Rape

UVA Dean Sues Rolling Stone for $7.5 Million, Makes One Hell of a Case

"Categorically false, actual malice"

|

Sabrina Rubin Erdely
Youtube

Today Rolling Stone was hit with the first, much-anticipated lawsuit stemming from Sabrina Rubin Erdely's "Jackie" story: University of Virginia Associate Dean of Students Nicole Eramo has filed a $7.5 million suit against the magazine.

Eramo, who was chosen by Erdely and her editors as a manifestation of UVA's purported indifference to the plight of rape victims, claims the magazine made categorically false statements that resulted in undeserved shaming and abuse. Rolling Stone acted with "actual malice," according to the lawsuit, since Erdely had every reason to suspect that her source for the story—Jackie—was lying. Indeed, Erdely has already admitted to feelings of nervousness about the story's veracity around the time of its publication.

From the lawsuit:

Erdely and Rolling Stone acted with actual malice when they published A Rape on Campus. Erdely and Rolling Stone knew that Jackie was not a reliable source for truthful information about her interactions with Dean Eramo. They had serious doubts about the truth of the disparaging claims they planned to make about Dean Eramo, but intentionally violated commonly accepted journalistic norms and consciously failed to investigate sources and information that they believed would have revealed the falsity of the charges they leveled. Erdely and Rolling Stone were intent on painting a narrative that depicted Dean Eramo as complicit in a cover up of Jackie's allegations and, having made the decision to so accuse Dean Eramo, celebrated their preconceived narrative by including an intentionally doctored illustration of Dean Eramo that depicts her as callous toward a sexual assault victim sitting and crying in her office.

It will be tempting for some to dismiss this lawsuit as excessive—$7.5 million is certainly a lot of money—but most of the claims it makes are verifiably true. By Erdely's own admission, she knew, or should have known, that Jackie was stringing her along. Rolling Stone editors have already confessed to sidestepping the normal fact-checking process during the vetting of Jackie's story. And the investigations by The Columbia Journalism Review and the Charlottesville police lend powerful credence to this lawsuit's claims.

Eramo did suffer as a result of Rolling Stone's recklessness. The story made it impossible for her to do her job, caused her to receive death threats and rape threats, and took an enormous toll on her mental and physical health. But despite all this, she never received a specific apology from those who had wronged her. Rolling Stone, in fact, continued to stick by its story long past the point at which its editors would have known for certain they had completely botched "A Rape on Campus."

It seems to me that Eramo has made a strong case for some kind of compensation. Once again, I concur with Richard Bradley:

Generally, I don't like to see magazines sued, because it's a tough business and most journalists really do try to do their work well and conscientiously. But in this case, I can't be that upset. Rolling Stone's article was the worst piece of journalism I've seen in many years. In this one case at least, I'd say that publishing such crap does more harm to the profession than the libel suits that follow it.

NEXT: Federal Judge Rejects Warrantless Search of Laptop Seized at Airport

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. As usual, there is no problem that can’t be made worse by the addition of lawyers.

    1. Sort of like when ProL shows up to comment. On anything.

      1. Or when Warty shows up. Anywhere.

        1. Did you just call me a lawyer???

            1. A cab. I thought someone called him a cab.

              1. Too late!

  2. How about if “Jackie” just apologized to everyone?

    1. You don’t understand: in this patriarchal rape culture of ours, her claims could have been true. She’s telling the truth…*in spirit*.

  3. If she wins and gets paid, then she will have plenty of cash for those who should be suing her too.*

    *If she is the same dean that put the frat on double secret public probation.

    1. I think that was UVA president Teresa Sullivan. Dean Eramo genuinely is a victim here

      1. Then I hope she gets enough money from Rolling Stone to make all them frat boys rich.

        1. Eramo really didn’t do anything wrong. She’s one of the really major victims here since they actually went after her by name.

          There’s another person on staff there who looks to be gearing up for a lawsuit though I forgot his name. Rolling Stone made up all kinds of lies about this guy and things he said at some boosters meeting and he apparently has video evidence that things didn’t go as they described.

          1. RS richly deserves this attention; couldn’t happen to a better group!

            1. Agreed. I might run out of popcorn watching this unfold.

              1. write to orville – he’ll send more

      2. PBR Streetgang is the best screen name, ever.

  4. Let’s not dwell in the past. Can’t we all just get on with our lives?

    1. What lives?

    2. I know what you mean. At this point, what does it matter?

      My friend Doug had the same idea. He was tired of living in the past. He changed his name to Dig.

  5. Rico, how did Bradley and WaPo make it into the Complaint and you got left out? Your lack of a proper journalism degree?

    1. Not everyone can go to Columbia.

      1. All I needed was a passport and an agreement to be drug mule on the way back.

  6. Honestly, if the “justice” system isn’t going to discourage outright lying about crimes that didn’t actually happen, something has to, and in this case, it’s the civil system. Because if there is no cost to making false accusations, false accusations will go through the roof. If Rolling Stone and Erdely don’t pay, hard (because appallingly enough, the actual perpetrator–Jackie–will never pay), then it will incentivize more lies.

    Disgustingly, the attempts to move the “prosecution” of supposed campus rapes to the university and away from the courts is specifically to allow for this, too.

    1. Sadly a hashtag can’t sue Robby Soave for this whopper:

      “Indeed, bomb and death threats made by GamerGate activists have forced Sarkeesian to cancel speaking engagements and other events in the past.”

      I guess that is why he feels safe to lie as a columnist at reason magazine.

      1. Sarcasm? I hope not to completely derail the thread into another subject, but regardless of what you think of Sarkeesian, that reads as good-faith statement based on the publicly known information at the time…has there been any revelation since then that the threats were fake and/or imagined? I haven’t been following the story.

        1. There is no evidence gamergate activists made death or bomb threats.

          Anita did cancel one speaking engagement and that was because the university would not ban people with carry permits from attending the speech.

          Robby write this a week ago not months ago when all this information was known and made public.

          1. I haven’t followed the whole gamergate controversy too much, but from what I recall (and from a quick Google search just now) it seems that the truth lies in the middle – she didn’t cancel because of threats, but threats have been made on an ongoing basis – even accounting for false flags or straight up trolls, it seems highly unlikely that none of the people making these threats consider themselves gamergaters.

            1. “(and from a quick Google search just now)”

              This search seems to refer to a threat that happened in March of 2014.

              https://www.google.com/#q=sarkeesian+bomb+threat

              Funny thing about that, Gamergate started in August of 2014.

              Another funny thing, all those articles are either the September Kotaku article or refer to the Kotaku article.

              In other words gamergate did not at all involve Anita up into September 17th 2014 but she only entered the discussion when Kotaku wrote a false flag article for the specific purpose of shielding criticism of them by blaming the March threats on gamergate despite gamergate not even existing at the time.

              1. I was referring to these articles that came up when I searched “anita sarkeesian death threats” all of which are after August 2014.

                http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..-at-event/
                http://www.vocativ.com/culture…..n-threats/

                1. This one too

                  http://www.vocativ.com/culture…..n-threats/

    2. Indeed.

      You get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish.

      Right now, accusations of rape reap rewards on campus and probably some other precincts as well. Ergo, you will see more of them.

      If you want to see less of them, you have to punish them.

      1. “If you want to see less of them, you have to punish them.”

        or just not reward them….

    3. “Because if there is no cost to making false accusations”

      On the contrary, there’s evidence that there’s quite a bit of profit in false accusations.

  7. http://www.breitbart.com/big-j…..a-reports/

    But Obama cares

    1. He’s reasonable – I think he’d compromise on having a Completely Neutral And Unpartial Non-Governmental Agency license real media, so as to keep it clean and above board, unlike horrible non-media that only posts filth and lies.

    2. The worst part of this fuckface is how much he makes me miss W. And what the hell kind of fake accent is he trying to do there?

      1. What a faux-intellectual asshole he is.

      2. You mean you don’t recognize it from your faux-intellectual friends?

        1. He’s in the hard sciences. They don’t have time for that shit.

    3. Funny he doesn’t worry about NBC, Rather, NYT and a bunch of other legacy outlets that fabricated stories.

      Last I checked, Fox wasn’t half as bad as the garbage I read on the other side.

      I don’t generally let loose on people but this guy can really go you know what. What an insufferable, disingenuous piece of shit.

      God.

  8. Hey Robby when you wrote this lie:

    “Indeed, bomb and death threats made by GamerGate activists have forced Sarkeesian to cancel speaking engagements and other events in the past.”

    https://reason.com/blog/2015/05…..-anti-femi

    Was that out of malice?

    1. To be fair, Robby also thought the RS report was credible and true at first. So I’d go with sloth – believe what the media tell you unless it’s something you actually have knowledge about. What did Chrichton call that?

      1. “What did Chrichton call that?”

        A great plot for a book?

      2. Gell-Mann Rule?

        1. That! I kept confusing with Dunnig-Kruger effect.
          So yeah, presumably Robby knows that article saying “minimum wage rise increases employment” is to be treated with caution, whereas if he reads “gamers send death threats to female for speaking out” he goes “yup, that seems like a thing that happens”.

        2. “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward?reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

          1. As it happens, I owned a fairly rare and valuable collector’s item at one time, and a buff book contacted me wanting to write a feature on it.
            I agreed; they sent out a photoger/fact gatherer. He shot and (it was a while back) used a tape recorder as I supplied info on its origin, notables who had owned it, and how it had come into my possession. A week or so later, I get a phone call from a ‘fact checker’, and I directed her to this book for that fact, that book for this fact, etc.
            Several months, the mag comes out, and they spelled my name right.
            So now, when I read that in 18XX, this firearm was owned by Y, I wonder if they got the current owner’s name right.

            1. They spelled your name . . . right?

      3. here is Robby’s twitter description:

        “Staff editor @Reason. Former reporter @DailyCaller. Very objective, no-nonsense, just-the-facts kind of guy/writer man.”

        To be fair, Robby is not Objective he reports nonsense, and he is a liar kind of guy/hack man.

        1. Let’s rent a Bobcat and get that sand out of your vagina.

          1. What the flying fuck?!?!

            Is this the reason hit and run comment section?

            Have I entered a new dimension?

            Excuse me but here we praise the time honoured tradition of holding grudges against reason writers who fuck up.

        2. Seriously, man, at this point I’m wondering whether you’re running a false flag long con to paint gamergaters as obnoxious overly sensitive dweebs. The obsession is pretty fucking tedious, especially given that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the going story.

          1. I’m not a gamergater, but have followed the story,

            I thought Robby’s piece, noting that a GG meetup had received bomb threats, went out of its way to include some baseless claims

            Namely

            1) characterizing GG as “militantly anti-feminist”

            …Which is a pretty ridiculous distortion of a large & diverse population of people whose primary interest was simply to ‘oppose politicizing of gaming’*

            None of the “pro” GG people ever described themselves as ‘anti-feminist’ at all, much less ‘militantly’; in fact, none seemed particularly *interested* in feminism at all, much less ‘militantly’ (a term suggesting potential 4 violence) –

            The most rabid critics of GG are actually self-described “feminists” of the more radical sort.

            Apparently if you disagree with radical feminists on any issue they happen to insert themselves into, you’re suddenly to be described as an “Anti-Feminist”.

            2) he claimed that people associated with GG were themselves implicated in making bomb threats

            bomb and death threats made by GamerGate activists have forced Sarkeesian to cancel speaking engagements and other events in the past.”

            Never mind that there is no evidence of anyone involved in GG doing anything of the sort, and that the incident he’s citing was explained differently by same person

            1. *note = i’m aware that there’s different versions explaining what GG was “about”. Depending on where in the timeline you start, you’ll get different answers.

              I think the shortest and simplest explanation is something along the lines of “Social Justice Blowback” …. where a small group of people stirred up a massive twitter-shitstorm … and when the wider media started to pay attention, the Social Justice Jihadis began flopping dramatically, claiming harassment and victimization…. using the incident to gain as much positive press for themselves (individually) as possible. And it mostly worked, as the narrative Robby was pushing demonstrates.

          2. See my comment to tone police:

            https://reason.com/blog/2015/05…..nt_5295495

  9. Prediction = Settle?

    I’m thinking they’ll throw $5m her way and say no one did anything wrong, mistakes were made, etc.

    I can’t imagine they’d ever allow disclosure/discovery of the sausage-making process behind that story

    1. Depends. Everyone claims death threats. If you didn’t call the FBI and go buy a gun, it’s not a real death threat.

      1. oh, you men.

        I meant Dean whassername

        1. She claimed death threats because of the way RS claimed she mishandled the rape allegations. And, ironically, rape threats.

          1. Oh, i thought you were joking about Anita Sakeesafat

            I’m not sure the weakness of her case matters re: settlement or trial

            Because “the process is the punishment” as far as RS is concerned. Or I’d guess.

            But then maybe i completely misunderstand the forces at work here; settlement too soon might spur more people to claim damages? I don’t know.

            1. The legal strategy is incredibly complex. We know that nobody got fired from RS, and, absent legal action, it’s almost certain that Ederly and possibly Dana would have been canned immediately. Ederly at the very least is personally liable for what she wrote, and yet, she’s still employed by RS. It makes me wonder what kind of deal they have in place. I assume that RS is going to cover her legal costs, but in exchange for what?

              My guess is that RS is going to try to settle all of the cases at once to avoid any more bad publicity.

              1. Maybe they could make it up to America by publishing a free online interview with Bob Dylan!

  10. What is Rolling Stone’s net worth? Between this and the Phi Kappa Psi lawsuit, will there be anything left over?

    1. I’m sure GoFundMe will help out.

    2. HazelMeade|5.12.15 @ 6:42PM|#
      “What is Rolling Stone’s net worth? Between this and the Phi Kappa Psi lawsuit, will there be anything left over?”

      Let’s just say RS’ insurance agent will be getting a new yacht next year on the commission increase.

  11. “Rolling Stone’s article was the worst piece of journalism I’ve seen in many years”

    It wasn’t journalism. It was activism disguised as journalism. Erdely knew the claims to be false, and she intended to lie the whole time. She just didn’t know exactly what she was going to lie about until she encountered Jackie. And the editors of RS know the name of the game. They just didn’t think they were going to get caught because they had gotten away with it before.

    1. Yep.

  12. So who has the stomach to go over and check what Jezzies are saying about this? Derpetologist, are you bad enough dude?

    1. Can’t deal with the smell

    2. http://jezebel.com/uva-dean-su…..1703926748

      They seem to be reserving their judgement here.

      Even the commenters seem to be very pro-Eramo, as they naturally feel someone should be punished for their own damaged credibility.

      awkward phrasing here =

      “Knowing how powerful the narrative is against rape survivors… I would make my stories as tight and unassailable as possible.”

      1. The risk that you might falsely accuse someone of a horrible crime and ruin their lives and reputation is of course of no concer. The real harm is hurting the Risk of hurting the narrative

    3. this may satisfy those who need snacks of Jezebel-tardity

      “You can’t seriously take issue with this lawsuit on the premise that it will potentially have negative repercussions for future victims? Can you? Please elaborate if you’re actually serious. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt…

      SameSadSong
      5/12/15 1:44pm

      I can take issue with this lawsuit because it will have negative impacts on future victims.

      MRAs have been pushing for this lawsuit. If it goes through and the college wins, they view it as a victory… a way to say rape culture isn’t real, a potential opening to bully journalists into silence, and maybe even a stepping stone to constantly suing the victims. And because they can use it as a weapon against this site and other feminism sites on the net.

      I can take issue with this lawsuit because I know who the people are that will benefit the most from it.

      translation = this will make opponents of the Feminist Jihad happy – therefore it is wrong, nevermind damages to Eramo, the fraternity, the university, etc. It will dissuade people from making hysterical unproven claims = therefore, we have *less power*

      1. Stamp, the frat guys and UVA are just eggs in the feminist omelette I guess. God those people are evil.

      2. MRAs have been pushing for this lawsuit. If it goes through and the college wins, they view it as a victory… a way to say rape culture isn’t real, a potential opening to bully journalists into silence, and maybe even a stepping stone to constantly suing the victims. And because they can use it as a weapon against this site and other feminism sites on the net.

        Only if those websites engage in libel you motherfucking idiot. Is this person admitting that feminist sites lie about their political opponents?

        1. “Dean Eramo must suffer from lies that cause loss of reputation, rape threats, and death threats, because that proves the existence of rape culture!”

      3. Bless you, Gilmore. Thank you for risking SAN loss to bring joy to us all!

        1. Even if you make your SAN roll viewing a Jezebel feminist still loses you 1d3 points.

      4. Can we call this argument “lynch the black guy because otherwise, future actual rapist black guys will get away with rape”?

        Too wordy?

        To Lynch a Mockingbird?

  13. Can you sue someone for salty ham tears?

    1. Salty ham tears are their own reward.

    2. If you are a Muslim or Jewish, I think you can claim microaggression.

    3. If you could, Santorum would have sued Julian Sanchez by now. So…no?

      1. Truth is an absolute defense.

        1. I thought spraying santorum on someone was an absolute defense. Like squid ink, but more…shitlike.

          1. That is only an absolute defense against Warty attacks

            1. Nothing is an absolute defense against Warty attacks, John. Nothing.

            2. Please. You think I’ve never heard of goggles?

              1. Quick! Spray before he gets them on!

              2. Ze goggles! Zey do nofing!

  14. Those are some dumb cow eyes if I’ve ever seen them.

    1. Great. Now I’m hungry.

      1. Not as good as sheep eyes.

  15. “publishing such crap does more harm to the profession than the libel suits that follow it.”

    ‘Publishing’ and ‘journalism’ are ‘professions’ in the same way as ‘the oldest profession.’

    1. False, Publishing’ and ‘journalism’ are legitimate professions. The oldest is a useful and respectable profession.

  16. Yeah, Rolling Stone fucked up. And this Dean caught some splash damage.

    But lets not overlook that she was an enthusiastic participant in the whole rape culture charade, right up until it bit her in the ass.

    If she wins on the merits, good for her. But she wanted to play the SJW game, so I’m not shedding any tears for her that the SJW game got played on her.

      1. Parties with a possible claim against RS:

        1) This dean
        2) The frat
        3) Drew, or the guy most closely resembling him in real life
        4) Jackie’s friends
        5) UVA itself?
        6) Jackie?

        1. How on Earth would Jackie have a claim? Unless they lied about what she told them, which I’ve seen no evidence of.

          1. She was insane and RS Fed her delusions.

          2. Who knows? At this point we’ve only Erdely’s word to go on that the entire ordeal wasn’t mostly her (not Jackie’s) invention. Given how pathetic the vetting process was it doesn’t seem unreal that Erdely filled in many of the blanks when Jackie, realizing the clusterfuck she was creating, went unresponsive for weeks at a time.

            You’d expect a credible journalist would assiduously document her sources, but… well.

            1. “You’d expect a credible journalist would assiduously document her sources,”

              Hard to believe a credible journalist wouldn’t have recordings of the interviews.

      2. Are there some parallels with the Mark Steyn/NRO issue? Steyn had to shut up and let NRO run the defense. Once he started speaking out, they parted company I believe?

    1. Did she? According to Irish and PBR Streetgang, she hasn’t really done anything wrong here (I haven’t followed this closely enough to know if that’s the case).

    2. “If she wins on the merits, good for her. But she wanted to play the SJW game, so I’m not shedding any tears for her that the SJW game got played on her.”

      I think I will invent Eddie’s Law to cover cases like this “poetic justice conflicts with real justice.”

      If you’re sufficiently mad at someone, you can come up with all sorts of reasons why (s)he is a “POS” or “scumbag” who morally deserved to suffer – even to suffer from a false accusation, police abuse, etc., etc.

      I don’t think that’s a call human beings get to make. Humans need to administer actual justice, not the poetic kind.

  17. As I remember it, Erdely was shopping the idea of her story before finding this alleged incident. The narrative first, data later approach to activ, er, journalism.

    She could have used an actual example of a ‘privileged’ group gang raping a woman at an elite Southern university. It happened during the same timeframe at Vanderbilt, with several football players as the rapists.

    However, some demographic feature of the rapists conflicted with the SJW victim hierarchy.

  18. Not that I didn’t think they’d fucked up pretty badly, but I never really expected much to come of it. The pro-due process crowd has been so cowed by allegations of rape apology and such nonsense that I figured Erdely, for all her journalistic sins, would be kept safe by the eagerness on the part of mainstream pundits and sympathetic journalists to see the whole sordid episode swept under the rug. And Rolling Stone could always pin the thing on an overeager reporter whose only crime was caring too much. C’est la vie.

    To see a monetary sum attached to it is, if not exactly satisfying… not altogether unpleasant.

  19. So I made the horrible mistake of listening to 10 minutes of Michael Savage on my drive home. Highlights:

    1. Claim that after every major trade deal America has lost ‘hundreds of thousands’ of jobs. Never mind that the period from the mid-80’s until the financial crash saw America have one of the lowest sustained unemployment rates in history – Savage still believes free trade makes unemployment happen.

    2. Savage apparently has a thriller coming out called “Countdown to Mecca” about a plot to blow up Mecca. His hero, and I’m not making this up, is a ‘former top rated TV and radio host who lost his job after an organized smear campaign by left-wing activist groups.’ Gee – I wonder who that heroic, unfairly impugned super-genius is based on. It is a mystery.

    1. Savage is intolerable. I can’t tell whether it’s earnest, honest-to-God idiocy driving him or if he knows that the facade of populist idiocy butters his bread.

      1. I used to hear him late at night back in college when I was up writing papers or doing projects. I think it’s satire. The man is a former and probably current leftist. His schtick includes insane racial attacks on any African American who dares to make the news. Whether it’s Condi Rice or Al Sharpton, he breaks into an offensive Heckle and Jeckle cadence when he talks about them. He calls all Catholics “dogs” when he isn’t going to bat to defend Catholics. Then there are his bits about his unhealthy obsession with his dog teddy (whom he allegedly grooms to look like a bear). He claimed to have visions about how the Iraq war was going to turn out. It’s actually pretty funny if you don’t take it at face value.

        1. Even if that were true, what does it say about his listeners?

          He calls all Catholics “dogs” when he isn’t going to bat to defend Catholics.

          This is actually pretty common in certain corners.

    2. I assume by “organized smear campaign” he means somebody actually listened to his show and realized he was a raving lunatic?

    3. A real Michael Scott.

    4. His hero, and I’m not making this up, is a ‘former top rated TV and radio host who lost his job after an organized smear campaign by left-wing activist groups.’

      Write what you know, man.

    1. It’s not just the “what” that I find pleasing, it’s the “how”.

      This is all over calling somebody by their first name. That’s it. No “sweet tits”, no ass slapping, nothing. Just a first name.

      1. So basically the SJWs are pissed because that uppity negro didn’t call a white woman “Mrs.”?

        1. Should have called her ‘senator’ apparently. Clearly no progressives ever failed to call Sarah Palin ‘governor’ and they certainly never used any sexist terms to describe her.

            1. I thought you were going to link to GI Jane

              disappoint

            2. Oooo…that video always pisses me off something fierce! You didn’t earn that title, Boxer, you were gifted it by your constituents, who have the power to revoke it at any time.

              And to think, once there was a time when Cincinnatus returned to his plow.

              1. Well, she may have been “gifted” it, but it’s hers now and she isn’t going to be giving it up, peasant. Learn your place.

                1. Then Boxer should know better than to piss off a commander of the Praetorian Guard.

              2. Oooo…that video always pisses me off something fierce! You didn’t earn that title, Boxer, you were gifted it by your constituents, who have the power to revoke it at any time.

                Unfortunately, the guy she was grilling was a government employee.

                But let me tell you, if I were a civilian called before some senate testimony, and she dared pull that shit with me, I would tell her loudly over the microphone, “Madam, I think we’re forgetting the relationships here. You work for me. For me, do you understand that? For me. Now your name just became ‘shut the fuck’ up.”

                I would then sit back, put my feet on the desk and refuse to answer another fucking question. Then I would become a hero to somewhere around 50% of America when she stuck me in jail as a political prisoner for being uppity.

        2. Uppity AND well-spoken as Biden pointed out.

          1. I’m sure they can bury the hatchet. Maybe have Obama come over to Warren’s place and bust up that ol’ chifforobe for a nickel.

            1. I just went off on the guy but I’m pretty sure he does face enough racism in his position.

            2. + 1 dead mockingbird

          2. Doesn’t Obama call Biden “Joe”? I guess that’s OK.

      2. As gleeful as this circular firing squad of derp makes me, I feel I have to point out that Barry refers to people by their first name all the time. Some conservative outlet recently went apeshit because he repeatedly referred to Angela Merkel as “Angela,” rather than Chancellor or mein fuehrer or whatever the fuck she is.

  20. This term “social justice warrior” has really worn thin for me. Having actually been a warrior myself the word is such a poor fit. Something about a complete lack of toughness in even the most minor ways. Can we just substitute with “social justice whiner” or something closer to the truth?

    1. Can we just substitute with “social justice whiner”

      I’ve been doing just that for years, my man.

    2. I think that’s the joke – it’s mocking them because they’re totally hardcore but in fact they’re total pussies. It’s meant to be ironic.

      1. I’ve actually been told–and I’ll admit I have no way of knowing if this is true–that it was actually originally coined as a self-description by the activists themselves.

        1. “..originally coined as a self-description by the activists themselves..”

          Oh, I am certain of this. I was raised a Unitarian and know their mindset too well. For a long time I have been going along with it – viewing it ironically as Irish notes above. But the problem is that they, of course, don’t get that they are being mocked and only take it as affirmation.

          1. Suddenly, I thought about this:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ68ovUkw58

    3. I use the term ironically since, as you say, these people are the biggest wimps in the world. They fall to pieces over mythological stories and go into psychotic rages when their Team loses an election.

    4. Arthur Chu calls himself a “social justice stormtrooper.” Use that.

      1. “”stormtrooper””

        I wonder if he was thinking “Nazis”, or “Faceless Drone for the Evil Galactic Empire” when he adopted that particular term?

        1. “Thinking”? – you give too much credit

          1. Hey man, he won @ Jeopardy

            A part of me gives him the slightest bit of respect before i strip it away so i can take a shit on him… I tried to get on Jeopardy when i was in college. No, it had nothing to do with Rosie Perez character in White Men Can’t Jump

            actually, i just watched the linked video, and i no longer have even that respect anymore. Apparently he didn’t originate the strategy he used, but just learned it on the internet.

        2. Either way, rather telling.

  21. Rape Rolling Stone. Don’t excuse the pun.

    1. STEVE SMITH AVAILABLE ON SHORT NOTICE.

  22. Generally, I don’t like to see magazines sued, because it’s a tough business and most journalists really do try to do their work well and conscientiously.

    Gesuskrist.

    That sounds *exactly* like a cop-sucker defending another incident of police misconduct.

    1. Know one cares what you’ve *tired* to do, only what you’ve done. So it doesn’t matter that they’ve *tried* to do their work well and conscientiously.

    2. Most journalist do *not* try to do their work well and conscientiously – that’s why most reporting is regurgitating press-releases and scare stories.

    1. In fairness to Soave, who merely concurs with the sentiment, he’s kinda writing for a magazine. I have no idea how much of their revenue still redounds from subscriptions, but it can’t hurt throwing a little anti-karma magic powder into the batch before popping it into the oven.

  23. Texas house panel approves weed legalization. I know that this is a long way from getting approved but holy fucking shit I never thought it would get this far.

    http://houston.cbslocal.com/20…..nted-move/

    1. Dan Patrick will not allow this through the legislature even if it were close but I do think it sets it up for the next session.

      Mostly likely they will just let it languish and never vote on it. There’s only about 20 days left in the session.

  24. So, has CJR or anyone looked at Erdely’s other sensational stories? There’s evidence (or suspicion) of fabrication in many others: the “boy raped by priests” story, the “rape in the military” one, and her “gang princess of Beverly Hills” one, also.

    1. Almost had a happy ending, but it was blurred out.

    2. I don’t know what is worse, that you posted that cartoon, or that it’s been censored.

  25. OT: Yahoo headline you may have seen. *On Yahoo homepage. Can’t link to that.
    white Wisconsin police officer won’t be charged for fatally shooting an unarmed 19-year-old biracial man
    http://news.yahoo.com/prosecut…..45689.html

    Filipino boxer loses to African American. White woman to face off with White-looking Cuban for White House. Mixed race male makes observation on comment board. Hey this is fun.

    1. “Witnesses say protestors eventually tipped over a Citroen inexplicably parked nearby, but realizing their rude behavior they righted the vehicle and left an apology note.”

      1. We need this app.
        BTW, is it true Citroens now come with factory issued rags sticking out of the gas tank?

    2. Bi-racial? He was half irish?

      noted = the story has a headline saying nothing about the “race” of the victim…

      (“White officer will not be charged in Wisconsin shooting”)

      … the photo, however, has it reversed, noting the ‘race’ of the victim

      (“”Wisconsin Police Officer Who Killed Black Teenager Won’t Be Charged””)

      …and the lede of the story opens with:

      “”A white Wisconsin police officer won’t be charged for fatally shooting an unarmed 19-year-old biracial man”””

      I don’t know what any of that is significant of other than “those objective and unbiased Journalists” seem to be making extra-special effort to ensure that all stories about police killing people be first, foremost, entirely about “race”.

      1. Race is significant because we make race significant. A tautology is legitimate because it is valid.

      2. Somehow, the worldview of the most ridiculous college leftists of the 1970s has metastasized and taken over most of academia, the MSM, Hollywood, and popular culture. Racism and oppression are everywhere, causing all problems, and all this can only be solved by “raising awareness,” protests, more socialism, and a complex system of law and regulation that treats individuals differently based on their race, gender, etc.

        1. I hear the engines of pickup trucks revving as you speak.

  26. it seems the left has decided to throw Sy Hersh under ye olde autobus

    http://www.newrepublic.com/art…..s-sy-hersh

    “The response to Hersh’s 10,000-word London Review of Books report is dominated by skepticism, if not outright mockery. CNN’s Peter Bergen debunks Hersh’s “Allegations of massive cover-up.” Vox’s Max Fisher scoffs at “a story that accuses hundreds of people across three governments of staging a massive international hoax that has gone on for years.” Daily Telegraph Pakistan correspondent Rob Crilly calls it a “conspiracy theory” that will fool “the soft minded.””

    I am shocked that Peter Bergen, who made tons of money selling the spoonfed story he was handed by the administration, would be upset at claims that Obama misrepresented the facts.

    Everyone is acting like the claims Hersh made are especially ludicrous and outlandish, when in fact there’s very few things in his piece which didn’t square with the existing story, and he’s actually only claiming that there were very few things ‘misrepresented’ –

    1) how they actually *found* bin laden (tip from ISI, who was holding him)
    2) and what happened to his body afterward (no, ‘burial at sea’)

    well, there *are* a few more details – like ‘how many people did they actually shoot’

    The author @ TNR seems more concerned with the “how could he be anti-obama?” angle

    1. (to be clear = she seems more concerned about the *other* media people disowning hersh because he’s suddenly seen as ‘anti-obama’)

  27. The irresponsible Rolling Stone Magazine will gross the $ 7.5 mm lawsuit amount in less tham 14 days. If you are about revenue, and choose to discredit credible journalist and real rape victims them tou deserve to be punished in the arena you desire, money. Give up the 7.5 mm and move on as she will only win additional fees.

  28. Rolling Stone couldn’t find a real rape case on campus but feminists say it’s an epidemic. So they decided to print false charges, claim sources that wanted to be anonymous, and who would know? It turns out, they are going to regret the day they listened to feminist myths. No matter what the cause du jour, malice is still malice.. By the way, in the 1980’s feminists claimed that 4 out of 5 girls had been date raped. Now they say 1 out of 5. Shouldn’t we be celebrating this massive decrease, or are they making it all up as they go along? There are no snuff movies. Battered women do not go up during the Superbowl. There is no rape culture. AIDS is not a heterosexual disease in the West. It is time to drive a stake through the heart of left wing feminism.

    1. AIDS is not a heterosexual disease in the West.

      ….
      wut

  29. I still don’t get the reasoning that the left throws out.

    This rape didn’t happen = no rapes ever happen? Who, other than progtards actually thinks like that?

    I wasn’t in a car accident on my way work this morning, therefore car accidents are a myth

  30. Eugene Volokh isn’t as optimistic about the dean’s chances as Robby is:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..-analysis/

  31. Bottom line is the far left has created the myth of a “rape culture” on college campuses by taking individual incidents and connecting them as evidence of a larger pattern of abuse. The problem should be addressed, but not at the expense of destroying young mens lives as has happened more than once. At Boston University, a professor is under fire for making comments that illustrate the mentality that has created this problem. She does not claim problems are created by white men, but rather white men ARE the problem. Their existence is the reason for social injustice. Colleges were once a place for debate and the free discussion of ideas, but today they are the least free areas in our society. When people and organizations are as reckless as Rolling Stone was here, they should be severely punished and made ot pay for all the needless damage they have caused.

  32. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.work-cash.com

  33. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.Jobs-Cash.com

  34. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.Jobs-Cash.com

  35. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.Jobs-Cash.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.