises.

      1. They call themselves liberals. They are fascists but they would never acknowledge that label.

        1. It’s the author and editors of Reason who are calling them liberals, and the commenters here for the most part seem to agree with them.

          Do you think the feminists are secret supporters of Hitler and Mussolini? Or just do you mean that everyone who is not a liberal is a fascist but doesn’t want to be labelled as such?

    3. The fact is, if you try talking to this harpie about why it is that when both are drunk it is the man who is a rapist and the woman a victim she won’t answer you.

      A colleague of mine was taken advantage of by a woman when only he was drunk.

      Is he a victim Ms. Valenti?

  2. Feminism seems to have a lot in common with witch hunts.

    1. Can we burn the bitches? I mean uh witches?

    2. Yes. And there is a great irony there which they will never recognize.

  3. Arguing in bad faith and demonizing your opponents as the scum of the earth with the worst intentions (prog-jection) is a hallmark of left-wing thinking in general and not feminism in particular.

    It just so happens that a lot of feminists are leftists.

    Just thought I’d make that distinction since Cathy Young and Elizabeth Nolan Brown are examples of feminists that don’t do that.

    1. I asked my wife yesterday, for unrelated reasons, if she considered herself a feminist. She said she didn’t, but she guessed she was because she was career centered. That is what she thought it meant — women being able to pursue a career if they want one.

      There is a big disconnect between how pundits use the term and what the typical, apolitical person thinks it means.

      1. If I consider myself to be the worlds strongest billionaire would that make it true? We really need some more precise words.

      2. “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people”

        http://www.wickedclothes.com/p…..rity-shirt

        But when I add, “women are people from conception to natural death,” feminists stop inviting me to their parties.

        1. I would too. “Who brought the asshole who always turns the conversation to abortion?”

          1. Seeing as that’s an issue regarding the human right to life, it should be central to the libertarian conversation. Of course, the LP’s stance on the issue is deplorable, so most libertarians just ignore it, which is also deplorable.

            1. Any day now, we will have the technology to turn ANY nucleated human cell into a whole humanoid… Given only that we can capture a living incubator (read: woman) to stick the pluripotentionated cell into. So… Those living cheek cells you flush down the sink when brushing your teeth? Or, that you swallow and digest when eating any food rougher than a liquid? You are a MASS MURDERING BAHSTAHD! Just a few years from now… Ya ready to meet yer Maker and EXPLAIN that??!

              1. Not to mention the BILLIONS killed whenever you have a piece of yourself removed for surgery, for cancer or anything else… Cancer surgeons and obesity-reduction cosmetic surgeons are going to be getting killed by anti-abortion fanatics any day now, mark my words…

            2. I don’t ignore it – I simply don’t agree with it.

              If it were up to me, there would be no death penalty and over-the-counter abortion medication.

              I think its time people admitted that there is a higher value in a collection of memories,experiences and the potential of innocence, than in a collection of cells and an unknown/unrealized potential of anything.

          2. Well put.

    2. “…Elizabeth Nolan Brown are examples of feminists that don’t do that.”

      Sorry, but Elizabeth Nolan Brown did in fact use the word “scum” for her opponents:

      “I think people like [prolife protester Eleanor] McCullen are scum, but I’m sure she’d think the same about me.”

      https://reason.com/blog/2014/06…..cenk-uygur

      This is also an example of prog-jection, since I don’t think Eleanor McCullen sounds like the kind of person who would dismiss other human beings as “scum”:

      “The two women climb out of the car in front of Planned Parenthood on Commonwealth Avenue and Eleanor McCullen reaches them in two quick steps. She tries to hand them a white rose and a pamphlet about alternatives to abortion, and beseeches them to let her help.

      “”I can help with housing, medical ? we work with St. Elizabeth’s, just down the road, and everything is free,” she says, walking with the women as they approach the door.”

      http://www.latimes.com/nation/…..story.html

      1. Yoo-hoo, ENB, I’m trolling you again…

        1. If ENB wrote for Salon, there’d be links to her stuff with heaping helpings of criticism and mockery.

          She writes here, and has a vagina, so the sexless horde gives her a pass.

      2. Abortion! Abortion! Abortion!

        1. The equivalent of declaring your love for war for everyone to hear.

          Progs and neocons are so very much alike. If you oppose abortion, you’re considered anti-woman. If you oppose foreign wars, you’re considered anti-America. The similarities in rhetoric are striking.

          1. Not to mention the religious aspect of it all. Both Christians and Social Justice Warriors have a central narrative to their ideology that ignores inconvenient truths, and prescribes a solution, as long as you give up your freedom. They both ignore science (for a SJW, the idea that rape might have any biological roots instead of men needing to be taught not to, for example). Instead they point to unsubstantiated sources to back up their arguments – the Bible for Christians, opinion pieces and BuzzFeed for SJWs. I could go on, but I’ll let each of you take it from here in your future dealings with these people.

      3. Yeah, I can’t stand her either. Trying to protect the rights of the unborn does not make someone a woman-hater. I have this feeling that a lot of libertarians, who are supposed to be skeptical of the liberal narrative, buy into the liberal narrative when it comes to this issue (namely that pro-life equals anti-woman) because they’re too lazy to do their own research.

        1. Her being ENB.

          1. Hi ProLife,
            Whose lives are you “pro” for? Sperm cells? Un-fertilized egg cells? Fertilized HUMAN egg cells? Fertilized illegal-Mexicans-human egg cells? Chimp fert. egg cells? Fert. egg cells of intestinal worm-parasites that prey on humans? Or only the fertilized egg cells of nice white women in the USA? I mean, your laudable concern for “Life” could be EXTREMELY NARROWLY or EXTREMELY BROADLY declared? It has been my experience that LOT of people are WAY self-righteous as they claim their “tribe”, be it “pro-life” or “pro-freedom”, on tons of issues? I myself am “pro-goodness” and “anti-badness”? But a LOT of these self-righteous blow-hards, when called upon to SPELL OUT exactly what it is that they believe, and don’t believe, and WHY? They sputter and they spill out a butt-load of incoherent and un-related, random assortments of opinions on butt-loads of random and un-associated topics? Me? I believe in treating others the way I like to be treated. I do NOT believe that I am the moral superior of any random person, so I try VERY HARD not to use force or coercion, or to bless Guv Almighty force or coercion, unless society would collapse w/o said force & coercion. Ya REALLY think society would collapse w/o protecting fertilized egg cells? If so, WHOSE egg cells, and WHY?

        2. That’s why fewer and fewer of us use the term ‘pro-life’. It’s an unclear term. Most folks just refer to the clinic protester types as ‘anti-woman’ these days.

    3. Whatever feminists were, although debatable, they are nothing but professional victims today.

      Today, they find any detail they possibly can related to men, and turn it into this epidemic of misogyny, and try as hard as they might to get everyone’s attention on them. Followed immediately by a campaign for fund raising and “awareness” in government and any body else who will listen to said professional victim.

      Jessica Valenti is one of the worst ones.

      When she can no longer claim victim status, her career of self-importance writing will be through.

  4. I would hate to live in a universe where everyone who disagreed with my approach to dealing with bad people was branded a proponent and ally of the bad people. But that’s the world in which the liberal feminist lives.

    If they choose to live in such a miserable universe, that’s up to them, however, they need to stop dragging everyone into their own personal hell.

    The drinking age should be lowered or we need to recalibrate everything to 21. It makes no sense to treat a 19 year old as an adult in some situations but as a child in others. I was in the military and married at 18, but I had to get an older friend to buy me a case of beer to take along on my honeymoon. How dumb is that?

    1. I was in the military and married at 18, but I had to get an older friend to buy me a case of beer to take along on my honeymoon. How dumb is that?

      Berr on a honeymoon – not a bright move in a lot of cases. Unless it’s a really classy beer…

      1. We were kids. It was Heineken so for 1984 with a private E2 paycheck, yeah, it was the height of class

        1. Should’ve gone with the Champagne of Beers — Miller Hi Life.

          1. Was that introduced back in 84?

              1. ’03

                derp, and it said so right on my link

            1. It was originally “The Champagne of Bottle Beers”.

          2. I was going to say that too!

        2. Admittedly in 1984 Heineken was like the classiest beer you could get. Thank Jeebus for the microbrewery revolution.

          1. *hits knees to give thanks*

            Do I say two Hail Firestone-Walker’s?

          2. Heh – I remember when drinking Fosters was like uh, special.

            1. I recall the uber classiness that was Lowenbrau.

              1. Michelob!

                My uncle drank that and thought he was the shit.

                1. When they put paper over the cap, you know you’ve got something special.

                  1. Golden paper.

              2. Nips, no less.

        3. HEINEKEN!?!?! FUCK THAT SHIT!!! PABST! BLUE! RIBBON!!!

      2. We could trust you, at that age, to carry a gun and shoot and kill people, sure… But… DRINK BEER? On your OWN, w/o the supervision of Government Almighty?!?! Come ON, now, who are ya trying to kid, here?!?!?

  5. Lol, good luck with that. Their whole philosophy depends on shutting down criticism because criticism exposes how crazy they really are. Listen, and understand. That feminism is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. it doesn’t feel pity, or remorse and is based on irrational fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you and every white male is tarred as a rape apologist.

    1. That feminism is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. it doesn’t feel pity, or remorse and is based on irrational fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you and every white male is tarred as a rape apologist rapist.

      FTFY

    2. That feminism isn’t just out there. It’s entrenched in almost every major university, it writes daily for half the major news sources, it’s in the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court and may even win the presidency soon enough.

  6. So why do feminist liberals smear every person who dissents from their extreme, unhelpful, and legally dubious positions on preventing rape as a rape apologist?

    For the same reason people who oppose redefining marriage are accused of hating homosexuals.

    It is much easier to attack a person than it is to have an actual debate.

    1. God you are such an asshole,

    2. Are you trying to be as tiresome and sad as RC Dean is/was?

      1. I am being logically consistent. You should try it sometime.

        1. BWAAHAHAHAHAAHAH

        2. Your logic is consistently stupid, so you’ve got that down.

          1. Wow, it’s amazing, instead of having a reasoned discussion it became an instant attack…how can you call that logic stupid when you literally proved him correct with your replies?

            1. Umm, I see you’ve only been commenting since May (at least under this handle). Sarcasmic is a long time poster who has expressed his views repeatedly and often shrilly in the past. There’s no reasoned discussion here because of his commenting history in particular not because his point is making people uncomfortable.

              1. No jesse, there is no reasoned discussion because SSM proponents are arguing from emotion, not logic or reason.

                Same as the liberal feminists.

                Thank you for proving my point to those few people who can think rationally about the subject instead of acting like teenage girls.

                1. Are you saying you haven’t expressed your views repeatedly and often shrilly in the past?

                  You’ve been arguing in bad faith and often throwing a tantrum about it as long as I’ve been commenting here. Nobody is going to have a reasoned debate with *you* on the topic because you don’t act reasonably. Even when people point out that public accommodation law has been abused in states that don’t even have gay marriage you still conflate the two issues.

                  And now you’re pretending that people attacking *you* for bringing up this topic in a totally unrelated thread when you have a long history of posting histrionically about it is proof of your ironclad logic.

                  1. Once SSM became a civil rights issue, it ceased to be only about equal protection because it merged with public accommodation. It became a weapon. That’s when I ceased to support it.

                    With your fervent emotional support for marriage eeeeee-quality, you have given hostile liberals an opportunity to punish others for acting on their beliefs.

                    You have aided and abetted in the creation and enforcement of thoughtcrime.

                    Shame on you.

                    1. Are you saying you haven’t expressed your views repeatedly and often shrilly in the past?

                      “marriage eeeeee-quality”

                      So, you have?

                      Shame on you.

                      You really are a tiresome, not-emotionally-driven-at-all, bore sarcasmic.

    3. Calling gay marriage equality a ‘redefinition’ is an actual, real example of the semantics games you are pretending to be the victim of here.

      1. Thank you for proving my point.

        1. What point? That you’re a whiny tiresome bitch?

          1. LMAO!

            You’re about as self aware as Tony!

            Keep proving me correct!

            Ha!

      2. No, redefinition is exactly what it is.

    4. When all of your position are bat shit insane, ad hominem becomes your best weapon.

    5. You aren’t alone in your opposition to social change through Orwellian redefinition + demonization.

    6. people who oppose redefining marriage

      I’m still trying to figure out how the definition of marriage is any skin off your ass.

      1. Thank you for proving my point.

        1. Do…do you actually think this? Please explain, with details, how JW’s comment proved your “point”.

          1. He changed the subject from marriage to me.

            1. He wanted to know why you cared. Which, since you say that you do, and that it’s seemingly super important to you, articulating why might be considered an important part of your argument.

              So are you going to answer his question?

              1. At this point I don’t really care. I was just pointing out how it’s not just liberal feminists who engage in that type of “debate.”

                1. Move those goalposts! And slither out from the original question!

                  Tedious. Beyond. Belief.

                  1. And slither out from the original question!

                    Answering the original question is shifting the subject from marriage to me as a person. Which just proves my point.

                  2. Move those goalposts! And slither out from the original question!

                    “Can you explain your argument, sarcasmic?”

                    “HE’S ATTACKING ME!!!”

                    1. I said was that people who oppose redefining marriage are subject to personal attacks for the purpose of changing the subject from marriage to the person. I didn’t say jack about marriage itself. I was only referring to debate tactics. The first thing you did was ask me a personal question, presumably to shift the subject to me as a person. Thus you proved my point. Thank you.

                    2. Step 1: make statement.

                      Step 2: when asked why you hold this position, get super defensive. “STOP ATTACKING ME”

                      Step 3: repeat as needed.

                      Christ what a tiresome whiny bitch.

                    3. The first thing you did was ask me a personal question, presumably to shift the subject to me as a person.

                      Why, yes, yes I did. That is because YOU are well known for your opposition against equal protection of homos in marriage.

                      YOU brought it up, whining about everyone is so mean to you about YOUR views.

                      YOU introduced the topic to the thread, pathetically concern trolling about YOUR hurt widdle feelings.

                      Do I need to spell that out for YOU any more?

                  3. Move those goalposts!

                    OMFG can no one see what his original point was? fuck

                    1. OMFG can no one see what his original point was? fuck

                      Sure, the point was that it is easier to attack the person than to make a good argument. Which is true. His point about marriage is still ridiculous, though.

                    2. Well since JW didn’t make a personal attack and asked him to clarify WHY he holds the position he does, his point has fuck all to do with this subthread.

            2. Oh yes, it’s all about you.

              For the same reason people who oppose redefining marriage are accused of hating homosexuals.

              I clearly shifted the focus to individuals instead of the topic.

            3. Uh, I think that was more of a general “you”. As in, what difference does it make to anyone’s actual life how marriage is defined for legal purposes?
              Yes, there are the objections to making people bake cakes and stuff, but you always go to the “redefinition” argument. And as I keep pointing out, that ship has sailed. Gay people marry, legal recognition or not. Why do you object to the law acknowledging reality?

        2. Maybe it has something to do with how often you bring it up, and in contexts where it barely applies (like this thread.)

          Like Catholic Rain Man and his fetus obsession, it seems to point to a character defect. And your smug little “Thank you for proving my point” comeback works to confirm it.

          1. I’m just being logically consistent.

            1. No, you’re obsessed. It’s OK, other than this a few other red meat subjects you are pretty normal.

              1. No, you’re obsessed.

                So, what now? Do you expect me to defend this personal attack, and in so doing change the subject away from marriage and to me as a person?

                You’re doing a good job of proving my point. Thank you very much.

                1. You’re doing a good job of proving my point. Thank you very much.

                  See, this is just you being a prick. You are obsessed on the subject of gay marriage and bring it up all the time.

                  You are trending very close to Tulpa being whiny that people remember arguments that he used before and that was somehow being unfair to him.

                  1. Keep those personal attacks coming! Woo hoo! I love it when people prove me right!

                    1. I love how you revel in your own dipshittery, and now everyone is tiring of it.

              2. What exactly does it mean when SF calls somebody “pretty normal?” I’m thinking your bell curve of normalcy might be a bit uh… skewed.

                1. Yeah, no offense SugarFree, but I read your blog.

                  1. My praise is a rare thing, and he just flings it away.

      2. Because a few activist assholes will use it to sue bakers and photographers out of business, therefore all gay people must be prevented from having their marriages recognized.

        Collective punishment of individual infractions is the libertarian way.

        (Of course, the solution is to get rid of all state recognition of marriage, but then that would be a redefinition too…)

        1. (Of course, the solution is to get rid of all state recognition of marriage, but then that would be a redefinition too…)

          How would removing government force from a definition be a redefinition?

          1. Marriage is currently defined as something that is recognized by the government. If the definition must be frozen as exactly what it is now, then removing state recognition redefines marriage.

            1. So if it’s not recognized by the government then it isn’t real?

              1. Go ahead and play dumb, if you like.

                1. Go ahead and play dumb

                  Yay! The subject is now me, not marriage. Thanks again for proving my point.

                  1. I pointed out in inconsistency in your argument and you played dumb rather than answer it.

                    If you think that’s a personal attack, maybe you are the problem.

                2. No, his comment illustrates just about all there is to it. If the government doesn’t recognize your baptism, then do you not get into heaven? Are you going to keep pretending your expired grandpa is alive, talking to him, feeding him, changing his diaper until the government acknowledges he’s dead and gives the go ahead to bury him?

                  In other words, removing the state from marriage doesn’t redefine marriage; it allows people to define marriage however they please. As it should be.

        2. Because a few activist assholes will use it to sue bakers and photographers out of business,…

          Don’t take this the wrong way. I don’t support the conflating of the two issues. But, why do so many people treat that as “meh, acceptable casualties…”. It doesn’t strike me as a particularly principled stand.

          1. “meh, acceptable casualties…”

            I seriously doubt that anyone here has made that argument.

          2. Because the public accommodation laws are at fault, not gay marriage.

            It’s like opposing a new line of cars being produced because some of them might be used for drunk driving.

            1. It’s like opposing a new line of cars being produced because some of them might be used for drunk driving.

              You dumb ass. You’re supposed to be talking up the faults of the new cars to get out of your DUI charge!

              1. “Could you blow into this tube for me?”

            2. Ooofff. I knew this was going to be taken the wrong way.

              I get what you’re saying and agree. And, honestly, I think even you overstated the connection between the two (i.e. “Because…”; the “baker” case was in a state that doesn’t even recognize same sex marriage). But, it strikes me that sometimes the attitude expressed is opposition, but not something to get worked up about. Is it just that the people involved aren’t terribly sympathetic?

              1. Is it just that the people involved aren’t terribly sympathetic?

                That’s part of it. They are activists too. The only way to run afoul of the (wrongfully enacted) PA laws are for them to state that they are turning down the business because the clients are gay. So you have someone looking to sue someone meeting up with someone practically demanding to be sued.

                And there’s a little interboard culture war going on because the people who scream the loudest about the bakers and the photographers would be against gay marriage even if the PA laws didn’t exist.

                1. Okay.

                  But, just for the record, I approve of same sex marriage and I think I scream pretty loud about it.

                  1. The it being opposition to public accommodation.

          3. I can’t speak for anyone else, but if I just stick to principle, then I’m a complete anarchist. Anything that government does will have up sides and down sides and will inevitably lead to unjust force being used against someone, somewhere.

            1. But, that seems a bit disingenuous. On one hand, the argument runs that same sex marriage and public accommodation are completely unrelated topics. But, then the argument turns on itself and says about the public accommodation “well, there are upsides and downsides”. Downsides to what?

          4. But there’d be “casualties” either way. Why would the hundreds of thousands of gay couples be “acceptable casualties” for the sake of a few service providers prosecuted under an unjust law? Must we hold back the state from doing a great good because it will likely commit injustice elsewhere?

            1. Again, if the two topics are distinct, (and I don’t dispute that they are or should be) why should there be “casualties” either way? One can say it’s an unacceptable violation of individual rights to forbid same sex marriage and say it’s an unacceptable violation of individual rights to mandate that others sanction it. That is to say, why shouldn’t both be things worth getting worked up about?

              1. They are! Certainly! But I’ve seen John and others here try to argue that if you allow SSM, you’re responsible for the non-discrimination lawsuits. And so gays shouldn’t have their marriages recognized by the state until we can guarantee that a few of them won’t abuse non-discrimination laws.

                Realistically, right now, it’s one or the other. And I don’t see why gay couples should be told to hold on until we can overthrow non-discrimination laws, which realistically is not going to happen any time soon. I assume no one here (except American, anyway) would try to make this argument if for some reason we were talking about miscegenation instead of homosexuality.

      3. I see the use of the word definition as a huge mistake to start with.

        Definitions describe what a word means based on how it’s used in everyday speech and writing, not a prescriptive tool to tell us what a word means. The meanings of words change ALL THE FUCKING TIME, and so I would expect the meaning of the word marriage to change as well, regardless of what the dictionary tells me it’s definition is.

        1. “I see the use of the word definition as a huge mistake to start with.”

          You’re thinking speech when the discussion is law.

    7. Except support for same-sex marriage isn’t dependent on tarring the opposition. As a practical matter, the debate has been had and lost by its opponents. The same dynamic doesn’t really play out with regards to this debate.

    8. For the same reason people who oppose redefining marriage are accused of hating homosexuals.

      You’d be on firmer ground here if you didn’t hate homos the most of anyone here, you fucking obsessed weirdo. Just go suck some dick, you’ll feel better.

    9. Nobody cares if you hate homosexuals. You are free to feel however you want. What matters is that your argument is desperate, discredited, and ridiculous.

      1. My argument was that SSM proponents accuse all who disagree with them of hatred, just like the liberal feminists.

        Thank you for proving my point.

        1. No, thank you for proving MY point.

          Wow, I feel almost euphoric. You just say it, and it becomes true. What bliss it must be to be you.

          1. Everyone stand BACK – there is a derp-hole of epic proportions forming.

    10. For the same reason people who oppose redefining marriage are accused of hating homosexuals.

      Not entirely OT; 31% of lesbians reported forced sexual encounters

      Especially because there is plenty of evidence to suggest that lesbians and/or lesbian victims *tend* not to call behavior that, if performed by a man, molestation or rape simply because the aggressor is a woman, lesbian, or both.

      1. For shrieking harpies the issue isn’t even rape at all, it’s the penis and anybody who happens to have one.

    11. I hate to tell you (again) but marriage has already been redefined. Gay people were marrying each other before any state considered legally recognizing it. It is now the people pushing to keep it not legal who are trying to use force of law to redefine things and shape society to their preferences.

      1. I don’t give two shits about SSM, and I never really did. I only tried to clarify the debate by showing it for what it really was: redefining marriage through government force.

        As I’ve said before, I supported SSM when I thought it was about equal protection under the law. Once it started being sold as a civil rights issue, I saw that the purpose was to sue people who disagree. Seeing it as an initiation of government force as opposed to legal protections, I withdrew my support. In principle I’m totally down with same sex couples being treated equally under the law, but not if they are going to use it to initiate government force against people who believe marriage to be between a man and a woman.

  7. Here’s a “hate fact:”

    Among college-aged women,approximately 40% of rape victims report continuing to date their attackers (Wilson and Durrenberger 1982; Koss 1989).

    http://www.academia.edu/291597…..rspectives

    1. You misspelled Loin.

    2. Fuck off american.

    3. I noticed you left out the entire paragraph that proceeds that citation

      A morally troubling prediction of Smuts and Smuts’s hypothesis is that useofsexual aggression may be effective in continuing a male’s sexual access to a fe-male.This does seem to be the case in other ape species:chimpanzee females who receive physical aggression from a male are more likely to subsequently mate with that male and less likely to mate with other males (Muller et al.Chap-ter 8 in this volume);gorilla females whose infants are killed by a male frequently become part of the attacker’s harem (Watts 1989).This does not require that fe-males ?nd these attackers sexually appealing (though selection of such malescould be adaptive if the traits enabled their offspring to increase reproductive ac-cess through similar means:Weatherhead and Robertson 1979), but simply that the costs of acquiescence are less than the costs of resistance.

      Context is a bitch, eh?

      1. I left that out because I didn’t think it made any sense. Do you? It’s the fact I was citing, not the interpretation of the fact.

      2. Most wild animal sex would probably be called rape in a human context. I think male sexual aggression probably is adaptive as it is pretty widespread among species and seems to work.

        1. Then what would domesticated animal sex be?

        2. Come to think of it, most things wild animals do (other than breathe & sleep) would be considered crimes.

  8. So why do feminist liberals smear every person who dissents from their extreme, unhelpful, and legally dubious positions on preventing rape as a rape apologist?

    Oh, Robby. Robby, Robby, Robby.

    First of all, ENB should be making this point, you phallocentric bastard. Secondly, take your logic and go back to your penis world you rape apologist.

  9. The “feminists” and their rape frenzy right now is very much like supporters of the ACA right before it got passed and gun control scum shortly after Sandy Hook. They feel like they’re close. They feel like they might just be able to ram through one of the things they’ve wanted. People are talking about it, government is talking about doing things about it, the buzz is there. So, like they always do (since these are all forms of the same animal), when they feel they are close they go FULL RETARD. They go to full court press mode at all times because they feel that will give just enough push to force through what they want. They can taste it.

    It worked for the ACA, but by the tiniest of margins. It failed miserably after Sandy Hook. And it is probably going to fail here. But until they are handed a definitive, no-shit-just-fuck-off-now defeat, they are going to go into full demonization and shrillness mode. This is what they do, they do it every. Fucking. Time.

    1. I’m pretty sure the shirt thing at the comet landing was the watershed moment. It was already coming, though. I have a friend who is finishing a sociology PhD, essentially in feminism, and she thinks these rules are witch hunts. When your late-20s grad students can’t be convinced to drink the koolaid anymore, you’ve overstepped.

      1. Honestly, I would say it was over before it started. Let’s see: of all the women who went to college, how many believe the “1 in 5” statistic? Did every woman in college with four female friends (or more) know that at least one had been raped?

        Personal experience blows that bullshit statistic right out of the water. That’s damn hard for the “feminists” to overcome, and starts them as liars (or at least exaggerators) right out of the gate.

        The stupidity of this campaign is always what has amazed me. If that many women were really getting raped, parents would be storming campuses and state houses with pitchforks, and vigilante justice would reign. Secondly, young people like to have sex. A lot. So any attempts at creating consent bullshit are doomed to fail, because it would just get in the way of natural human sexuality.

        Messing with sex is like the dumbest thing a progressive could possibly do, and the “feminists” went whole hog after it. Genius!

        1. Remember, 1984 is a how-to manual for them.

            1. I thought this was their favorite cookbook? http://www.amazon.com/Natural-…..al+harvest

              Mmm, salty delight.

        2. To be fair, the statistic is 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted. It’s still probably an inflated number, but it’s more believable for a lot of people than 1 in 5 being raped.

          1. But even then, sexual assault probably includes some guy grabbing a girl’s ass on the dance floor at the club.

            Unpleasant but not the end of the world to anyone with self-esteem and certainly not justification for upending the most basic legal principles of the justice system.

            1. That used to be handled with a slap or a drink to the face.

            2. Not to mention that, if you apply a gender-neutral definition of sexual assault, then probably about 1 in 6 men are ‘sexually assaulted.’ Most men, however, at worst, don’t care when they are ‘sexually assaulted.’ Or they consider it foreplay.

        3. Well, since the new definition of rape is “when two drunk people have sex, the man raped the woman”, I can see where the 1 in 5 comes from. Surprised it’s not higher. I knew lots of girls in college who’d had sex when they were drunk.

        4. Would you send your daughter away to a summer camp or a boarding school if there was a 1 in 5 chance she would be raped?

          What sort of monsters are these parents?

        5. They twisted the definition of rape to come up with that statistic. The survey they base this on lumps “grabbed a boob while you were fully clothed” together with “masked predator drags you into ally and holds a knife to your throat while he rapes you.” #1 would piss me the hell off, but in no way would I be traumatized or even think about calling the cops. In fact, I’ll go one step further and commit feminist heresy by saying that I don’t think it’s rape for a guy to have sex with a drunk chick — even if he’s sober. Because you know what? I’ve done the reverse. And I’ll bet that most people who went to college would say the same thing – – “yes, at some point in time I had sex with a partner who was drunk while I was sober (or nearly sober).” No?

          1. Yeah, probably. And the other thing is that a lot of people, male and female, will go out with the intention of getting drunk and finding someone to fuck. That’s kind of the point. And as long as everyone is conscious and reasonably coherent, that’s just fine. If you can’t consent to sex when you are drunk, how can you be liable for deciding to drive a car or any other bad thing you might do while drunk?

            1. But it’s worse. The man can not only consent while drunk, but can be expected to make a judgement regarding the woman’s capacity for consent, but the woman has no responsibility whatsoever.

              1. That’s because women are weak and helpless creatures that need special protection. Wait, we were talking about feminists and not Victorians, right?

              2. Even if the male is drunk and underaged (and therefore legally incapable of consenting) and the woman is sober, he can still be made to pay child support for the resulting child.

        6. Secondly, young people like to have sex. A lot. So any attempts at creating consent bullshit are doomed to fail, because it would just get in the way of natural human sexuality.

          This is a by-product of a society that shits all over personal responsibility. People actually want to nitpick that they are innocent because they are only 49% at fault. “Yes, I shopped for mortgages and signed these papers but I’m a victim of predatory lending anyway! I consented but the other party is more to blame than me because they should have been able to tell that I wasn’t giving enthusiastic consent!”

        7. True, if that much rape was going on at colleges, 1 of 2 things would happen, depending on how much clout colleges had: either they’d be shut down, or rape would be legalized (at least at colleges).

        8. You have to understand how these people think.

          To them, parents aren’t attacking colleges with pitch forks because their definitions of rape and sexual assault are wrong. The definitions are based on a world constructed to preserve the patriarchy. The definitions themselves are instruments of oppression.

    2. Are you referring to the SAVE Act that criminalizes all sorts of online speech and will make sex workers less safe? Or is there another terrible law on today’s docket?

      Btw, Stross’ Laundry Series is excellent. I just wrapped up Rhesus Chart. Thanks for recommending. And Asher has a new Polity trilogy starting soon.

      1. According to Asher’s blog, it’s all about Pennyroyal, the black AI.

        1. Very memorable character. I approve.

      2. I’m referring to the campus rape hysteria, mostly.

        I’m glad you enjoyed the Stross. And man I could really use some new Asher.

  10. Don’t chide feminists. Attack them and their arguments. Do not compromise.

    1. Cytotoxic, you really need to do this more often

      1. Fuck off Bo and follow your own advice. No one here has any respect for you.

        1. It was a joke, but I hope you realize that I am not Bo. I suppose a man who doesn’t really value the lives of other human beings would have some difficulty differentiating between individuals.

          1. “but I hope you realize that I am not Bo”

            Yes you are.

            1. You’re probably Joe Biden’s liver.

  11. There is some evidence from the last election that these attitudes are alienating men and some women. It will be interesting to see how far that goes.

  12. Yeah, that’s not gonna happen. They don’t have much else.

  13. I’m continually outraged by all those rape apologists defending the Scottsboro Boys. Don’t they understand that women don’t lie about rape?

  14. wait. Jessica “Look At My Tits Mr. President” Valenti?

  15. “Rubenfeld, for instance, writes that colleges “are simultaneously failing to punish rapists adequately and branding students sexual assailants when no sexual assault occurred”, making it sound as if these two things occur at equal rates. This conflation ? that false accusations are as serious a problem as rape itself ? is, for some unfathomable reason, apparently a widely-held belief among seemingly-intelligent male pundits.”

    Ever notice how they conveniently ignore the possibility that the women who claim to have been raped might just be wrong? It has to either be she is lying or he is guilty and since incidents where she was lying are rare that means he is obviously guilty.

    See they need to have it so that her “lived experience” trumps his, and legal precidents as well so that as long as she FEELZ like she was raped then gosh darn it society has to act as if she actually had been.

  16. Why on earth would they give up their most successful tactic? Emotional hysteria works.

    1. Diminishing returns?

      1. They tend to live in echo chambers of agreement. They don’t understand diminishing returns until it’s too late. That, and having some much of their identity focused on their politics means its easier to project and rationalize than admit a poor tactic or bad idea.

  17. Me thinks she doth protest too much. What she really is saying “take me to Warty’s!!!”

  18. This conflation ? that false accusations are as serious a problem as rape itself ? is, for some unfathomable reason, apparently a widely-held belief among seemingly-intelligent male pundits.

    Maybe because a) males are the victims of false accusations 99.99% of the time and b) you want the standard of guilt lowered for sexual assault, which will cause false accusations to be successful at a higher rate?

    And the gleeful hand-rubbing over men being raped in prison some of your cohort engage in might have something to do with it as well.

    1. That’s probably because these women base their understanding of the world on reruns of Law and Order SVU. Being raped in prison is ‘part of the punishment’ for men.

      And of course the feminists basically live by reverse Blackstone’s ratio: better that 10 innocent men hang than 1 guilty man go free.

    1. Thank goodness that fool offed himself or we may never have had the Foo Fighters.

      1. And that David Grohl didn’t accept Tom Petty’s offer.

      2. Thank goodness he killed himself… otherwise the world might lack a band you like?

        What is wrong with you?

        1. s
          a
          r
          c
          a
          s
          m

          i
          c

          take a sedative

      3. I’ve never met an actual Foo Fighters fan. I never met anyone that actually listens to them or buys their albums. So, well, there you are.

  19. They appear to care more about ensuring that no one accused of rape gets away with anything less than expulsion after a due-process-free hearing than they do about actually convicting rapists for their crimes and discouraging future rapes.

    Actual justice is irrelevant to their cause. Being gender partisans, they just want to win at any cost and crush their “enemies.” That’s all that matters.

    1. Gender partisans is a fantastic term for it. I’m stealing that and you can go shove any credit to you for coming up with it up your ass.

      1. You sure talk about butts a lot.

        1. But I’m not obsessed! Stop making this a personal attack!

    2. Come to think of it, it’s the same as w Giuliani & supposed financial criminals.

  20. Cue Botard with the “yeah, but social conservatives….” in 3….2….1….

    1. I think he might be down for maintenance.

      Beside, afternoon on the east coast is Tony’s shift.

      1. Okay. Now you owe me for the cost of coffee cleanup for my monitor.

        1. Oh, I can make it rain. I got all the Washingtons.

          By the way, he was right on cue, wasn’t he? The trolls really get bent out of shape when you talk about their patterns.

          1. They probably have a routine that scans the threads.

      2. I think he’s ‘The Millenial’.

        1. The Millenial is a regular, I’m just sure who yet.

          1. No, I’m just me.

            1. And bo.

  21. Who’s the chick in the pic?

      1. A little…

  22. Nevertheless, fewer unlocked doors would produce fewer robberies.

    Chastity belts! Yeah, I find it most productive not to touch this subject, and chalk it up to my lack of experience being female. The liberal feminists are all-powerful, and they will destroy you.

    I do envy their ability to make victimhood an absolute status. That’s what being a good liberal is all about: not blaming people for harm that comes to them. Liberals could stand to figure out how to better communicate this on economic matters.

    1. That’s what being a good liberal is all about: not blaming people for harm that comes to them.

      There is a difference between “I’m not responsible for all the bad stuff that happens to me” and “Everyone else is responsible for making sure bad stuff doesn’t happen to me” or “Everyone else is responsible for helping me when bad stuff happens to me, or else” or “I define myself in terms of the bad stuff that happens to me”.

      1. But you want everyone else to be responsible for rectifying crimes committed against you. At least in this case rape is actually a crime.

        Libertarians inexplicably cannot comprehend the concept that harm can come from somewhere besides other human beings. It is complete nonsense but it’s what you believe.

        1. Tony, please try this every once and awhile. It might help you out here.

          1. I made a pretty basic grammatical error, but you get my point. I hope…

        2. And liberals cannot comprehend the concept that people have rights that cannot be trampled in a rush toward some ephemeral utopia where bad things never happen to anybody.

          Better 10 rapists go free than a single individual be punished. Valenti and her ilk are so callous and full of bile and hatred for our culture they think getting kicked out of school and a loss of reputation is no big deal if you’re an innocent guy accused of sexual assault or rape.

          1. That’s because they are sociopaths, Serious, and individuals are just pawns in their game against their enemies. Pawns get sacrificed all the time. Who cares if it’s an innocent guy with a ruined life? Fuck him.

            1. Let’s say 2% of rape accusations are flat-out false. If our “culture” changes to where more women are encouraged to report their rapes and sexual assaults to campus authorities or the police and we do this by lowering the burden of proof or shifting the onus altogether to the accused that’s a lot of innocent men getting punished.

              Simple math shows how absolutely nuts they are if they think that’s better.

          2. Yeah, the ACLU liberal in me is dismayed by the argument that false rape accusations aren’t as bad as rape so they are tolerable to a degree. I tentatively agree with the piece here, that the culture is what needs to be changed (particularly the frat culture), and think that interests favoring keeping that culture in place are actually benefiting from the pretense that rules about what people say and think will have any effect.

            1. “Yeah, the ACLU liberal in me is dismayed by the argument that false rape accusations aren’t as bad as rape ”

              Well that’s fucking stupid, and wrong too, you go tell that to some guy who spent 35 years in prison for a rape he didn’t commit.

            2. I’m more worried about the rape culture in public schools that tells teachers they get to rape underaged students with impunity while getting paid by taxpayers.

              You are aware that your that your ‘frat culture’ talking point is bullshit, right? College men are less likely to commit rape than the general population of that age group, not more likely, and college women are less likely to be raped than the general population of the age group.

              The media just likes to report every ‘frat rape’ that happens so idiots who think the news accurately depicts the world panic and support feminist causes that have little or no basis in reality. Kind of like how they love to report school shootings to spin the ‘angry white men are the cause of violence’ narrative, even though white males commit less than the demographic share of homicides, not more.

        3. But you want everyone else to be responsible for rectifying crimes committed against you.

          Is this the part where you use try to use my support for a criminal justice system to justify whatever you like? Or is it some different argument?

          At least in this case rape is actually a crime.

          Absolutely, one that should be punished more harshly than just about anything else except murder, IMO. What does this have to do with anything?

          Libertarians inexplicably cannot comprehend the concept that harm can come from somewhere besides other human beings. It is complete nonsense but it’s what you believe.

          That is not what I believe, nor is it what any other libertarian believes, so you are categorically and demonstrably wrong in this assertion. And how is it even relevant in the first place?

          1. Is this the part where you use try to use my support for a criminal justice system to justify whatever you like?

            It doesn’t necessarily justify all possible things, but you can’t be against a things on the grounds that it requires taxing and redistribution–your favored policies do too. Everything government does requires it. So you have to either argue things on their merits or employ some heretofore unexplained moral narrative that doesn’t self-contradict.

            Let me amend: surely you believe there are types of harm that come from sources other than human agents. You just inexplicably don’t think collective action should be used to deal with any of it.

            1. you can’t be against a things on the grounds that it requires taxing and redistribution–your favored policies do too

              Which is why I’ve never used the “taxation is theft” argument or argued for the abolition of the state.

              You just inexplicably don’t think collective action should be used to deal with any of it.

              That’s a bold statement for someone who knows nothing about my charitable giving habits. Of course, the objection is not to collective action, but coerced action.

              Which, of course, you understand. You’re not stupid. The concept of negative vs positive rights, the difference between government and society, the difference between voluntary cooperation and forced transfers, these have all been explained many times and in sufficient clarity for you to understand them, even if you disagree with them. And yet you continue to disingenuously argue from the position that libertarians can’t explain or back up anything they say.

              And I continue to take your bait in the hope that maybe the conversation won’t devolve to that, despite all evidence to the contrary. So maybe I really am the stupid one. But all I really want is someone who can actually challenge libertarian ideas and values in good faith, so that I don’t become complacent or caught up in an echo chamber. And I’m continually dissapointed.

              1. What’s the difference between the taxation is theft argument and the coercion argument? Is taxation to pay for things you like not coerced, or what? As I’ve said, you want government to do only those things that involve the most literal, physical forms of coercion. It still fails to fly with me, but maybe I’m missing something still.

                I believe that a thoughtful libertarian can eventually discover that there is no meaningful distinction between so-called positive and negative rights. They depend on the agency requirement I describe above, which I argue is incoherent. Example: your house burns down because it was hit by lightning, or an arsonist burns it down. Should firefighters only respond to the arson?

                Your very premise undermines itself. The only reason to distinguish between positive and negative rights is to categorize those that deserve government protection. But what is a negative right that is enforced by government? It’s a contradiction is what it is.

                1. Is taxation to pay for things you like not coerced, or what?

                  Locke (who was a major influence to TJ’s declaraion) saw government and government coercion as a necessary evil. Somehow, you can’t see beyond an either/or scenario. Your line of argumentation was dealt with centuries ago and is tedious.

                  The only reason to distinguish between positive and negative rights is to categorize those that deserve government protection.

                  Maybe the only reason for you. But, for those of us who (once again) believe in self-ownership, it is a matter of principle and logic.

                  1. That approach to Locke lost probably sometime during TJ’s presidency when he bought half the continent from people who didn’t rightfully own it in the first place.

                    If government is the lesser of two evils when it comes to some social problems, then arguably it is so with respect to others. Just saying the words “principle and logic” isn’t an argument. But I don’t blame you–I don’t think you have a coherent argument at the bottom of this.

                    1. sometime during TJ’s presidency

                      He was a slaveowner as well, his hypocrisy is well documented. Unfortunately for you, it has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

                      If government is the lesser of two evils when it comes to some social problems, then arguably it is so with respect to others.

                      Lesser of two evils != necessary evil, but thanks for playing. No need to go further with your “argument”.

                      I don’t think you have a coherent argument at the bottom of this.

                      Apparently, you don’t have a coherent argument at the top of this.

                    2. Actually, a “necessary evil” is by definition the lesser of two evils (the greater evil being what is prevented by the necessary one). Same concept, not sure how you get to weasel out of the argument this way.

                    3. a “necessary evil” is by definition the lesser of two evils

                      No, it has additional requirements. As in you don’t get to say, well we’re doing this so why not more? If something is a necessary evil there is the understanding that you do the least amount of it possible. There is a world of difference viewing taxation as a necessary evil and voting team red/blue (aka the lesser of two evils).

                    4. No, it has additional requirements.

                      Upon further reflection, you are attempting to equivocate a binary choice with a binary choice AND something with degrees. If taxation was something without a rate and varying types, your equivocation might be correct.

                      As in you don’t get to say, well we’re doing this so why not more?

                      See also, fallacy of the undistributed middle.

                      All (necessary evil)Z is (necessary)B
                      Some (taxation)Y is (necessary evil)Z
                      Therefore, all (taxation)Y is (necessary)B

                      Invalid.

                2. What’s the difference between the taxation is theft argument and the coercion argument?

                  From a strictly constructed moral point of view, there isn’t one, which is exactly why there are more than a few anarchists here. I happen to think moral codes need to function in the real world to have any use, and I think an anarcho-capitalist society, while possibly morally desirable, is practically doomed to failure. So the question is, what is the next best option? It’s why I’m probably more of a classical liberal than dyed in the wool libertarian.

                  Should firefighters only respond to the arson?

                  Of course not, but you seem to be assuming that the firefighters must be employed by the government. Where I grew up, nearly every fire department was volunteer. They received some amount of municipal funding, but not very much, and probably could have functioned without it.

                  But even if you think firefighting and other services are better provided by the government, it doesn’t invalidate the concept of negative vs positive rights. Not even close. All you’re doing is arguing that some services are better provided by government.

                  1. Yes, that’s exactly what I’m arguing. The firefighting analogy is to demonstrate the fallacy of concerning public action only with human agency. Firefighting like any government program is simply social insurance. We all pay in on the chance we may need it. It’s no more complicated or tyrannical than that.

              2. But all I really want is someone who can actually challenge libertarian ideas and values in good faith

                Tony never argues in good faith.

                Never.

                He is also a virulent racist and an anti-Semite.

                1. I am being seriously harmed by your continued false accusations.

                  1. What did you say about my wife and her plans for my daughter again, you mendacious fuck?

                    I want to hear you say it.

                    1. I have never once expressed the slightest interest in the composition of your family.

                    2. You’re a goddamn liar. You attempt to insult me by stating that because my wife was Thai she would sell my daughter into sex slavery. You engaged in the most vile racist stereotyping of poor Southeast Asian women just in a futile attempt to insult someone who dared criticize you and, yet, you still imagine that you occupy the higher moral ground.

                      Not only that, but when pressed to apologize; you consistently refused. Yet, you still imagine that you occupy the higher moral ground.

                      And now, the only response you can think of is to lie through your teeth and claim you never said that. Yet, you still imagine that you occupy the higher moral ground.

                      You sad, deluded fool.

                    3. How could I engage in stereotyping your wife when I neither knew she was Thai nor that you even had a wife?

              3. The problem is that neither side can challenge the arguments. Advocating for freedom and liberty and individual responsibility is tough. It requires the opposition to actually think. It requires them to believe that other human beings can make decisions for themselves.

                1. It requires thoughtfulness to advocate in support of slogans? Who’s not for freedom and liberty?

                  1. Who’s not for freedom and liberty?

                    I’m curious about your definition of liberty.

                    Is it anything like Giuliani’s definition of freedom?

            2. Taxation is theft. But, sometimes it’s unfortunately “necessary”.

              1. But only when you say so.

                1. I say it’s never absolutely necessary. I only compromise on the things that “everybody” agrees is “necessary”.

          2. Every time Tony posts, a part of me dies.

            Therefore, I accuse him of murder. The H&R tribunal shall commence.

        4. But you want everyone else to be responsible for rectifying crimes committed against you.

          Oh, and there is a difference between “I can clearly identify a person or persons that harmed me and convince others of the same, so I want the guilty to be punished” and “I can’t identify a specific person or persons that harmed me, so everyone needs to help me whether they want to or not” or “I can’t identify a specific person or persons that harmed me, so everyone should be punished”.

          1. I see that as primitive moralism rather than a good approach to social policy. Whether someone is punished is only important to me insofar as punishment serves a social end (i.e., deterring crime). That’s why there’s no distinction between punishing thieves and murderers and, say, mitigating the harm of lacking access to healthcare. Both crime and illness are problems that can be addressed socially. Nobody’s being punished except criminals–nature doesn’t react to punishment. And if taxes are a form of punishment, then why can’t you be responsible for your own home and person and leave me out of it? You’re arguing that the problem of crime is worthy of social attention but not the problem of illness. I don’t see a logical reason why. The only thing you seem to offer is that there are human agents causing the former–a pointless distinction if you’re really concerned about outcomes for people.

            1. I see that as primitive moralism

              It is definitely based on morality. That’s a feature.

              That’s why there’s no distinction between punishing thieves and murderers and, say, mitigating the harm of lacking access to healthcare.

              I get that, from a utilitarian point of view. So let’s leave morality aside, because my position isn’t founded solely on morality. As I’ve said elsewhere, the ends don’t justify the means, but neither do the means justify the ends.

              So now you are getting into questions of policy. What’s the best way to mitigate the harm of not having access to healthcare? I’m not going to kickstart a healthcare debate with you. But I want to make one thing clear: I’m against government run social programs not only because I don’t think it is a legitimate function of government, but because government social programs have a worse track record than free people of actually lifting people out of poverty and encouraging the types of innovations and hard work that make life better for everyone. For the sake of argument, I’ll even grant you that some regulations are needed. But that’s a far cry from saying that government should be in the business of forced transfers of wealth.

              1. But at the same time, principles still matter. If the only limit you place on government taking action to rectify some social ill is whether people complain loudly enough about it, well, southern Europe is giving you a pretty good example of what happens, to say nothing of 20th century socialism.

                1. All I ask for is a fact-based debate on the merits of a policy choice (and in the context of the modern world, choosing not to have a national healthcare system is the radical choice for an advanced economy). I think the data speak for themselves, but if you choose to ignore global data on healthcare outcomes in countries with different systems, then that’s a conversation stopper.

                  If the only limit you place on government taking action to rectify some social ill is whether people complain loudly enough about it

                  More than that, I think government is only acting legitimately if it is responding to the will of the people. If it’s instead acting according to some set of immutable principles, it’s being tyrannical. (Not an endorsement of simple majoritarianism.) You’re venturing very close to “I hate socialism and love laissez-faire capitalism, ergo we must have laissez-faire capitalism and you can’t do anything about it no matter how many people you get on your side.” Just unearned legitimacy points for your preferred social order.

                  1. in the context of the modern world

                    government is only acting legitimately if it is responding to the will of the people

                    Because who doesn’t love a good ol’ argumentum ad-populum?

                    1. I think the American people are incredibly stupid on the whole, but I’d rather have them in charge then some libertarian dogmatist as king.

                    2. Re: Tony

                      Dude, I just called your argument logically false and you justify it? Lol.

                  2. A lot of that data is problematic, but not all. You won’t find me arguing for the status quo. Libertarians have identified specific problems in U.S. healthcare, many of which overlap with those identified by groups that want a government solution. Libertarians have offered sound proposals for dealing with them. To dismiss that is, again, disingenuous.

                  3. Re: Tony,

                    All I ask for is a fact-based debate on the merits of a policy choice

                    That’s an interesting approach to policy choices that have NO data. Regardless, even in the face of data you will still fall back to a moralistic position on every one of your favorite policy choices, Tony. You don’t fool anyone here.

                    but if you choose to ignore global data on healthcare outcomes in countries with different systems, then that’s a conversation stopper.

                    There have been very few discussions regarding healthcare where you haven’t deviated from the normal “every advanced country in the world except ours” red herring, so your sudden preoccupation with actual facts sounds rather disingenuous.

                    When it is shown to you that actual care in those “advanced countries” has fallen in terms of quality and time, you immediately fall back to the same moralistic positions you always hold like “no one should profit from someone’s life or death decisions!”

        5. From this:

          not blaming people for harm that comes to them.

          To this:

          But you want everyone else to be responsible for rectifying crimes committed against you.

          To this:

          Libertarians inexplicably cannot comprehend the concept that harm can come from somewhere besides other human beings.

          So we go from the topic of blaming to somehow who is responsible for justice to a rant about harm coming from non-humans. That’s quite the non-sequitur.

          “what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.”

    2. Just mandate saltpeter in all alcoholic beverages.

  23. I would hate to live in a universe where everyone who disagreed with my approach to dealing with bad people was branded a proponent and ally of the bad people.

    You know who else was a rape apologist?

      1. Only for “rape rape”, which is like, doubleplus ungood.

  24. Wow. This is a lot of bytes, time and space used on a subject for which the response to these people is, for me at least, “Suck my motherfucking dick, bitch, or shut the fuck up.” And then walk away in either case. Done.

    The End

  25. The truth: A vast majority of rapists attack drunk women. Rapists ? deliberately and with forethought ? use alcohol as a weapon in their assaults.

    I’m guessing that this assertion is rooted in no soil richer or deeper than the cracked, parched wasteland of Ms. Valenti’s mind.

    With that said, please indulge me while I put on my tinfoil hat for a moment, get the straps in place…there. The recent infection of rape hysteria on college campuses (once so effectively used as a cudgel in service to Jim Crow, alcohol prohibition, and drug prohibition), taken with the mania of credentialism that has effectively locked people without college degrees out of upward mobility except in the service and retail industries, lead me to suspect that the Inner Party feminists (safely ensconced in academia and NGOs) are attempting to prevent men from getting the college sheepskin, save for those white knights who are properly indoctrinated in Gender Studies.

    1. Young women who get drunk are totally not responsible for making poor choices. Those men, with their penises, are to blame for everything bad that happens in the world. I mean, penises! The horror.

      The solution to this problem is simple. Teach your daughters how to drink like men, that way they can drink anybody with a penis under the table until they are too drunk to fuck.

      1. Amazing how we went from “Hear me roar” to “Help! Save me!!!” in less than 2 generations.

      2. “Those men, with their penises,”

        I actually LOL’ed at this. It just reads funny.

      3. Too drunk to fuck? We’re talking college age. I didn’t even need to be awake. Like a a chicken with it’s head cut off.

  26. “Binge drinking, as I have noted many times, is the condition that leads to campus rape. If fewer men and women drank themselves to the point of incapacitation at wild college parties in strangers’ basements, there would undoubtedly be less rape.

    This does not mean women who drink too much and become victims of rape are themselves responsible for being raped. Their rapists are solely responsible and should be punished. If I leave my front door unlocked and someone robs me, I am not responsible?my robber is. Nevertheless, fewer unlocked doors would produce fewer robberies. Similarly, a more responsible drinking culture would produce a safer party scene for both men and women in college.”

    The president of Lincoln University noted this in a speech to a women’s conference last week. He also cited how three recent false rape accusations had occurred on campus and how they harmed the alleged perps’ lives. Today, of course, the local newspaper editors are calling on the trustees to fire him for “blaming rape victims.”

    1. Funny how with militant feminists, it’s “my body, my choice,” but never, “my body, my choice, my responsibility to manage the potential outcomes of those choices.”

    2. I don’t even think a lot of those a rape. Drunk guy and drunk girl have barely coherent sex. Girl tells friends the next day. One of them. The ugly one tells her she was raped. She wasn’t aware of it before she was told because she wasn’t.

  27. Do all liberal feminists do this?

    1. I think there is a lot of parroting without a lot of thought. I would expand that inclination beyond just the “feminist” though.

  28. The consent debate seems to be mostly advocated by people who are trying to signal solidarity with feminism and feminist issues as a way to generally advance the plight of women and heighten the profile of women-related political issues. If any social or political opinion is advocated mainly for signaling and solidarity purposes, then opposition to the opinion will be interpreted as signaling in the opposite direction.

    In another context, a significant minority of Republicans see certain issues like the health care mandate or food stamps as signaling against the idea that people should work and contribute and integrate into society – they oppose the idea that a healthy and able person should be allowed to shamelessly avoid paid work. They claim it’s about capitalism and freedom, but many of the same people won’t see any threat to freedom or capitalism from mandatory pre-existing conditions coverage, or Medicare, or a whole string of other issues. They don’t see those latter issues as signaling anything about the desirability of welfare over work, or about rejecting the societal demand that healthy people work.

    Saying that people accused of rape should get a trial rather than being hanged by the nearest tree, is interpreted as pro-rape.

    Some people have some policy positions (like opposition to the death penalty and drones) because that’s the position held by their side. The only lesson they draw from those positions is picking the correct side.

  29. my classmate’s step-mother makes $76 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay check was $21931 just working on the laptop for a few hours. visit the website….

    ?????? http://www.payinsider.com

  30. Rubenfeld, for instance, writes that colleges “are simultaneously failing to punish rapists adequately and branding students sexual assailants when no sexual assault occurred”
    Why are colleges (or DoEd) responsible for punishing rapists? I thought that was the job of the DoJ and its local tentacles.

    1. The problem with the justice department is that when there’s no evidence, they find the accused not guilty. The retarded feminists at universities can’t have men being found innocent, that’s just wrong. So they set up fake courts and hold show trials to give an official look to what is basically the systematic expulsion of all accused. No one is innocent.

  31. Bravo. Great article.

  32. Re: Tony,

    All I ask for is a fact-based debate on the merits of a policy choice

    That’s an interesting approach to policy choices that have NO data. Regardless, even in the face of data you will still fall back to a moralistic position on every one of your favorite policy choices, Tony. You don’t fool anyone here.

    but if you choose to ignore global data on healthcare outcomes in countries with different systems, then that’s a conversation stopper.

    There have been very few discussions regarding healthcare where you haven’t deviated from the normal “every advanced country in the world except ours” red herring, so your sudden preoccupation with actual facts sounds rather disingenuous.

    When it is shown to you that actual care in those “advanced countries” has fallen in terms of quality and time, you immediately fall back to the same moralistic positions you always hold like “no one should profit from someone’s life or death decisions!”

    1. Name one of my policy preferences that has no data behind it. The data is what it is with respect to healthcare. You’re only calling it a red herring because it’s devastating to your argument.

      Let me help you. You can say that despite the fact that national healthcare schemes cost less and have better outcomes than privatized ones, they’re still not worth the cost to freedom. That you think it’s actually a better outcome to have more people preventably die so that wealthy individuals can keep more money that would otherwise subsidize the healthcare of the less wealthy. Thus your argument is that being taxed is a greater harm than being dead. It doesn’t have much going for it but it is not self-contradictory.

      1. Re: Tony,

        Name one of my policy preferences that has no data behind it.

        Hey, nitwit, I said: “That’s an interesting approach to policy choices that have NO data.” That’s a general statement, not a specific one. There are many policies that will have NO data behind them yet people insist on their implementation out of moral imperative.

        You can say that despite the fact that national healthcare schemes cost less and have better outcomes than privatized ones[…]

        That’s a false statement. I would never say national healthcare schemes cost less, simply because they can’t. I would be either mistaken or lying if I accepted they cost less.

        they’re still not worth the cost to freedom.

        Leave aside the freedom part. The problem with socialized medicine has to do with violating economic law, i.e. the Calculation Problem.

        Besides this, your argumentation is dopey. Deferring to freedom does not mean letting rich people get everything. When has that happened, ever? The REAL MONEY is in catering to the poor because there are many more poor than there are rich, which is why you see many more small and affordable cars in the streets than luxury cars.

        1. That’s a false statement. I would never say national healthcare schemes cost less, simply because they can’t. I would be either mistaken or lying if I accepted they cost less.

          They cost less per capita than the US system, by about half on average. So what you’re freedom costs you is twice the dollars for healthcare than you’d have with a public system. If that’s how you want to define freedom, knock yourself out.

          The problem with socialized medicine has to do with violating economic law

          This would be a nice bit of hypothetical bullshit if it weren’t for the rest of the world existing.

          1. Except that the US already has national health care. It’s called Medicaid and it has some of the worst medical outcomes in the world even though we spend over $400BB on it annually. In fact there have been multiple studies which show that Medicaid is no better or even worse than having no health insurance at all.

            If you look at actual medical outcomes and not blind statistics like life expectancy or “equality” as your metrics, you find that the US consistently ranks at the top of the pile. Not to mention the fact that we subsidize the rest of the world when it comes to new drugs and medical devices. But it’s not really about outcomes, it’s about control.

            Further, even though you won’t accept those facts, the Swiss system gives you big problems. While the government there does provide what amounts to vouchers for health insurance for low income ppl, the market itself is still mostly private, yet it also ranks highly in your dubious list of metrics. Finally, you conveniently neglect to touch on the fact that if Britain’s NHS is so wonderful, why is the amount of private insurance at an all time high in that country and rising?

          2. “They cost less per capita than the US system, by about half on average”

            because they control what kind of care is available. aka ‘rationing’.

            Everyone knows this. This is not a legitimate comparison of ‘cost’. an actual accurate comparison would be to do 1-1 examples of actual procedures, how they are conducted, and then compensated, and what the success rates are.

            i.e. say, a common one-off surgery – like a tonsillectomy, appendectomy, ; then also look at something more ‘long term’, say, ‘treatment of people with diabetes’.

            Looking at system ‘cost’ overall is meaningless. The classic example why are things like “MRIs”, which Americans receive at rates 10X that of others… simply because *we can*, because the machines are so widely available and practitioners tend to over-recommend them to ensure they are utilized. There are legions of examples (particularly with specialty pharmaceuticals) where we’re spending millions on cases which National Systems hardly spend anything on – because they don’t even provide any similar options.

  33. If rape can be the result of a misunderstanding & is so common, how bad could it be?

    1. If a girl tells you to wear a condom and you don’t. That’s rape. If a girl you’re banging all of a sudden doesn’t decides she doesn’t want to fuck anymore and you give it just one more thrust… rape.

  34. Feminists MUST demonize their opponents in any way possible, because no part of their worldview, program, or position can withstand reasoned examination by a moderately bright grade school student. They just haven’t GOT anything else.

  35. In this manner, Valenti established that critics of her liberal feminist view are not opponents in a public policy debate?they are the enemies of rape victims.

    I don’t understand why the surprise. Remember, these are cultural Marxists and not reasonable people with different views that yours.

  36. The truth: A vast majority of rapists attack drunk women. Rapists…use alcohol as a weapon in their assaults. They do this because they know that women are less likely to be believed if they’ve been drinking, so they depend on our culture’s continued insistence that alcohol-facilitated rape is a “misunderstanding”…We help them get away with their attacks.

    So it looks like cognitive dissonance is still untreated among shrieking militant feminist hags.

    Feminism is the radical notion that women should be treated as people…but SPECIAL people who are not held to the same standards of conduct or personal responsibility as men.

    Do these adult college women choose to drink? Is someone prying their mouths open, and forcing them to chug booze by the quart? Do they make choices that any third-grader could tell them will impair their ability to evade threats (of any kind)? Yes. Do they show up at frat parties dressed like whores, and then ingest enough alcohol that they aren’t even aware of what’s happening to them, let alone able to protect their bodies, firmly decline consent, and get themselves to safer places? Yes.

    But because they’ve got a taco instead of an enchilada, it’s somebody else’s fault that they’re a bunch of stupid drunk twats who abdicate their responsibility to protect their own bodies to everyone around them. I see. “Oh, but we demand equal treatment.” I don’t think that word “equal” means what you twats think it does.

    1. I don’t think rape means what they think it means.

    2. I told my wife that she shouldn’t walk through the ghetto at 2am. I am a victim blaming rape apologist, clearly.

      1. I was told I shouldn’t go into black neighborhoods late at night wearing a white hood and shout the N-word as loud as I can. I felt so victim-blamed I think I got PTSD.

  37. Can we get Steve Smith’s input on this? Not the real Steve Smith, I mean.

    1. He’s busy raping a deep dish pizza.

  38. After reading this blog post, I’m kind of amazed that hordes of morally outraged social justice warriors have not stormed the offices Reason and put every staff member to the sword. Or to correct phallocentric cispriviledge bias, to the (some kind of weapon that is vagina shaped).

    (Poe’s law: I am being sarcastic)

  39. This is a common tactic, period, something libertarians are happy to use many times.

    Against immigration/open borders? Racist/brown people blah blah

    Pro bombing terrorists? Racists, like to bomb brown people, blah blah blah

    Voter ID? Voter fraud doesn’t exist you racist.

    Pro life? You’re oppressing women

    Don’t want Darren Wilson lynched? again, back to racism.

    Want to drug test welfare recipients? More racism

  40. “The worst offense is Rubenfeld’s apparent belief that there is a “debate” to be had ? as if there are two equal sides, both with reasonable and legitimate points. There is not.”

    She got that right.

  41. This part:

    “The worst offense is Rubenfeld’s apparent belief that there is a “debate” to be had ? as if there are two equal sides, both with reasonable and legitimate points. ”

    is about as bad as the smearing.

  42. I like the sound of that dude. WOw.

    http://www.Safe-Anon.tk

  43. Feminists are increasingly showing that they have no legitimate voice in this debate. They’d rather scream at anyone with a coherent thought than fight the actual issue.

    This article presents two views that, at their core, agree with one another. But it’s the feminist who tries to force the issue into an extremist thing that totally misses the point and, in the end, only harms the victims of rape.

    1. We should keep on with this white men being in charge thing. Seemed to work out pretty well for us? I don’t see what’s the problem.

      1. And what would be wrong with white men being in charge?

      2. What is the problem with white men?

      3. Are you being sarcastic? Try going a day or two without all the things white men invented. Then when you’re back tell me again how terrible we are and how much better things would be if those kind-hearted Aztecs had conquered the world.

        Secondly, how in hell do you get from “opposing stripping away rights from men to combat nonexistent sex crime epidemics” to “white men should be in charge!”

  44. Robby Soave you’ve just shown us all a great excercise in futility. Feminists dont give a damn about opposing sides in argumentation on fact and opinion.
    You are left preaching to the choir about the stupidity and superficiality of the feminazi brownshirts and feminyouth. Zealots dont care for a point of view they want burning and chaos

  45. Jessica Valenti ought to clean the cobwebs out of her cunt before writing about anything.

  46. MS. Valenti has a long history of “gaslighting” or purposely stating a a gender feminist position knowing is may not pass serious review but it “sells papers”, or now “drives traffic”. She is a shameless self promoter, monitizing where she can to, wait for it, make money.

    “Rape Apologist”, really? She shouts about author Warren Farrell, as she and her gender feminist cadre disrupted Mr. Farrell’s speech at UofTor. But she has not read his book, so I did. That really is the core of the screaming of the “yesallwomen”, to build a political movement based on outright distortions (stopping short of caller Ms. Valenti an outright fibber).

    The real evil part of her and her cadre’s views is that once campus disciplinary boards lose in court, this will tumble, and victims who may already be tramatized maybe all over again.

    Report immediately, call the cops, the prosecutors, gather evidence, make the case. If indited, testify, convict if guilty and then punish the assh**e.

    That is the only justice that counts, put violent criminals in the corrections system. That is true justice.

    Ms. Valenti is a hack, promoting her gender feminist politics instead of doing actual good.

  47. “So why do feminist liberals smear every person who dissents from their extreme, unhelpful, and legally dubious positions on preventing rape as a rape apologist?”

    Because they’re Progressives. Their only argument for decades has been slander. Racist sexist homophobic rape apologist. Yawn.

    Who can possibly give a damn what they have to say anymore?

    1. The people forced to live under their policy preferences.

  48. “This is just quibbling over phrasing. Rubenfeld says rape involves alcohol, Valenti says society permits rapists to use alcohol to rape women. Okay? so rape involves alcohol, right?” Maybe…..on both counts. One would think that rape also involve intent, not just inebriation. Blaming alcohol for rape is tantamount to blaming the car for the accident. It’s usually human error that caused the accident. That said, some folks do use alcohol to their advantage when trying to seduce someone but, that’s not the case in every case.

    Let’s be intellectually honest: alcohol lowers inhibitions. That’s why some folks go to bars…..to drink, “loosen up”, and meet someone. Show of hands: how many of you out there have gotten drunk and done something that you later regretted? I respectfully submit that regretting a sexual encounter after the fact does not constitute rape. It constitutes an unfortunately regrettable decision…..to get drunk and make decisions based on drunken wisdom.

  49. my roomate’s step-aunt makes $77 every hour on the computer . She has been fired for five months but last month her payment was $20090 just working on the computer for a few hours. site here…..

    ?????? http://www.payinsider.com

  50. I think the real important question is:

    Did Bill Clinton get Monica Lewinsky’s verbal consent before ramming his cock down her throat?

    Maybe we need new justice standards for politicians. Does a man using his powerful position to engage in sexual encounters with subordinates count as “rape culture”?

    I do hope someone shoves a microphone in Bill Clinton’s face and asks him what he thinks.

  51. Turn it around. Get aggressive with this garbage. When Valenti knowingly lies by using long debunked, fradulent statistics and writes,

    “On the one side, there are the 20% of college women who can expect to be victimized by rapists and would-be rapists…”

    call her a “false rape accuser.”

    Jessica Valenti is a false rape accuser. The antidote to lies is truth.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer……le/2551980

    Jessica Valenti is a false rape accuser.

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/…..pe-culture

    Jessica Valenti is a false rape accuser.

  52. Jessica Valenti is a false rape accuser.

    http://www.city-journal.org/20….._rape.html

    Jessica Valenti is a false rape accuser.

    http://time.com/3222543/5-femi…..l-not-die/

  53. “Liberal Feminists, Stop Smearing Critics As Rape Apologists”

    Surely you jest. That’s been the Progressive playbook for decades.

    “You disagree with the Progressive Theocracy? Racist sexist homophobic rape apologist!”

    The “rape apologist” is only the latest addition to the slur.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.