Reason Roundup

Trump Says Rape Accuser E. Jean Carroll Isn't His Type

Plus: Migrant children removed from detention centers, wine comes before the Supreme Court, a sci-fi writer imagines a world without Section 230, and more

|

If there were a manual of how not to handle sexual assault allegations, President Donald Trump's responses to E. Jean Carroll could be a case study. Carroll, an author and popular syndicated advice columnist, recently accused Trump of raping her in a department-store dressing room in the mid-'90s. In a Monday interview with The Hill, Trump stressed that, first and foremost, Caroll wasn't his "type."

Here's Trump's full quote:

I'll say it with great respect: Number one, she's not my type. Number two, it never happened. It never happened, OK?

To the president, telling us that the alleged assault didn't actually happen is apparently not as important as letting us know that he doesn't like Carroll's looks. It's a pattern we see again and again with Trump—more pronounced with women, but applicable to men, too. Appearance and status are very often the first thing he attacks about critics; substantive responses are secondary if they come at all. The playground bully playbook.

It also belies a fundamental misunderstanding about sexual assaults.

The old adage that rape is about power, not lust may be too simplistic—but so too is the idea that rape simply comes down to uncontrollable attraction.

Trump implies that there's some attractiveness threshold or physical "type" or standard a woman must meet to be worthy of raping. Besides not being quite the slam-dunk defense he thinks it is (no, no, see, my type of rape victim…), it goes against everything we can readily observe about sexual assault. In reality, rape victims come in all shapes, sizes, and types; and many rapists make decisions based on opportunity, perceived vulnerability, and all sorts of criteria unrelated to normative desirability.

Carroll has been taking a lot of guff from folks for saying on CNN that people often think rape is "sexy." Republicans have been trying to frame this as Carroll herself endorsing the idea that rape is "sexy," and that this is evidence of Carroll being crazy and unreliable.

I make no judgment about the overarching allegations. But I do think this is an almost willfully uncharitable reading of Carroll's remarks. Many people—including the president of the United States/the man she's accusing—do indeed act like rape comes down to a victim's lust-worthiness and an assailant's uncontrollable need to act on that.

Prior to speaking to The Hill on Monday, Trump told reporters over the weekend that he had "no idea" who Carroll was.


FREE MINDS

Science fiction writer Cory Doctorow has another excellent piece about regulating speech online. As part of The New York Times' "Op-Eds From the Future" series (the conceit is that these are pieces we might read in "10, 20 or even 100 years"), Doctorow imagines a world without Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—i.e., the world both Republicans and Democrats are currently pushing for—and the protection it provides for companies to permit free speech online. From Doctorow's piece:

The platforms and personal websites are fine if you want to talk about sports, relate your kids' latest escapades or shop. But if you want to write something about how the platforms and government legislation can't tell the difference between sex trafficking and sex, nudity and pornography, terrorism investigations and terrorism itself or copyright infringement and parody, you're out of luck. Any one of those keywords will give the filters an incurable case of machine anxiety — but all of them together? Forget it.

If you're thinking, "Well, all that stuff belongs in the newspaper," then you've fallen into a trap: Democracies aren't strengthened when a professional class gets to tell us what our opinions are allowed to be.

And the worst part is, the new regulations haven't ended harassment, extremism or disinformation. Hardly a day goes by without some post full of outright Naziism, flat-eartherism and climate trutherism going viral. There are whole armies of Nazis and conspiracy theorists who do nothing but test the filters, day and night, using custom software to find the adversarial examples that slip past the filters' machine-learning classifiers.

It didn't have to be this way.

Read the rest here.


FREE MARKETS

SCOTUS considers wine. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision this week in Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Zackary Blair et al, a case Wine Spectator magazine calls "the biggest case concerning alcohol in 14 years."

The case "deals with the constitutionality of Tennessee's residency requirement for alcohol retailers, but some are hoping for—or dreading—a broad ruling with larger consequences for how Americans buy wine," the magazine notes. More details about the arguments and what's at stake here


FOLLOWUPS

Some progress on migrant-child detention centers follows an AP investigation: 

Meanwhile, some Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials may be getting fed up with Trump's extreme politicization of their work and lack of attention to practical details. After Trump tweeted last week about massive ICE raids to come in 10 major cities, the New Yorker's Jonathan Blitzer spoke to one officer:

"Almost nobody was looking forward to this operation," the officer said. "It was a boondoggle, a nightmare." Even on the eve of the operation, many of the most important details remained unresolved. "This was a family op. So where are we going to put the families? There's no room to detain them, so are we going to put them in hotels?" the officer said. On Friday, an answer came down from ice leadership: the families would be placed in hotels while ice figured out what to do with them. That, in turn, raised other questions. "So the families are in hotels, but who's going to watch them?" the officer continued. "What happens if the person we arrest has a U.S.-citizen child? What do we do with the children? Do we need to get booster seats for the vans? Should we get the kids toys to play with?" Trump's tweet broadcasting the operation had also created a safety issue for the officers involved. "No police agency goes out and says, 'Tomorrow, between four and eight, we're going to be in these neighborhoods,'" the officer said.

More here.


QUICK HITS

  • The more you know:

Advertisement

NEXT: Facebook Posts Lewdly Insulting Elected Official Are Criminally Punishable (at Least If They Relate to a Private Dispute)

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. To the president, telling us that the alleged assault didn’t actually happen is apparently not as important as letting us know that he doesn’t like Carroll’s looks.

    Trump will always attack. Usually indelicately.

    1. Hello.

      “To the president, telling us that the alleged assault didn’t actually happen is apparently not as important as letting us know that he doesn’t like Carroll’s looks.”

      When I use ‘not my type’ I don’t always mean to point to the looks. I’ve said it about really good looking women but to point out plainly ‘she’s not my type’. It could be he means that here but let’s not delve into what he’s thinking.

      1. lol. He says exactly what he thinks, don’t think to hard about it.

        1. Lol. I agree.

        2. Agreed. He doesn’t think too hard about it. We shouldn’t either.

      2. Very true, Rufus.

        I too have used the phrase about women who are very good looking by pretty much anyone’s standards, including mine, but who simply are not my style.

        Women do this as well, by the way. My girlfriend has mentioned various Hollywood stars that many women find attractive as being “pretty boys” who are not her type. I think it’s a common way to use the phrase.

        Still, in ENB’s defence, I agree that rape is likely much more about humiliation and power than about irresistible attraction.

        1. I think ENB has been reading too many pop psychology books. If you’re coming on to someone in a department store changing room, it’s far more likely to be about lust than about establishing dominance in the boardroom.

        2. The proper turn of phrase would be “Ma’am, please do not flatter yourself”

    2. Hes making a joke of the situation because he knows it didnt happen and this woman is blatantly lying to make a buck. Why should he be respectful? Reason has gotten weird.

      1. the woman has already said on CNN that he didn’t even touch her so i think it was her fantasy or she’s gone senile

        1. He raped her by not touching her, taking away her opportunity for victimization.

        2. I read her description and it sounds like there was a lot of touching going on. And most of it in appropriate touching. So where did you get the he did not touch her line from?

    3. To the rest of us, “not my type” is hilarious Twitting. ENB pretends to take it seriously.

      1. I’m bet she actually believes this bullshit the same way that she still believes that the “Steele Dossier” is completely factual.

        1. Steele Dossier sounds like a good band name

      2. To be fair, it’s a legitimate claim. Trump’s pussyhounding history shows that he bangs models and porn stars, not obscure magazine editors that have passed into their menopausal years.

        The best part was her claim that he did this in the dressing room of a high-traffic Manhattan clothing store in the middle of the day, and not one attendant apparently heard the supposed commotion and went to investigate. The whole scenario is written like a boilerplate plot line from SVU or a scene from a harlequin bodice-ripper.

        1. I support the notions expressed in your second paragraph.

        2. It isn’t just “written like a boilerplate line from SVU.” It is literally lifted word for word from an episode of SVU:
          https://twitter.com/iheartmindy/status/1143688136465244160

  2. Democracies aren’t strengthened when a professional class gets to tell us what our opinions are allowed to be.

    What if the professional class thinks the way I do?

  3. “Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke wants to impose a “war tax” on people who don’t have family members in the military.”

    We already have a *war tax* it’s called using tax money to pay for war! Wtf

    1. Yeah, here I was thinking that I’m already paying enough fucking war taxes.

    2. As a veteran, I am owed reparations. Everybody else is getting reparations, where are mine dammit!!!

      1. You knew what you were getting into…

        /A certain former US President

    3. There’s always reinstatement of the draft.

    4. I’m not sure whom he thinks he’s actually appealing to with a proposal like this. None of the idiot college student/suburban housewife demographics that he primarily appeals to give all that much of a damn about the military, and most military folks I’ve talked to think he’s a dork, like an overeager poodle who decided one day he was going to be President.

      What the hell is it with Gen-X and Millennial progressives and their intellectually retarded proposals? Do they just have inherently less talent at life in general than their forebears?

      1. When you’re helicoptered and safe-spaced, and have nothing to fight for other than a position on the intersectionality matrix, it may dull your acquisition of a skill set.

      2. Most military folks I know are big fans…

    5. I’m not sure if he realizes it, but his war tax will hit the Democrats the hardest. Because guess which of the two monopoly parties tends to have adherents with family members in the military. Come one, guess.

      Hint: It’s not the Green Party.

    6. and why should people who can’t serve pay for those who choose to serve

      1. its like taxing people who were smart enough to not break their neck by jumping into the shallow end of the pool

  4. Almost nobody was looking forward to this operation…

    You want the commander-in-chief of the WHOLE COUNTRY to work out the minutiae of your job for you? What kind of armed bureaucrat are you, anyway? Sure, easy chicken processing plant roundups are fun, but when tasked with complicated-

    TBH, I’ve lost track of who I’m criticizing here.

    1. I assumed it was the kids on your lawn.

  5. A much-hyped, decade-old study about the differences between conservative and liberal reactions to threats may be junk science.

    That cliched libertarian reaction to junk science.

    1. Arguably the bigger story here is not just that it’s junk science but that when the researches who found that the original study’s results couldn’t be replicated submitted their study to Science for peer review, it was rejected and Science Magazine declared that it confirmed the original study (when in fact it had done just the opposite) and therefore wasn’t worthy even of peer review, let alone publication.

  6. I appreciate the consistency of siding with a feminist lunatic rather than reality. Good for you

    *taps finger on nose while making “boop” sound*

    1. She brags about keeping the ‘coat dress’ as a souvenir, hanging in the closet for 23 years….

      1. Does she shop at the same place as Monica Lewinsky?

        1. Yes, “Sluts R Us”.

  7. I make no judgment about the overarching allegations.

    Please. Carroll’s story is even more obviously false than the crazy Kavanaugh accuser’s. It’s clearly a ploy to sell copies of her book. These things are so obvious to anyone without TDS

    1. Plus, of course he’s gonna go on the offensive. The accusation puts you on the defensive and too many times we’ve seen ‘defence is for losers’ as the accuser gains the upper hand and never loses its grip. Even in cases on campuses where men accused of raped win in court and still get kicked out.

      Now, it could very well be true this time (not likely as it doesn’t pass the smell test) he did what he’s accused of doing but let it all play out. The timing, it’s indeed worth noting, is suspicious.

      1. Like Trump shops in department stores.

        1. I think one of the women accusing him said he assaulted her on a commercial flight so like there’s a pattern there. Maybe he’s an exhibitionist.

          1. Trump assaulted me at an Aldi’s. I didn’t have a quarter for the shopping cart and he told me he’d make me a great deal in exchange for one.

            1. I actually am surprised you haven’t come forward yet accusing homeless man Donald Trump. It was him he was in Poughkeepsie in 2015.

          2. The one who claimed he lifted the chair arm up on a model of plane whose arms didnt go up?

            1. In fairness riding a commercial flight is an actual assault on a persons senses.

    2. Would it really surprise anyone to learn Donald Trump had sexually assaulted anyone? really? Yet they bring out these loons.

      1. Not at all.

        It’s just strange how all this comes out now. When he was in Hollywood nothing.

        But that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. For sure.

      2. I believe most of Hollywood has committed assault. Yet the media and the left glorifies them. So dont give a shit what they think of trump.

        But at least find a credible accuser.

        1. While I do think rich Hollywood types think they can get away with anything, rape and sexual assault are very different than buyers guilt (i.e. giving head for a movie part).

      3. At this point?

        Yea, it kinda would

    3. I don’t like the idea that it’s not rape if the victim comes forward years later only when the rapist is running for office or otherwise hits the news screens. They idea that they’ll wait until the right day in October to make their announcement is rubbish.

      But in this instance the so-called victim is suspicious as all hell. Why come forward now, instead of during the election? Or after the nomination? Or any other time before now? She’s clearly a competent and outspoken person, so why wait until now to break the silence?

      I’m not saying she must be making it up, but I do want some clear answers as to way she waited until now. Until then I refuse to hop onto the bandwagon.

      1. The reality bandwagon awaits your arrival

      2. Evidently, Most victims dont ever bring up crimes perpetrated against them.

        Waiting to report a crime years after the crime was committed is just not fair for anyone. Its why we have statutes of limitation.

  8. Constitution: Wrong. https://t.co/ywophIcF0X

    — Justin Amash (@justinamash) June 25, 2019

    Congress: Meh.

    1. What I find funny are the comments talking about remember when you complained about Obama doing it? What they don’t acknowledge is Obama got away with doing it. So will Trump.

      1. I honestly don’t know why a President wouldn’t send a request for authorization to use military force to Congress for every attack, if for no other reason than to cover himself politically.

        1. Lefties in Congress blab everything and hate America.

          Blows your element of surprise right out of the water.

    2. Well I guess Amash isnt done proving hes a shitty legal analyst. The courts have long held the executive allowance on responses to armed conflicts, generally thought of as a 60 day window to allow a response as Congress organizes.

      Way to go amash.

      1. Wouldn’t that be under the War Powers Act? If so, then congress has already authorized a “strike on Iran” or anyone else within the time window. That doesn’t mean that if the Act were repealed the president could still strike without congressional approval.

  9. If there were a manual of how not to handle sexual assault allegations, President Donald Trump’s responses to E. Jean Carroll could be a case study.

    The leftist manual for handling sexual assault allegations — humbly and shamefacedly step down so one of our guys can replace you, then go outside and get run over by a truck

    1. Yeah, I scratched my head at that comment as well. Apologies don’t seem to work with the corporate media. Not that I have any sympathy for Trump, but surely he’s withstood enough shit throwing from the likes of CNN to prove that he must have some idea what he is doing.

  10. The law-and-order-loving crowd at The Federalist are inexplicably selling “Kamala Is a Cop” t-shirts…

    I believe that’s likely a dig at her would-be base.

    1. Some guys are all about that base, ’bout that base.

      1. Booooooo

        Worst
        Song
        Ever

        1. I know you’re lying cuz your lips are moving.

    2. It should have been “Kamala is a Narc.”

  11. If there were a manual of how not to handle sexual assault allegations, President Donald Trump’s responses to E. Jean Carroll could be a case study.

    Clinton handled it so much better, and often.

  12. “Some progress on migrant-child detention centers follows an AP investigation”

    Reason needs to call them what they are — CONCENTRATION CAMPS.

    #AbolishConcentrationCamps
    #OpenBorders
    #LibertariansForAOC

  13. O’Rourke wants to impose a “war tax” on people who don’t have family members in the military.

    Brilliant!

    Impose a “first responder tax” on people who don’t have family members who are police, firefighters, or EMTs.

    Impose an “infrastructure tax” on people who don’t have family members in the civil engineering or highway construction business.

    Impose a “STEM tax” on people who don’t have family members who are technology geeks.

    1. Impose a “moron” tax on people who don’t have any family members who are Democrats …

      1. Impose a “repopulation tax” on people who don’t have any family members.

        1. Impose a “penaltax” on people who don’t have penals.

      2. A tax tax.

  14. If you haven’t seen the Chicago police video of Juisse Smollette standing there with the nose still around his neck as the police enter his apartment after he reported his fake hate crime, do yourself a favor and watch it. Andy Kauffman himself could not do a long con that is funnier than Smollette standing there with the nose still around his neck. I dare anyone to watch the video and try not to laugh out loud.

    1. How depraved does someone have to be to find humor in an attempted modern-day lynching?

      Sick stuff, John.

      #BlackLivesMatter
      #IBelieveJussie

      1. LOL. Sometimes you stil have it.

    2. I’ve laughed at it at least a dozen times.

    3. “If you haven’t seen the Chicago police video of Juisse Smollette standing there with the nose still around his neck as the police enter his apartment after he reported his fake hate crime,…”

      ‘See? here’s the evidence!’
      Ya think maybe one of the cops was thinking ‘Uh, smells’?

      1. I can’t imagine what those cops must have thought when they walked in and saw that clown standing there with a nose around his neck. I have to give them credit for being able to not laugh in his face.

        1. I know it’s probably auto-correct, but I find the picture in my head of a “nose” around his neck even funnier.

            1. That’s the funniest part, IMO. It’s not even a noose! It looks like they bought a hank of cord, probably not even strong enough to hang anyone, and couldn’t get it undone so they just tugged on it until they got a loop that fit over his head and then draped the rest on him.

              The prop guy on Empire is probably going “WTHF?”

        2. “I’ve seen outrageous bolo ties before, but that takes the cake.”

          “Think this’ll make the evening noose, Detective?”

    4. Please tell me there’s a Subway sandwich somewhere in the shot

      1. I found the fact that the TV was on to be hilarious.

  15. Trump implies that there’s some attractiveness threshold or physical “type” or standard a woman must meet to be worthy of raping.

    Regardless of the current thinking on sexual assault (which I doubt he’s brushed up on), it sounds like that’s his thinking.

    1. pretty much this. Although the denial cracks me up because it is so on brand it’s beyond parody.

    2. Regardless of the current thinking on sexual assault (which I doubt he’s brushed up on), it sounds like that’s his thinking.

      Look, who do you think is the greater authority on rape, Trump or ENB?

  16. More bad economic news.

    U.K. Retail Sales Shrink at Fastest Pace Since Financial Crisis

    Recall the prediction of Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman. He foretold that Drumpf’s election would cause not only a recession in this country, but also a global recession with no end in sight. Drumpf is therefore directly responsible for sluggish sales in the UK.

    #DrumpfRecession

  17. Real question: did anyone else learn DNA to the tune of “Come On Eileen”, like “come on thymine, and your pair adenine, then there’s guaaanine, and cyyyyytosine” ?

    Comparing anything about DNA with Come On Eileen is just disgusting. What are you, Rachel, 12 years old?

    1. Yes. And putting that song in people’s heads is a crime against humanity.

      1. Toora loora toora loo rye ay
        John, I’ll hum this tune foreverrrrrrrr

        1. My only consulation is that you have destroyed yourself as well. Monster.

    2. I hated that song in the ’80s and I still hate that song.

      Yet when some idiot or another comes out with a “best of the 80s” song list, that monstrosity always ends up at the top.

      1. Come On Eileen, but not in her hair.

      2. great times to have an Eileen girlfriend though.

        what do you call a girl w/one leg?

    3. The problem here is that the words thymine and guanine, as well as adenine and cytosine, are rhythmically interchangeable, making it very easy to remember the song incorrectly

      “Come on guanine, and your pair adenine, then there’s thyyyymine, and cyyyyytosine”

  18. In her interviews Carroll has said she didnt want to charge trump because of rape at the border, wish she had asked for his trump returns while being raped, and that rape is sexy. She is a loon. She has always been a loon. See previous interviews from even 10 years ago. She’s a loon trying to make a buck. Why reason gives her even a single article isnt credible.

    1. She is a complete loon. It is sad that the media is taking advantage of her like this.

      1. If you actually watch the clip there’s a point where you can actually see the moment Anderson Cooper realizes his whole career at this point is a joke.

        1. “That look when …”

        2. To be fair, Cooper knows he is a shitheel propagandist.

    2. ENB reports. You decide.

  19. And the worst part is, the new regulations haven’t ended harassment, extremism or disinformation. Hardly a day goes by without some post full of outright Naziism, flat-eartherism and climate trutherism going viral. There are whole armies of Nazis and conspiracy theorists who do nothing but test the filters, day and night, using custom software to find the adversarial examples that slip past the filters’ machine-learning classifiers.

    I love how Doctorow thinks he is the final arbiter about what is “Nazism” and what is the truth about climate change and pretty much everything else. After reading this paragraph, I really don’t care what he thinks about anything. Christ what an asshole.

      1. You know who else had armies of Nazis??

        1. Hillary at the 2016 DNC?

        2. Germany, austria, Norway, denmark, netherlands, belgium, france, hungary, romania, albania, Yugoslavia, italy, lithuania, estonia….

    1. Lost me at climate trutherism

    2. I love how Doctorow thinks he is the final arbiter about what is “Nazism” and what is the truth about climate change and pretty much everything else.

      I love the assumed sympatico or understanding. He doesn’t say explicitly who’s implementing the filters and machine-learning classifiers, just that they’re onerous and deleterious to free speech; with gross obliviousness to the fact that the filters we have now are extremely fucking onerous and deleterious. Spun around so many times that he doesn’t even realize which way is up, comfortable in the idea that his words will only be read and considered by narrative-friendly NYT readers.

      The CDA and Section 230 passed but (the rest of the CDA was repealed and) we, today, still have Nazis posting to the internet. However, in his dystopian vision of the future, section 230 has been repealed but more legislation has been passed (?) that still didn’t prevent Nazis from posting to the internet so… we should keep section 230 because it doesn’t prevent Nazis from posting to the internet? He’s no Aesop, that’s for sure.

  20. There are often studies published in journals that make little or no sense it thought about for even a minute, unless they confirm a bias, then you should not question the test and result. Decades ago Scientific American published such a study proving that people in socialist countries were happier than those in capitalist countries. No clear definition of socialist was provided, nor what happy meant. There was reason to doubt many in North Korea or Cuba were happy, although lots of reasons to guess that none would admit it.
    Psychology and sociology are as important to the search for knowledge as astrology and reflexology.

    1. “Decades ago Scientific American published such a study proving that people in socialist countries were happier than those in capitalist countries.”

      That would have been about the time I didn’t renew the ‘scrip.

      1. I’m sure the Ministry of Happiness gave them all the numbers they needed.

      2. Ditto me, and my pop. Loved that magazine as a kid, but many many years ago we both realized it’d turned into nothing but a SJW rag. No more subscription.

        American Scientist is still respectable.

    2. Over 50% of sociology and political studies fail at attempted replication. they are wrong more often than right. It is called p stat hunting.

      1. You are correct. If any study passes the 95% confidence level, it could still be random results – only a 5% chance of that though. If you conduct 20 tests, all with random results, you could expect one of them to pass the confidence test.
        Since just about every sociologist and psychologist in university is a Progressive, there is a strong bias to test for things that confirm the goodness of Progressives and their native intelligence. There might be a Republican professor in these fields of study, but he is keeping himself so well hidden that he would better serve in the CIA.

      2. The whole idea that Conservatives have stronger reactions to threat imagery is put to lie by the last decade of “trigger warnings” and “violence” of written/spoken words, and the desire to tear down memorials, etc

    3. Anyone with actual insight or talent into people’s psychology and peoples’ sociology is going to have a tough time getting a degree in either field

  21. Here’s an alarming report on gun fetishism from Vox.

    Only 22% of American women own a gun, according to recent research. These women are working to change that — by making gun ownership a lifestyle aesthetic on Instagram.

    Since Instagram is a private company and can do whatever it wants, it should ban pro-gun content.

    #BanAssaultWeapons
    #UnbanMichaelHihn

    1. These women should be applauded for their work to end the gender disparity of gun ownership.

      1. A gun owning woman on every corporate board in Commifornia!

  22. “California lawmaker targets fake candidate videos after doctored Pelosi footage”
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-lawmaker-targets-fake-candidate-videos-14040388.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result

    Did it make her look competent?

    1. No, but it made her look 50 years younger! So… like… 84-ish.

  23. The NYT hopes its readers don’t know stated preferences from revealed preferences:

    “A message from the billionaires club: Tax us”
    https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/A-message-from-the-billionaires-club-Tax-us-14038955.php

    Nowhere is it written that you can’t hand over money to the government. Soros, et all: Put up or shut up.

  24. The US has never fully atoned for the wave of poisonous Islamophobia that swept the country after 9 / 11. And with Drumpf emboldening bigots nationwide, American Muslims are in more danger than ever.

    The fringe social media site Gab is a well-known home for far-right content, but a new study looks at how Islamophobic posts in particular pull from across the web and more traditional social media

    I learned in college that Islamophobia is a form of racism. It is therefore not valid to criticize Islam in the same way one would criticize, for instance, Catholicism.

    #LibertariansAgainstIslamophobia

    1. “”American Muslims are in more danger than ever.”‘

      Ah don’t sweat it. Somali gangs will keep people safe.

  25. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Yaeger#/media/File:Lynn_Yaeger_in_2011.jpg

    This woman is a fashion editor at Vogue and says, I kid you not, that Melina Trump is a “fashion disaster. There really is something demonic about the Left. That woman is hideaous by any reasonable standard of beauty. She is clearly trying to look as hideous as possible while claiming that Melina Trump, who is attractive by any reasonable standard of beauty, is the one who is unattractive. It is always up is down and black is white with the left. Every aspect of their existence is a lie. If there is a better description of what it means to be “demonic” outside of the supernatural than that, I can’t think of what it would be.

    1. Are you gonna believe a Vogue editor or your lyin’ eyes?

      1. Well, thanks to John and his link my lyin’ eyes are now bleeding.

  26. Google is now removing youtube videos about google censoring videos.

    1. The wokeltarians assure me that oppression done by monopoly corporations is totally okay.

      1. Do you feel oppressed because Google doesn’t want exposure of Google on Google?

    2. So what should we do about it? Initiate government force against them for this?

      1. For fuck sake leo, I’ve been consistent on this point. Remove excess legal protections and allow lawsuits relating to contract law on abuse of the ToS. The ToS is a contract which google is blatantly violating.

        Be fucking honest for once. Why you are hoisting your petard on corporate censorship is beyond me.

      2. No. I would break up their monopoly and strip them of their immunity as a common carrier.

        1. The government and MSM are the ones perpetrating the story of Google’s monopoly and you are turning to the government to break it up. This is not a policy that we want to allow.

      3. Cut all government contracts to companies that violate discrimination laws of political speech,

        Google, Twatter, friendface….

    3. It’s almost like I made this exact joke last night…

    4. Surprised Reason hasn’t mentioned anything about the Veritas video, even in the Roundup.

      Ah…actually, I’m not surprised.

  27. Question of the day: Why are people still taking vacations in the Dominican Republic?

    Cause of death revealed for Long Island pizzeria owner who died in Dominican Republic

    1. IIRC, the DR Health Minister has pointed out that statistically the country is safer for tourists than it was a few years ago.

      1. Maybe so. But there are tons of other places one could go for a beach vacation that are less lethal.

        1. The needle infested Jersey shore?

    2. Apparently the same reason morons still vacation in Mexico.

      1. Come on, this is ridiculous. Mexico is a safe, and interesting place for any reasonable person.

        1. You’re saying the “asylum seekers” are all unreasonable?

        2. In a resort zone.

          Go outside the federale protected resort zone and your odds of survival drop dramatically.

  28. Remember how reason and the left said that the internet would end without net neutrality… now.they just shifted it to section 230.

    It’s been 5 days and reason still hasnt bothered to actually read the Hawley bill. Companies are still free to censor, they just wont get extra legal protections. the horror.

    1. Doctorow’s article is absurd. You can still keep 230 protection even if you do censor things, as long as you do so in a reasonable and even handed way. Section 230 doesn’t mean that I can’t kick you out of my Kansas City Chiefs forum for being a Bronco fan who just trolls people and starts trouble. It means that if my rule is “you have to be a Chiefs fan or be polite if you are not” has to be enforced even handedly. Doctorow is either completely ignorant of his subject or just lying his ass off or of course both.

      1. Hawleys bill is a few paragraphs to read. Why certain reporters cant take the time is beyond me

        1. They’re too busy covering Trumped up rape fantasies?

      2. That moniker, “Chiefs”, is totally triggering. There is a law against triggering and cultural appropriation, right?

    2. Setting aside the other issues with Hawley’s bill with respect to freedom and property rights, a practical issue with Hawley’s bill is that it sets up a bureaucratic nightmare, by using imprecise language and leaving it up to the FTC to decide what is and isn’t political speech and/or disproportionate moderation.

      Would you be ok with an FTC under President Obama (or… gasp… Kamala Harris) defining which content providers to go after to revoke their legal protections?

      1. Yeah, I agree with that. To me this is a situation that needs to be left to the courts. Let the common law and the courts over time decide what circumstances strip you of 230 immunity. The sollution to this is not to change the law. The sollution is to give a right of action under 230 with statutory damages and attorney’s fees when a provider violates its TOS and loses its 230 immunity. Make providers either claim the immunity and in doing so avail themselves of liability if they do not live by the commitment or forgo the immunity and have the freedom to censor anything they like for any reason but accept the responsibility that comes with that.

        1. Yeah I agree here John. Contract law is the way to go. I would actually say that the Section 230 protections are the problem in that they existed when the ToS was agreed to. It doesn’t seem fair, legally, to hold the content providers to a contract that was put into place with Section 230 protections in existence, after you’ve removed those protections or changed what qualifies you to receive them.

          To me, the most obvious solution for content providers would be to put those terms into their ToS and not rely on the law, which unfortunately is always subject to change.

      2. What other issues? Be specific.

        And no, it doesnt require the FTC to do anything except grant them the ability to audit. It isnt up to them to decide fairness, but to expose transparency. That is what is currently not happening.

        Yourube made an agreement to pay creators to upload their videos based on the idea of free speech and free expression with very little censorship. They have now arbitrarily changed those terms while still profiting themselves off of the creators. They hide behind vague statements as to what they can and cant censor. This wouldnt be allowable as a government or in any contract under contract law. It would be struck down.

        If youtube came out and said no pro trump videos they could still operate under 230 in Hawleys bill. If they claimed they were politically neutral and refused to allow the FTC to see if their algorithms included No Trump, they would lose protections.

        This bill is closer to requiring an ingredient list in food products than the destruction of company freedom that you envision.

        When did libertarians start supporting corporate deception?

        1. When did libertarians start supporting corporate deception?

          When they thought MUH PRINCIPLES meant, “Please shoot me last.”

        2. Specifically, this language is extremely vague.

          (I) the provider moderates information provided by other informayion content providers in a manner that—
          ‘‘(aa) is designed to negatively affect a political party, political candidate, or political viewpoint; or
          ‘‘(bb) disproportionately re-stricts or promotes access to, or the availability of, information from a political party, political candidate, or political viewpoint;

          My understanding is that it would be up to the FTC (referred to as “The Commission” to determine a company’s eligibility for Section 230 protection, and to be able to revoke it based on the criteria above.

          Again, I’ll ask… would you want an FTC under a democratic president to be able to control who gets Section 230 protections in a world of people who go after companies they don’t think are woke enough?

          1. And just so I’m clear, this language in Hawley’s Bill seems to give broad authority to the FTC to revoke protections for companies under vague guidance above:

            ‘‘(B) FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION IMMUNITY CERTIFICATION
            ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL
            .—The Commission shall certify any provider of an interactive computer service that—

            ‘‘(III) proves to the Commission by clear and convincing evidence that the provider does not (and, during the
            2-year period preceding the date on which the provider submits the application for certification, did not) moderate information provided by other information content providers in a politically biased manner.

          2. Again, I’ll ask… would you want an FTC under a democratic president to be able to control who gets Section 230 protections in a world of people who go after companies they don’t think are woke enough?

            Again, I’ll ask… what makes the entities that the FTC would (not) protect different from the pizzerias, bakeries, TV stations, college campuses, actors and actresses that they already hound for not being woke enough?

            Show me the part of section 230 that doesn’t clearly and distinctly represent congress making a law that abridges someone/anyone’s free speech or right to petition the government. It’s soundly and centrally a violation of the 1A and should’ve been repealed with the rest of the CDA.

    3. Remember how reason … said that the internet would end without net neutrality

      Um. No?

      1. Yeah exactly. Can I get a link please?

    4. “Remember how reason and the left said that the internet would end without net neutrality”

      I don’t think anyone at Reason agreed with turd; he was the one claiming that price fixing was ‘more free’ than the alternative.
      Pretty sure it was simple stupidity on his part.

  29. There is at least one willfully uncharitable interpretation in the article:

    “Many people—including the president of the United States/the man she’s accusing—do indeed act like rape comes down to a victim’s lust-worthiness and an assailant’s uncontrollable need to act on that.”

    Carroll clearly has warped views on rape as do so many who use it as a hook to justify their anti-patriarchy hysteria. The idea that people generally think rape is sexy is absurd, and the fact that ENB manages to criticize others but not her for this absurdity reveals her TDS.

  30. By treating the allegations flippantly, Trump strips them of their seriousness. Consider the barrage of allegations he survived in 2016 to become President–on an objective basis–and it seems that any public figure who wants to survive such allegations should take lessons from Trump.

    Who else survived such allegations during the #MeToo era?

    It probably helps that some of the allegations against Trump in the past were so ridiculous and yet treated so sincerely by journalists. Take this one, for example:

    https://reason.com/2016/10/22/donald-trump-accused-of-offering-porn-st/

    She 1) accused Trump of sexual assault for kissing her on the cheek without asking and 2) accused Trump of [and I quote], “misogyny, entitlement, and being a sexual assault apologist”.

    That’s coming from a porn star who’s appeared in gang-bang and bukkake videos. If anything engenders “misogyny, entitlement, and apologizes for sexual assault”, isn’t it the videos she made? How seriously would you expect a jury to take her claim of sexual assault for being kissed on the cheek after they’ve seen her on video with five guys standing around her in a circle while she . . .

    Regardless, why should anyone take the journalists who report on these allegations seriously after episodes like that?

    Maybe we should live in a world where the whole town always come running every time someone cries wolf–no matter how many times wolf has been cried over nothing in the past. Regardless of how the world should be, from a strategic perspective, it’s reasonable for Trump to be dismissive of these allegations–just like he was with all the others. And if there’s anyone to blame for that, maybe it’s the way various journalists have covered Trump both before he became president and since.

    As we get closer to November 2020, I’d expect more allegations like this to arise. If Trump treats these allegations the same way he did in 2016, I see little reason to expect a different outcome. I maintain that Trump wasn’t only elected in spite of the way journalists covered him; he was elected in no small part because of the way journalists covered him. Before Trump becomes susceptible to these kinds of accusations, the journalists who report on those accusations may need to reestablish some credibility of their own.

    1. How seriously would you expect a jury to take her claim of sexual assault for being kissed on the cheek after they’ve seen her on video with five guys standing around her in a circle while she . . .

      “Was she asking for it?
      Was she asking nice?
      If she was asking for it
      Did she ask you twice?”

      1. It is the purpose of juries to weigh the credibility of witnesses, and after the jury has seen her subject herself to being gang banged and seen her willingly subject herself to having her face covered by . . . numerous men at the same time, I suspect they might question the credibility of her allegation that Trump sexually assaulted her when he greeted her with a kiss on the cheek. Maybe that’s not the way the world should be, but if I were Gloria Allred making my case to the jury, I’d emphasize the story of one of the other clients instead.

        I also suspect that average people reading about this story are more likely to be skeptical of subsequent allegations against Trump. There’s only so much time the general public is willing to invest in these stories before they make up their minds, and if you lead with a story by someone who is less credible, it may make the general public less likely to believe future accusations. I think that’s a big part of what happened in 2016, too. Just a few weeks before the election, the public’s perception of media hit new lows–and I suspect these kinds of stories were a part of that.

        1. Just for the record:

          “Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year.”

          —-Gallup, September 14, 2016

          Is it any wonder that Trump was elected two weeks later?

          Journalists may have been the only people in the country engage in legal activity with a lower approval rating than both Trump and Hillary, and I don’t know that journalists have done much to improve that perception since.

          When we see journalists going to bat for sex workers, maybe they’re getting it backwards. I can imagine people thinking, “Gee, I used to support legalization of sex work, but then so and so started writing about it, and now I’m not so sure!”.

          Maybe it’s the journalists who should be looking to the sex workers for a character reference. Maybe it’s Chesty LaRue who should be saying, “Yeah, so and so’s a journalist, but I know her personally. She’s actually a decent person”.

    2. “”She 1) accused Trump of sexual assault for kissing her on the cheek without asking “”

      Whoa, wait until she hears who the democrat front runner is.

    3. As we get closer to November 2020, I’d expect more allegations like this to arise. If Trump treats these allegations the same way he did in 2016, I see little reason to expect a different outcome.

      +100. Based on his track record, I’m willing to let Trump be Trump in how he deals with allegations of past misbehavior.

    4. One of his 2016 accusers charged him with – giving her his phone number

  31. “Rape is about power, not lust” isn’t an old adage. It’s a relatively-new feminist mantra, most likely originating on the cusp of the 2nd and 3rd waves.

    Regardless of its origin, it is indeed overly simplistic. Rape is about lust to men, whereas it’s about power to women, because men are irascible horndogs, while women hold the power over sexual consent. When a man forces himself on a woman, he’s depriving her of her power to choose. But he doesn’t gain power by doing so; he only gains sexual access.

    My evidence is, granted, only anecdotal, but what percentage of women are ever charged with the crime of rape, wherein there are no other factors such as the woman holding a position of authority over the man (or child)? I’d wager it’s exceedingly minute… that men are overwhelmingly seen as the aggressor with women being overwhelmingly seen as the victim.

    Attractiveness is most certainly a principal factor, even in a “crime of opportunity,” because there is no opportunity without an erection, and there is no erection without lust, and there is no lust without attraction. Therefore, I find Trump’s response to be perfectly legitimate.

    ___

    Buttglue is already a noncontender, thanks to his Memphis constituents, to whom he is kowtowing over US Marshals killing a local.

    ___

    The Florida woman is absolutely in the wrong. The estranged husband was in jail at the time, so his guns weren’t going anywhere. Additionally, she broke into his house and removed his property — an act far outside her due providence.

    1. 80 year old women have been raped. I doubt the rapists found them attractive.

      1. They don’t. That is because rape is about power not sex, at least for the man doing it.

        1. Didn’t Bernie author a rape fantasy story? Maybe socialist find rape to be erotic. It fits their world view of “you have what I want, so I will just wet my… beak?” The analogy turns grotesque.

          1. Yes he did. It was the typical 30 cent porn novel “I raped her and she really wanted it” kind of stuff.

        2. Some men think they are entitled to get sex from someone else.

          Sexual partners can deny sex up to the moment before the act and be perfectly within their rights to end permission.

          Its fucked up to lead sexual suitors on but dont put your dick in crazy.

    2. > hat percentage of women are ever charged with the crime of rape

      It’s pretty low. And when it happens it’s usually statutory (woman teacher and boy student). But rape rape does happen sometimes. Usually due to the woman wielding some sort of non-physical power over the man.

      1. Paging Asia Argento…

  32. Appearance and status are very often the first thing he attacks about critics; substantive responses are secondary if they come at all. The playground bully playbook.

    Because he’s a shallow asshole. I would expect this to be the exact reason why he didn’t rape her. Never mind that her story is ridiculous and she’s trying to sell a new book.

    1. He responded to her allegation with the seriousness it deserved.

  33. Is that her picture? I would do her. If it were consensual of course. Not being creepy here, I’m NOT fantasizing about it. But the idea that she’s not at all attractive to men is utter rubbish. She looks to be in shape, not too skinny, good hair, a winning smile, etc. Oh wait, she’s 75. If that’s in any way a current picture, then holy crap has she kept herself up! But even if that’s a 25 year old picture, she was still attractive at 50.

    Not Trump’s type, he’s into immigrant hotel maids and porn stars, but from that picture she’s definitely not unattractive.

    1. Don’t stick it in crazy dude.

    2. Attraction is in the eye of the beholder. But you’re free to call her handsome.

  34. >>>letting us know that he doesn’t like Carroll’s looks

    hilarious response. Tony Soprano would approve.

    1. He shoulda said, ‘I wouldn’t fuck her with Hillary Clinton’s dick.’

  35. Hardly a day goes by without some post full of outright Naziism, flat-eartherism and climate trutherism

    I love the way that even questioning the idea that the earth will become a giant ball of flame in 12 years is now equivalent to Nazism and flat-earth bullshit.

    Fuck those guys and the polar bear they rode in on.

    I read an article the other day about how chemists struggle to explain how adhesive tape fails at the molecular level based on observations using electron microscopes. Real scientists admit that even simple and straightforward systems systems have complex interactions that defy simple explanations.

    Climate scientists? They promote fundamental misunderstandings about atmospheric physics and continually conflate land subsidence and sea level rise. Their models have not once proven to be correct, yet are ‘settled’ science. The 97% lie has been completely debunked and is more widely quoted than ever. It is all appeals to authority, straw men, and ad hominem attacks on anyone that questions them. In other words, Marxism.

    But by all means, lets worry about the armies of nazis salivating to exploit internet filters.

    1. I wonder how your grandchildren will think of you when they learn you were on the wrong side of history?

      1. I wonder if you are posting to prove how stupid someone can be.

      2. I hope you don’t have grandchildren for their sake and the sake of the gene pool.

        1. It’s Tony. Grandchildren aren’t in the cards.

      3. Hiya Tony! Still want to enslave *my* grandchildren over your ignorant fears? Still have that big brother fetish and the shiny pair of jackboots in the closet?

        And why the sock?

      4. My grandson is 9 months old and he smiles every time he sees me. I love him and wish nothing more for him than to live in a world where irrational and non-existent fears like man-made holes in the ozone, oxygen starvation due to rain forest depletion, and exxxtreme weather are dismissed without consideration by policymakers.

        I am travelling back to Glacier National Park next month where the government has, without public notice, changed all the signs this year that said that the glaciers were predicted to be completely melted by 2020.

        1. Haha. Not a peep from the media propagandists that Climate is not what these Lefties say it is.

          In 2019, The Sierra Nevada mountains have one of the largest snowpacks in written history.

          It pretty ballsey to claim weather is anything but a series of climate cycles that are complex and massively oblivious to human existence.

    2. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. So you should stop talking.

      1. That’s rich coming from one of the most uninformed, willfully ignorant posters around.

      2. Maybe I am suffering from lead poisoning. After all, that is the only thing that environmental scientists have ever been right about.

  36. There just aren’t words to describe what a disgraceful president we have.

    1. Nor the words to describe the pernicious effects of TDS.
      Seek help.

      1. TDSDS. Seek help.

    2. News for you Tony: American presidents are not kings or emperors. They do not have to behave like demi-gods.

      Anyway, Trump calling a porn star “horseface” on a national platform is miles better that the eight years of non-stop narcissism we had to endure from the Chosen One.

    3. Yeah Obama, George Bush, and Bill Clinton are pretty bad Mr. Presidents.

  37. […] to, say, “How dare you accuse me of such a monstrous thing.” It’s a non sequitur too, notes Elizabeth Nolan Brown: “[I]t goes against everything we can readily observe about sexual assault. In reality, rape […]

  38. The Raspberry Pi 4 just came out yesterday. I’m interested in using one to run my Roku through this:

    https://pi-hole.net/

    Is anybody in the peanut gallery doing this already? I don’t want to kick Roku out of my life like I did to Google (love me some Roku), but I want to tear their fangs out. I’d also like to watch YouTube (my last exposure to Google) on Roku without Google getting their grubby little hands on my info.

    If the old Raspberry Pi could supposedly do this well enough without too much a performance hit, then the new one should be able to do it even better. I’d hate to spend too much time on it to find out that the experience sucks for some other reason.

    1. Pi’s are ridiculously underpowered — good only for blinking a couple of LEDs. If you absolutely *must* go SBC, you want something like an ODroid, which is massively more capable.

      Personally though, if I was going to be replacing my Roku I’d go with an Intel Atom-based board.

      1. Pi’s are ridiculously underpowered — good only for blinking a couple of LEDs. If you absolutely *must* go SBC, you want something like an ODroid, which is massively more capable.

        Personally though, if I was going to be replacing my Roku I’d go with an Intel Atom-based board.

        I wouldn’t claim that the Pi could outdo the ODroid but the rest of this claim is nonsense, starting with the misunderstanding of the fact that he doesn’t want to replace his Roku.

        1. Ah, OK, I didn’t RTFL nor the comment very well. Thanks for calling me on it.

          Pi-hole’s a DNS proxy? That seems dicey — I imagine blocking Google’s tentacles would involve a lot of moving target log-sleuthing. Are you using it?

          1. No, I’ve used DNS proxies in the past on hardware inferior to the Pi 3 as well as streaming with a Pi 3 but never with a Roku in the mix. I can’t guarantee success on the 4 but it doesn’t seem like an insurmountable or even really tough feat from a hardware perspective.

            I agree a bit with ‘moving target log-sleuthing’ and would add that DNS admin in general is, or can be, a pain. Going to such lengths to hide sketchy activity I might understand, but to watch pre-packaged content from Roku or Youtube seems… counterproductive.

            1. It’s the principle!

            2. One other thing . . .

              You know how when you fire up Roku to Home and then slide over to your apps/channels, there’s There’s this huge advertisement block there? I’d like to see if I can get rid of that and fill that space with apps instead.

  39. […] to, say, “How dare you accuse me of such a monstrous thing.” It’s a non sequitur too, notes Elizabeth Nolan Brown: “[I]t goes against everything we can readily observe about sexual assault. In reality, rape […]

  40. […] dare you accuse me of such a monstrous factor.” It’s a non sequitur too, notes Elizabeth Nolan Brown: “[I]t goes in opposition to all the things we will readily observe about sexual assault. In […]

  41. […] to, say, “How dare you accuse me of such a monstrous thing.” It’s a non sequitur too, notes Elizabeth Nolan Brown: “[I]t goes against everything we can readily observe about sexual assault. In reality, rape […]

  42. “He’s an absolute monster, but at least he’ll appoint judges who will force women into childbirth against their will!”

    –The godly

    1. He’s guilty of being Trump!
      -The idiot shitbag

      1. Nah, I think for once the idiot shitbag has a point.

        1. Yeah, Trump *is* guilty of being Trump.

  43. […] dare you accuse me of such a monstrous thing.” It’s a non sequitur too, notes Elizabeth Nolan Brown: “[I]t goes against everything we can readily observe about sexual assault. In reality, rape […]

  44. the world both Republicans and Democrats are currently pushing for

    Wait, I thought Hawley’s legislation attempting precisely this was stupid and doomed to failure? Are they trying to bring an end to 230 or not? If they aren’t and it’s all kabuki then Is Reason really opposed to them or is it just a clickbait charade?

  45. […] dare you accuse me of such a monstrous thing.” It’s a non sequitur too, notes Elizabeth Nolan Brown: “[I]t goes against everything we can readily observe about sexual assault. In reality, rape […]

  46. Trump implies that there’s some attractiveness threshold or physical “type” or standard a woman must meet to be worthy of raping. Besides not being quite the slam-dunk defense he thinks it is (no, no, see, my type of rape victim…), it goes against everything we can readily observe about sexual assault. In reality, rape victims come in all shapes, sizes, and types; and many rapists make decisions based on opportunity, perceived vulnerability, and all sorts of criteria unrelated to normative desirability.

    When a journolist’s arguments not only convince people that the President isn’t a rapist but also calls into question as to whether the writer might not be one.

    Oooh! No, no you stupid rabbit! That’s not what a real rapist would say and do! *This* is what a real rapist would say and do!”

  47. “… it goes against everything we can readily observe about sexual assault.”
    “Many people—including the president of the United States/the man she’s accusing—do indeed act like rape comes down to a victim’s lust-worthiness and an assailant’s uncontrollable need to act on that.”

    so what you are saying, is that many people, including Trump, do not display or comprehend the fundamental pathology of a rapist.

  48. If rape is serious (which it is) then a 20-year old accusation of rape in conjunction with a book tour is not serious. Trump treated it with the degree of seriousness it deserved. But it is possible that some women (among others) will treat this whole thing with seriousness, because they are emotionally caught up with disliking Trump. And so it may count against him. Nobody ever said that we don’t have a lot of un-serious people who can emotionally be led around by their noses.

    1. Imagine if Bill Clinton said he didn’t rape someone because she wasn’t his raping type.

      Keep making excuses. This is gonna be one fuckstorm of a hangover when the orange bad man is gone and you all realize what poodle work you did for him. But at least it was consensual.

  49. This accuser is a blatant liar, of course its not Trumps type of woman.

    Trump is into whores, slovenes, and models.

Please to post comments