Rape

We Exposed the Shaky Foundation of the Campus Serial Rapist Theory. You Won't Believe What Happened Next (Deafening Silence)

Where are David Lisak's defenders?

|

Mystery
Dreamstime

Over the past few weeks, Davidson College Associate Vice President Linda LeFauve and I published a series of articles criticizing the campus serial rapist assumption. This ubiquitous theory, championed by famed psychologist David Lisak, is an integral philosophical underpinning of the federal government's campus rape reduction policies. But the science behind it is remarkably inconclusive, according to our investigation—which included a revealing conversation with Lisak himself.

Responses to our articles have been overwhelmingly positive. John Tierney, the science columnist at The New York Times, hailed LeFauve's work as a "devastating critique of much-quoted study warning of serial rapists on campus." Hot Air's Ed Morrissey, The Washington Examiner's Ashe Schow, Bloomberg View's Megan McArdle, and several other journalists, lawyers, thinkers, and advocates all made supportive comments or penned favorable responses.

Which raises the question: Where are Lisak's defenders, and why are they so quiet?

In a recent piece for Real Clear Politics¸ LeFauve contemplates a depressing answer to this question:

I thought my critique of Lisak's work, cited by policymakers at the state and federal level as proof of a rape epidemic, might give pause to the higher education community.  I hoped that belief in David Lisak's monstrous predator would be reconsidered.

When the article was published, I did hear from many people happy to see a light shone on such a flawed theory. Within 48 hours of the article's publication, I had been a guest on four radio shows whose conservative hosts were thoughtfully appreciative of the work. Most of the subsequent coverage was through conservative media, virtually all of it positive. 

I found myself waiting for the other shoe to drop. I had certainly expected to hear from detractors. Lisak maintains a high profile as a campus rape expert and, by pointing a finger at a "cause" with a "solution," he had given college campuses an anchor around which to develop sexual assault programs, a godsend considering the pressure campuses are under to address the issue. (The irony that the pressure is in large part due to Lisak's influence with policymakers is an issue unto itself.) He has also generated near acolyte behavior among his followers, and I had prepared myself for accusations about my motivation or about the harm I was somehow inflicting. 

I am still waiting. To date, I have heard from no one, and read nothing, defending Lisak or claiming harm to campus efforts to curb sexual violence because I had dared to call out this foundation of prevention efforts. Perhaps the article never made it onto the radar of people so inclined. Perhaps they didn't consider my critique or Robby Soave's revealing conversation with Lisak's former student, Jim Hopper, important. Or credible. Or relevant. 

Or perhaps the fact that the media response has come from one end of the ideological spectrum has revealed this a political issue.

Read the full article here.

As LeFauve notes, most of the people who have responded to our Lisak investigation are either conservatives or libertarians, or work for right-leaning organizations (with Tierney being a notable exception). If writers, advocates, and experts in the "mainstream" left-leaning press—many of whom have enthusiastically parroted Lisak's views for years—accept our conclusions as well, one might expect them to say so. By the same token, if they think we're wrong, and that Lisak's theory still deserves its elite status, why aren't they rushing to his defense?

Anything, I suppose, is possible. Perhaps Lisak's defenders are waiting for him to respond first (he has not yet said anything publicly about our work).

But I can't deny a creeping suspicion that many in the Lisak camp now realize the serial predatory theory of campus violence is highly flawed, but don't want to criticize it, because doing so would give ammunition to opponents of the draconian anti-rape policies championed by the federal government.

In a recent interview, campus rape expert Mary Koss, a critic of Lisak, called the serial predator theory of campus violence "one of the most egregious examples of a policy with an inadequate scientific basis that lives on because it offers a simplistic solution." I suspect there's much wisdom in that observation. Too many people like the simple solution that Lisak provides—treat all rape disputes as showdowns with predatory sociopaths—and are thus loathe to acknowledge its shaky scientific basis.

NEXT: Policy Responses to the Roanoke Shooting: 1) Mass Disarmament or 2) Mass Disarmament

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. IT DOESN’T BEG THE QUESTION, DAMMIT!

    1. It’s a lost cause, friend. Which begs the question, what expression will we use in lieu of begging the question?

      1. GAAAAAAAAH!

      2. bootstrapping

      3. “raises the question”–that’s the way it was until 25 or so years ago.

        1. Begging the question used to be a folksy aphorism for a circular argument.

          But so many people have used it to mean “raises the question” that this is now considered proper usage.

          SInce lexicographers go by common use to determine meanings and opportunities for criticizing arguments for circular reasoning are much less common that questions being raised, I’d be surprised if the wrong “raises the question” definition doesn’t become the preferred definition soon.

          Eventually someone will have to invent a new folksy aphorism for circular arguments.

          1. opportunities for criticizing arguments for circular reasoning are much less common that questions being raised

            You must be new to the internet.

    2. Take up a collection to send Robby to Columbia.

    3. Just wondering, are you intentionally calling yourself a jerk, and am I ruining the joke?

      1. 1. Yes.

        2. No

        Just want to see who gets it.

        1. The engineers get it?

          1. Yes.

            One of the few times that a question about engineers “getting it” would be answered in the affirmative.

      2. I wondered the same when i first saw the handle and assumed so. I never commented on it before though.

  2. Which begs the question

    Hmph. I won’t complain about your headline, but I will complain about this.

    1. Thanks, you’re right. I corrected that phrasing.

      1. Thank you!

        1. I pointed out the “begs the question” incorrect-use in the FIRST COMMENT.

          Then you point it out like, what, MINUTES later. Everybody then responds to YOU, including Robby.

          Gawd, you really ?are? the worst!

          1. It would have helped your position if the article hadn’t been corrected by the time we late comers got here. By the time I read it it’s no longer begged the question.

      2. You think that will cover up your serial style and usage language rape?

      3. Son I am disappoint that you caved into the prescriptivists.

      4. I love the trolling. Somebody has to keep the commentariat towing those lions. For all intensive porpoises the commentariat is your bitch. Anybody want an expresso [1] and some mayo?

        1. There is a legitimate argument in favor of using the x.

          1. Too long in Warty’s dungeon doing dead lifts. I am a ruined man.

          2. ohh and STOP FOLLOWING ME AROUND THE TUBES!

            HN IS MY SOLE DOMAIN!

            damn upstart expectoration receptacle

          3. He’s the Cliche Bandit? what do you expect?

    2. Now if only we can get Tropicana to stop making Jane Krakowski say “50% less calories”!

      1. Sic the ghost of Stannis Baratheon on them.

        1. Or the ghost of Andy Dick.

      2. The problem is with the use of “calories” here. No one says “I have less/fewer pounds than before;” they say, “I lost weight.”

        So they should really say, “now with 50% less energy.”

        But do they listen to me? No!

        1. Yes, but then somebody might ask why the hell should they pay the same amount for food with less energy.

  3. “You Won’t Believe What Happened Next”

    That’s not OK, Robby.

    1. Hey, he did answer the question in the title at least.

        1. You know, the question: life, the universe, and everything.

    2. This shit is the only thing that keeps me sane when reading Reason, to know that the writers have the same dickish sens of humor as I do.

      1. Yep. I know he writes those headlines thinking “THis is gonna piss a whole buncha the Reasonroids off.” I wonder if they have a betting pool as to who will bitch about it first.

    3. Actually, I think that was done ironically, or done with a wink/nod to the comments section that pointed out the ridiculous headlines.

      Or I’m totally wrong and he hit his head on the stairs yesterday.

    4. A series of articles were published criticizing the campus serial rapist assumption using this one weird trick.

  4. Any questioning of studies or statistics put forth by “feminists” is inherently anti-feminist. Don’t you know that, Robby? You might not get the next cocktail party invitation.

    1. And yet no one has raised that criticism.

    2. Oh no! Then I shall be deprived of purpose, like an Agent Smith unplugged from the system.

      1. Yeah but then you’ll be able to fly so it’ll be worth it.

        (some of us are tongue in cheek about the cocktail partiez, hope you know that.)

  5. It’s how unconscious bias works. You have a reporter with two stories they could write. One calls one of their deeply held beliefs into questions, the other makes people he disagrees with look bad. Which story do they want to do the research on more? Which do they find more interesting?

    People are good at ignoring things that disagree with them, and when most reporters believe the same thing that means stories that disagree with them don’t get exposure. Not out of malice, but simply because the reporters don’t find them as interesting as the stories that confirm their biases.

  6. But I can’t deny a creeping suspicion that many in the Lisak camp now realize the serial predatory theory of campus violence is highly flawed, but don’t want to criticize it, because doing so would give ammunition to opponents of the draconian anti-rape policies championed by the federal government.

    We can’t end the war on rape. There’s

    1. There’s what? Are you OK? Are you being raped?

      1. STEVE SMITH JUMP OUT AND SURPRISE RAPE P BROOKS IN MID-SENTENCE.

        1. But why did he hit “send” on the post first? Steve Smith like premature postulation?

          1. Maybe he was dicating….

    2. The easier explanation is that many in the Lisak camp have no idea who Lisak is or what the hell this ‘study’ has to do with the campus rape epidemic. The CRE is a self-evident truth you just feel in your heart, it’s not something you can explain with things like ‘studies’ or ‘statistics’ or ‘facts’. Of course, I wouldn’t expect a man to understand that there are different ways of knowing things are true other than just looking at the facts. Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true. Feelings, on the other hand, come from deep inside and are therefore more meaningful and real and true than cold, hard facts.

  7. WTF?

    We can’t end the war on rape. There’s too much money in it.

    1. +1 rent seeker

  8. I guess at this point they’re just going to put theor fingers in their ears and go “Lalalalala I can’t hear you!” The old ignore it and maybe it’ll go away tactic.

  9. This non-response is pretty standard in politics. It’s a form of confirmation bias: ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit your thesis.

  10. Lisak’s theory is almost as fraudulent as pea-based vegan mayonnaise.

    1. But they told me that was the true artisanal mayonnaise!

      1. I’ve also been defrauded by those crafty American craft brewers who have the audacity to call their concoctions “beer” even though beer can only contain water, barley, and hops.

        1. ????

          No one outside of Bavaria ever thought that. And even they modified it for yeast and wheat.

          1. It was a joke. I love craft beers.

          2. I do believe the Reinheitsgebot of 1516 is still the official “law” and is says no wheat…

            1. DISCLAIMER: Every time I argue with rob on beer related issues I am wrong…May your plastic be permanently cursed with brett.

              1. I am all stainless now.

                My hefeweizen is the first of my professional brews to make it out, its received a good reception so far. IPA coming next week.

                1. I am late to the thread. But congrats on making it to pro.

                2. I am late to the thread. But congrats on making it to pro.

            2. It was replaced in 1993.

            3. It originally reserved wheat brewing to the royal family of Munich.

              Later, they allowed others to brew with wheat which is why we have Bavarian Hefeweizens and etc.

          3. The point of the Reinheitsgebot was to protect beer makers who made beer without wheat and protect bakers. Making beer with wheat takes a lot of wheat so the price of flour for bread had gone up which was hurting bakers and wheat beer was more popular that barley beer, so the Bavarian government passed a law limiting beer to barley, water, and hops.

            1. It was to protect the royal family’s wheat brewing business.

        2. Similarly, mayonnaise can contain, vinegar, lemon juice, or other ingredients. But the egg/oil emulsion is the essence of it as fermented grain is the essence of beer. You can’t call something made from grapes “beer”.

          1. And you can’t call something made without fermented grape juice wine.

            Wait?

            1. Barleywine and more especially wheatwine have caused legal issues.

              The latter moreso as it was a term created very recently.

              1. I don’t see what’s wrong with saying “strong beer” or something along those lines. But “barleywine” isn’t confusing anyone, so it really doesn’t matter.

            2. “Barley wine” and “wine” are distinct concepts. No one makes a strong beer and simply writes “wine” on the label.

              Words’ meanings are nothing but how they are used. But it’s still useful to maintain some kind of “technically correct” meaning for specific products. I don’t, for example, expect people to stop calling sake “rice wine” and start calling it “beer”, which is more technically correct. I do expect people not to call cider “beer” though.

              1. I once beered a beer that beered in my beer. It was a beery beer and I had beered to my beer when suddenly there was a beer at my beer and when I beered it, the beer beered beer. I won’t beer you with the beer of the beer, but beer beer beer beer beer, if you beer what I beer. Mayonnaise.

          2. What about abomination that is turkey bacon?

            1. The pro-mayo fraud people think the turkey packers should be able to market it as “Just Bacon” and hide the turkey content in the fine print.

            2. Bacon is part of a pig. There is no suck thing as turkey bacon.

              1. Oooooh, right. Like a pig is some magical creature made of bacon, ham, sausage and pork chops……

    2. If they use my pea to make the mayonnaise, then it clearly is NOT vegan.

  11. Campus rape crusaders should be jumping all over this story, because it overturns an argument against guilt collectivism. Lisak’s work was used to argue that rape is not endemic among male students, but rather that it’s only attributable to a handful of malefactors. I bought the premise wholesale: it seemed likelier that young women were being taken advantage of by a few experienced predators than that some pervasive conspiracy, stated or unstated, exists among college men. Karen Straughan, a youtube MRA who has commented on the rape crisis, used Lisak as the backbone of her argument that teaching women to protect themselves against serial aggressors is a much better gambit than attempting to hold all men accountable for the actions of a few. So maybe discrediting Lisak derails their push for draconian campus policies, but it also opens the field back up for the “all men are potential rapists” angle.

    1. We are all rapists, now.

    2. Except the actual incidence of rape is quite low.

      1. 20%!!!! /derp

    3. The problem is it calls back into question the idea that just because a woman thinks she was raped does not make it so. If most rapes are comitted by a small number of evil serial rapists then yes we should absolutely believe most women who claim to have been raped. However if most rapes are comitted by every day ordinary guy next door types who are horrified at the idea of rape and would never knowingly commit one then it becomes much more problematic

      The reality in the overwhelming majority of “rapes” is that one party will utterly and truly believe it to have been consentual and the other will not and neither of them will be lying. Obviously one will be wrong but they won’t be lying. The question then comes down to trying to determine exactly what happened and whether the belief that it was consentual was unreasonable (should he have known she was not consenting or unable to give consent).

      Feminists want the “victims” lived experience, aka her opinion that she was raped to be sufficient to get a conviction without her having to face much in the way of questioning to determine the facts of the case. This is much easier to sell if there is a general belief that Lisak’s research was accurate and most rapists are evil serial rapists who likely have other victims that just havn’t come forward

      1. The problem is it calls back into question the idea that just because some SJW tells a woman she was raped does not make it so.

        FIFY.

  12. I fucking hate the shitty stock photo illustrations. If you don’t have/can’t license something actually relevant just go text-only.

    1. I would, though.

      1. WTF does trying to boil urine with solar power while dressed like a Giallo killer have to do with this story anyways?

        1. Wait, what is the story about? *looks at pic again*

        2. Eww….that’s urine? Sick.
          http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/t…..778083.jpg

      2. Hell yes

      3. Looks a bit like Alexis Krauss.

    2. She’s clearly on the case of one Kelly, R.

      1. “Drip, drip, drip “

  13. Narrative. How does it work?

    These questions….

    “If writers, advocates, and experts in the “mainstream” left-leaning press?many of whom have enthusiastically parroted Lisak’s views for years?accept our conclusions as well, one might expect them to say so(1). By the same token, if they think we’re wrong, and that Lisak’s theory still deserves its elite status, why aren’t they rushing to his defense?(2)”

    …come across as painfully naive.

    1 – no, one wouldn’t. Because ignoring everything counter-to-the-narrative means your critique remains a “fringe” view.

    (you’re now part of the “Rape Crisis Deniers” set… even if that’s *not* what you’re arguing – even if your critique exposes bogus claims made by “leading” people, and their immunity from ever being wrong is more important than any little research “gotcha”)

    2 – Because it would require intellectual honesty. At what point did you get the impression that “facts” were particularly popular with the “Justice”-seeking crowd? What is important is using narratives to advance the ability of interest groups to gain power / money / influence.

    You’d think the persistence of the b.s. “1-in-5” # should have already made this point clear… that so-called “rape crisis” activists are far less interested in reality than they are a fake-narrative which helps them gain power. They don’t care about real “victims”. They care about a ginned-up perma-crisis

    1. I shit you not: At my son’s orientation last month, they showed 1 in 5 on Saturday and then a different group showed 1 in 4 on Sunday. I thought:
      A) Don’t you compare notes?
      B) Was every student going to summer school raped Saturday night? Because that’s the only way I can see it going from 20% to 25% overnight.

      That is all

      1. Its notable that Robby cites Mary Koss as an “expert”…

        …when she is one of the primary culprits in helping to create that “1-in-5” number out of thin air.

        (as Heather McDonald pointed out = by giving researchers the authority to determine post-facto what sorts of acts constituted “assault” even when so-called ‘victims’ did not label their own experiences that way)

        “…The number comes from a study of sexual assault on campuses done by Mary Koss in 1985 for Ms. Magazine…. the ambiguous nature of the questions and inclusive definition of rape is evident from the following statistics. Only 27 percent of the women Koss counted as having been raped identified themselves as rape victims. Moreover, 42 percent of labeled rape victims, went on to have sex with their attackers at a later date. Clearly, something is wrong. If we just consider women who considered themselves to be raped, the figure falls to a more believable 1/14.”

        Never mind that all this survey-based research seems to run counter to the sanity-checking benchmark that crime-data provides, which shows college students *far less at risk* of assault than non-college peers.

        If B.S. like 1-in-5 can float around for 30 years, i have no doubt Lisak’s thesis will still be trotted out a decade from now.

    2. A lot of non-activist actually believe that 1-in-5 statistic even with all the logic and evidence to the contrary. They seriously believe that 1-in-5 of the women they know have been raped and are just hiding it. It’s really weird to have five women in a room bandying around this statistic and when asked none of them have been raped, but they still believe the statistic with no doubt in their mind.

      1. Honestly: I’m pretty sure these people engage with the campus rape epidemic in exactly the same way furries do with their subculture. It’s niche enough to be exclusive, odd enough to stand out, and panders to a perverse psycho-sexual nexus of taboo and public advocacy.

        Campus rape obsessives probably don’t believe they’re almost guaranteed to be raped during their 4-6 years at university any more than furries actually believe they’re anthropomorphic animals, but it succors an unfathomable dark fantasy in their hearts to imagine they believe it.

        1. The thing is, and I think the point she is making, is that a lot of people who aren’t obsessives or activists just believe it for some reason, despite the apparent absurdity of the claim (not to mention that they surveys they are based on doesn’t even say that 1 in 5 are raped).

          1. I have to wonder how many simply swallow their doubts and acquiesce because taking any exception with the narrative presages a world of shit.

            1. Or they justify it with the belief their goals are admirable and thus a little marketing exaggeration is acceptable.

            2. I think that’s a big part of it. Easier just to agree than to be considered a rape apologist by allt he right thinking people.

          2. That “some reason” is mostly the near-universal tendency to believe that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Most people will say crime is higher than it was 25 years ago, when in fact it’s far lower. Most people will say teen pregnancy is skyrocketing when it’s at the lowest level since it started being measured. Asked how many people are murdered each year, most people will give a figure at least a hundred times the true one. Nearly everyone will say that Americans were healthier 50 years ago, which is anything but true.

            So “1 in 5 college women are raped” resonates with “we’re living in the worst of times” and therefore gets accepted uncritically. Plain ol’ confirmation bias.

      2. Yeah, I’ve been a bit surprised at how many people just accept it uncritically.

        I can’t escape the conclusion that for some reason people just love thinking that the world is a horrible place and getting worse. I don’t know why, though. Even as a somewhat radical individualist/libertarian/anarchist/etc. I can find plenty to be optimistic about.

    3. They don’t care about real “victims”.

      Honestly, this and a couple of other of Reason’s articles, fitting under the title “Why won’t anyone take my academic counterargument seriously?” doesn’t give me the “They’ll fix it!” warm fuzzies either.

      The best I see is that, when there is also a pretty obvious pattern of “victims” *lying*, these ivory tower individuals are baffled as to why no one wants to debate them when they assert, “They weren’t *lying*, the victims were brought up to believe a false narrative.” or “We’re all victims of this narrative.”

      Plenty of people around here laud Robby for acknowledging and exposing the deception and denounce him for *still* offering the benefit of the doubt. This is why.

      1. There’s something to this.

        More and more, as I encounter these malignant social engineers, I realize that they are operating from a completely different worldview and set of premises.

        To them, individual concrete facts just don’t really matter much. What matters is the Theory, and the Cause. Everything else is just . . . irrelevant, a distraction, easily ignored.

        To them, it starts with the Theory (there is a rape epidemic because patriarchy). Knocking down one or two false rape reports doesn’t register, because there’s an EPIDEMIC, damn it. Millions are being raped, so subtracting one or two from that total is meaningless.

        Basically, I’m saying they are delusional, insane, and there’s little point in engaging them, or expecting them to engage you in a constructive fashion.

        1. Read Boomeritis by Ken Wilber who is an MIT liberal.

          He explains the liberal world view to a tee and it will explain why they are that way.

  14. You’ll note that anti-science people like the “Food Babe” and many junk medicine quacks merely ignore the skeptical opposition and get away with it. They know that rigorous science is boring to many people compared to easy answers, especially answers which promote fear and are good “stories” and are therefore spread around widely. Many libertarians are familiar with how much economic nonsense politicians and the popular columns of Paul Krugman get away with because the public doesn’t know any better and because the narratives are superficially compelling to those who wish to believe and don’t spend time examining them critically.

    There is admittedly the optimistic possibility that the “defenders” are silent because they are re-examining the evidence and reconsidering their views. Unfortunately I suspect the odds are instead that those who wish to believe in the campus serial rapist narrative will try to ignore critiques since they will assume most of the public isn’t paying close attention and they can safely get away with doing so. They will try to focus on the emotional appeal of their narrative and likely try to undermine critique if they need to address it as coming from “right wing” ideologues. They will posture as if their views are apriori logical and evidence based and that any critique is apriori only driven by politics and people in “denial” of the issue.

    1. Golly, you sure can say that again…

  15. You’ll note that anti-science people like the “Food Babe” and many junk medicine quacks merely ignore the skeptical opposition and get away with it. They know that rigorous science is boring to many people compared to easy answers, especially answers which promote fear and are good “stories” and are therefore spread around widely. Many libertarians are familiar with how much economic nonsense politicians and the popular columns of Paul Krugman get away with because the public doesn’t know any better and because the narratives are superficially compelling to those who wish to believe and don’t spend time examining them critically.

    There is admittedly the optimistic possibility that the “defenders” are silent because they are re-examining the evidence and reconsidering their views. Unfortunately I suspect the odds are instead that those who wish to believe in the campus serial rapist narrative will try to ignore critiques since they will assume most of the public isn’t paying close attention and they can safely get away with doing so. They will try to focus on the emotional appeal of their narrative and likely try to undermine critique if they need to address it as coming from “right wing” ideologues. They will posture as if their views are apriori logical and evidence based and that any critique is apriori only driven by politics and people in “denial” of the issue.

  16. Maybe because liberal feminist rag Slate published a similar report in April?

    1. Er, December of last year.

    2. They’ve run out of words since then?

      Or maybe they still Just Can’t Even.

    3. The closest that gets to this is

      because the population of male students at UMass Boston may differ in important ways from the population of male college students across all universities, we must be careful in generalizing results from the UMass Boston sample to the population of male college students across all universities

      IOW, not close

  17. Its pretty simple, at least for the hardcore devotees, who you know are coordinating:

    You are being memory-holed. If they ignore it, then the ADHD OCD internets will quickly move on.

  18. You can’t seriously expect facts to sway SJ advocates…

  19. RICO CLICKBAITS YOU WON’T BELIEVE HOW THE COMMENTERS RESPOND DESTROYS EVISCERATES GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH FUCK

  20. “…But I can’t deny a creeping suspicion that many in the Lisak camp now realize the serial predatory theory of campus violence is highly flawed, but don’t want to criticize it, because doing so would give ammunition to opponents of the draconian anti-rape policies championed by the federal government….”

    I think you’re giving too much credit.
    I’ma guess, just like the ‘population bomb’ proponents, they are simply waiting until your work hits Pg 10 on web searches and they’ll start spouting the same lies, hoping no one bothers to look that far.

  21. Robby, you’ve never played Whack-A-Mole, have you?

  22. This… this headline is beautiful, a minaret of pure dickishness in the midst of a desert of straight news reporters. It is as if to say that the commentariat’s churlish weltanschauung has leapt from the comments section — and into your heart. As I wipe the tears of affection from my eyes, I can only say this: well done, sir. Well done.

  23. How does become a “campus rape expert” exactly? Is there some sort of guild of campus rape experts that has rigorous testing and bestows credentials?

    Certainly anyone can be a “campus rape researcher” or even a “campus rape-prevention advocate”. It’s the “expert” part I’m wondering about.

    For fuck’s sake, Ben Bernanke is considered an expert, but it requires suspension of disbelief that a “central planning expert” can actually exist.

    1. How does become a “campus rape expert” exactly?

      I think you have to rape five coeds. Not sure what the kind of confirmation is required.

      Wouldn’t that be a great question at a presser:

      “I see you are listed as a “campus rape expert”. Could you tell us how many campus rapes someone has to commit to earn that title?”

      1. It’s possible one could BE raped to become an expert, rather than merely rape. Still, the number of times raped to become an expert is a valid question.

        On a job interview once I was asked if I would take a drug test. Since I already determined that the interviewer was a total asshole I would never want to work with I replied “How many drugs do I have to test?”

        The bottom line being that you’d better come up with a valid reason for requesting a drug screening before asking me – and stuff like “We make everybody do it” or “It’s a management rule” aren’t reasons, they’re merely euphemisms for “I’m a shitty interviewer and too lazy to check references.” But the drug screen is usually a social signaling device – of how much shit will someone do without asking the relevance.

  24. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    http://www.onlinejobs100.com

  25. 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.jobnet10.com

  26. 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.jobnet10.com

  27. it’s like the theory that pot is a gateway drug; been disproven all day long but nobody cares and they still trot it out as proof of unwavering need for the drug war. If it doesn’t fit the narrative you’ll be lucky to be derided; more likely the serial rapist theory will continue to be a reason for some of these terrible policies no matter the glaring flaws.

  28. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  29. I thought Tierney is a libertarian…?

  30. That conclusion seems reasonable. Modern liberalism is heavily hate-oriented, and that hate is concentrated on anyone who gets in their way (in the case of those addicted to identity politics, this is first and foremost whatever group is the opposite of theirs). The last thing they would ever do is admit that those they hate are right — especially when that means being attacked by those emotionally committed to this particular theory.

  31. “and are thus loathe loath [reluctant] to acknowledge its shaky scientific basis.”

  32. Of course there would not be much of a reaction from the Lisak supporters. I can’t imagine many of them have even SEEN the criticism since there’s so much epistemic closure that many of the type of people who would champion Lisak’s shady allegations wouldn’t read a right-wing or centrist media outlet, let alone acknowledge the matter as anything but typical right-wing kookery.

  33. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.