Man, a big ol' bird hit a dangerous air pump this past week in America.
A few weeks ago Rolling Stone magazine, which the undersigned is familiar with on accounta you used to be able to find weed dealers in the classifieds, published a big ol' article that there had been this horrific frat house gang rape at Mr. Jefferson's University of Virginia. The undersigned did not read the article on accounta he didn't need weed but you couldn't miss the headlines and the undersigned didn't and a lot of peoples read the whole 9,000 word article. Among those readers was the administration at "UVA" which summarily suspended all "Greek Life" on the plantation, which the undersigned thought harsh but which was explained as necessary to remove the "rape culture" which was said to be an American problem generally.
"'Rape culture,' America doesn't have a 'rape culture,'" the undersigned thought to his own self. Maybe there was a "rape culture" at UVA but the undersigned's daughter doesn't want to go to UVA she wants to go to Florida State so he didn't "delve" into the "details" of this "alleged" "rape culture."
Unbeknownst to the undersigned the Washington Post was delving into the details at least of the stoner-reported gang rape featured in the article by "free lance journalist" author Sabrina Rubin Erdely, a daughter of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvanians vouch for her. The Post however could not vouch for Ruby, they turned over a bunch of stones and didn't find much vouch, you know, like, "corroboration," viz:
"Do the rapists exist?"
End viz.
It is conceded by all that where you have a gang rape you have a gang, "gang" being used here in the common manner to refer to a group of individuals, persons, real. To the shock and horror of the Washington Post Ruby, it turned out, had not actually talked to any of the men implicated. Apparently it is standard pencil practice to reach out to those accused of a thing like violent gang rape, you know, out of fairness: "Drew, Jackie says you were the lead rapist. What say ye, Drew?" Since Ruby didn't follow this s.o.p. she didn't get the standard denial, of which, to be fair Ruby had not the slightest interest, she had determined to her satisfaction that Jackie was entirely "credible" and had been brutally gang raped.
However, in not getting the standard denial on accounta she didn't talk to any of the rapists, Ruby also didn't get the standard corroboration that the rapists exist.
We see at once that that's a problem.
"Everyone knows who they are," said Ruby, "everyone" being used here in the uncommon manner so as to exclude Ruby. Maybe Jackie, too, for the Post found that although the lead rapist was described by Jackie with pretty specific specificity--"Drew," member of this specific fraternity, junior, life guard, there was not an actual person who ticked all those boxes. That is a problem.
Having not gotten confirmation that the rapists actually exist by finding them, calling them up, confronting them with the accusation and getting the denial Sabrina Rubin Erdely had not found them. Erdely also did not attempt to tick any boxes and so didn't establish existence that way.
Gang rape=gang=persons, actually existing. Rape=rapist=person, actually existing. Ruby had not ticked the "actually existing" box. Problem!
Rolling Stone published the story anyway. That's a problem, specifically a big problem.
The Washington Post did attempt to tick the "boxes of existence" and failed.
We're ready to rule,
HELD: Nobody has found the rapists.
The "existence viz" is the central viz, the viz on whose shoulders all the other viz's stand but just for fun, i.e. even if the men had been found to exist, man does not equal rape. There are other boxes that have to be ticked viz the sex box, then the forced sex box. Jackie ticks those boxes!, ticks those boxes with a bold magic marker, is found to be credible by Ruby who is vouched for by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. End of story! No. Those boxes stand on the foundation of the unticked boxes of existence. Even if that foundation were solid concrete rather than quicksand there is a whole other cluster of viz's on Jackie's story, a "credibility cluster" whose boxes should have been ticked:
-2012.
-never reported to police.
-never reported to university administration.
-fraternity did not have a party on that date.
-# of "rapists" changed from 7 to 9.
-"pitch black" rape room, not ideal for identification.
-injuries: broken glass, bleeding between legs, hospital?
-witnesses: Two, allegedly, who saw Jackie as she left the frat house.
Ruby didn't tick those boxes either. Rolling Stone published the story anyway. As aforesaid. And the university administration was made to look callous and the students were made to look callous and the university suspended all the fraternities and sororities and this particular fraternity house was vandalized. Problems, plural.
"What say ye, Ruby?" it may be fairly asked and it was asked by the Post pencils. Ruby said, "You're missing the point of the story." Which apparently we were, the Post pencils, Slate magazine, this idiot blogger, since we all thought the "point of the story" was Jackie's gang rape on accounta that's what Ruby wrote. No. Ruby went on, in this email to the Post, to say that the "point of the story" was the "rape culture" at Mr. Jefferson's university, that Jackie's story was merely illustrative, that it was "Jackie's" personal story, that's what she had said and she was stickin' to it, that although Ruby found Jackie credible and believed Jackie's account of brutal gang rape, all those boxes didn't have to be ticked because the real story was the rape culture, of how rape in this culture is not taken seriously, of how it is not investigated, of how the rapists are not prosecuted. That is what you call "circular reasoning," viz:
Rape culture=rape+culture. It becomes our disagreeable duty to point out that the rape box remains unchecked.
On Friday, Rolling Stone issued a statement. It is an odd statement. It is not a retraction. They do apologize for any inconvenience. They say their trust in Jackie was misplaced, and there's no viz there. Maybe they were high.
The undersigned does not believe now, he did not believe when he first read the term, that there is a "rape culture" in America in the sense that was "the point" of Sabrina Rubin Erdely's article, that is, one in which rape is ignored, excused and unpunished. There are women, lots of women, who do not report rape out of a misplaced sense of embarrassment, humiliation, fear. I can say without hesitation, from experience in the field, that police departments, D.A.'s offices, judges, the entire criminal justice system is very sensitive to these unique issues in rape cases, that the Obama administration is now investigating over 100 universities to see how they have handled sex crimes. I can say that no police officer I know, no prosecutor I know, would fail to investigate Jackie's story with the utmost sensitivity and fairness, that the police and prosecutors would have attempted to tick those boxes that Sabrina Rubin Erderly did not. And I can say that if those boxes remained unticked, the police would not have made an arrest and the prosecutors would not file the case because Jackie's story, Jackie herself, is not credible.
There is the opposite sort of rape culture present at the University of Virginia, at Rolling Stone magazine, in Sabrina Rubin Erdely's mind, one in which a woman who makes an accusation of rape is believed unconditionally, is a rape survivor from that day forward, has a support group, doesn't have to report the crime, doesn't have to have the boxes ticked, is never questioned, can accuse individuals of a horrific crime without accountability, where sentencing proceeds directly from accusation with the "proven" box unticked.
A few weeks ago Rolling Stone magazine, which the undersigned is familiar with on accounta you used to be able to find weed dealers in the classifieds, published a big ol' article that there had been this horrific frat house gang rape at Mr. Jefferson's University of Virginia. The undersigned did not read the article on accounta he didn't need weed but you couldn't miss the headlines and the undersigned didn't and a lot of peoples read the whole 9,000 word article. Among those readers was the administration at "UVA" which summarily suspended all "Greek Life" on the plantation, which the undersigned thought harsh but which was explained as necessary to remove the "rape culture" which was said to be an American problem generally.
"'Rape culture,' America doesn't have a 'rape culture,'" the undersigned thought to his own self. Maybe there was a "rape culture" at UVA but the undersigned's daughter doesn't want to go to UVA she wants to go to Florida State so he didn't "delve" into the "details" of this "alleged" "rape culture."
Unbeknownst to the undersigned the Washington Post was delving into the details at least of the stoner-reported gang rape featured in the article by "free lance journalist" author Sabrina Rubin Erdely, a daughter of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvanians vouch for her. The Post however could not vouch for Ruby, they turned over a bunch of stones and didn't find much vouch, you know, like, "corroboration," viz:
"Do the rapists exist?"
End viz.
It is conceded by all that where you have a gang rape you have a gang, "gang" being used here in the common manner to refer to a group of individuals, persons, real. To the shock and horror of the Washington Post Ruby, it turned out, had not actually talked to any of the men implicated. Apparently it is standard pencil practice to reach out to those accused of a thing like violent gang rape, you know, out of fairness: "Drew, Jackie says you were the lead rapist. What say ye, Drew?" Since Ruby didn't follow this s.o.p. she didn't get the standard denial, of which, to be fair Ruby had not the slightest interest, she had determined to her satisfaction that Jackie was entirely "credible" and had been brutally gang raped.
However, in not getting the standard denial on accounta she didn't talk to any of the rapists, Ruby also didn't get the standard corroboration that the rapists exist.
We see at once that that's a problem.
"Everyone knows who they are," said Ruby, "everyone" being used here in the uncommon manner so as to exclude Ruby. Maybe Jackie, too, for the Post found that although the lead rapist was described by Jackie with pretty specific specificity--"Drew," member of this specific fraternity, junior, life guard, there was not an actual person who ticked all those boxes. That is a problem.
Having not gotten confirmation that the rapists actually exist by finding them, calling them up, confronting them with the accusation and getting the denial Sabrina Rubin Erdely had not found them. Erdely also did not attempt to tick any boxes and so didn't establish existence that way.
Gang rape=gang=persons, actually existing. Rape=rapist=person, actually existing. Ruby had not ticked the "actually existing" box. Problem!
Rolling Stone published the story anyway. That's a problem, specifically a big problem.
The Washington Post did attempt to tick the "boxes of existence" and failed.
We're ready to rule,
HELD: Nobody has found the rapists.
The "existence viz" is the central viz, the viz on whose shoulders all the other viz's stand but just for fun, i.e. even if the men had been found to exist, man does not equal rape. There are other boxes that have to be ticked viz the sex box, then the forced sex box. Jackie ticks those boxes!, ticks those boxes with a bold magic marker, is found to be credible by Ruby who is vouched for by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. End of story! No. Those boxes stand on the foundation of the unticked boxes of existence. Even if that foundation were solid concrete rather than quicksand there is a whole other cluster of viz's on Jackie's story, a "credibility cluster" whose boxes should have been ticked:
-2012.
-never reported to police.
-never reported to university administration.
-fraternity did not have a party on that date.
-# of "rapists" changed from 7 to 9.
-"pitch black" rape room, not ideal for identification.
-injuries: broken glass, bleeding between legs, hospital?
-witnesses: Two, allegedly, who saw Jackie as she left the frat house.
Ruby didn't tick those boxes either. Rolling Stone published the story anyway. As aforesaid. And the university administration was made to look callous and the students were made to look callous and the university suspended all the fraternities and sororities and this particular fraternity house was vandalized. Problems, plural.
"What say ye, Ruby?" it may be fairly asked and it was asked by the Post pencils. Ruby said, "You're missing the point of the story." Which apparently we were, the Post pencils, Slate magazine, this idiot blogger, since we all thought the "point of the story" was Jackie's gang rape on accounta that's what Ruby wrote. No. Ruby went on, in this email to the Post, to say that the "point of the story" was the "rape culture" at Mr. Jefferson's university, that Jackie's story was merely illustrative, that it was "Jackie's" personal story, that's what she had said and she was stickin' to it, that although Ruby found Jackie credible and believed Jackie's account of brutal gang rape, all those boxes didn't have to be ticked because the real story was the rape culture, of how rape in this culture is not taken seriously, of how it is not investigated, of how the rapists are not prosecuted. That is what you call "circular reasoning," viz:
Rape culture=rape+culture. It becomes our disagreeable duty to point out that the rape box remains unchecked.
On Friday, Rolling Stone issued a statement. It is an odd statement. It is not a retraction. They do apologize for any inconvenience. They say their trust in Jackie was misplaced, and there's no viz there. Maybe they were high.
The undersigned does not believe now, he did not believe when he first read the term, that there is a "rape culture" in America in the sense that was "the point" of Sabrina Rubin Erdely's article, that is, one in which rape is ignored, excused and unpunished. There are women, lots of women, who do not report rape out of a misplaced sense of embarrassment, humiliation, fear. I can say without hesitation, from experience in the field, that police departments, D.A.'s offices, judges, the entire criminal justice system is very sensitive to these unique issues in rape cases, that the Obama administration is now investigating over 100 universities to see how they have handled sex crimes. I can say that no police officer I know, no prosecutor I know, would fail to investigate Jackie's story with the utmost sensitivity and fairness, that the police and prosecutors would have attempted to tick those boxes that Sabrina Rubin Erderly did not. And I can say that if those boxes remained unticked, the police would not have made an arrest and the prosecutors would not file the case because Jackie's story, Jackie herself, is not credible.
There is the opposite sort of rape culture present at the University of Virginia, at Rolling Stone magazine, in Sabrina Rubin Erdely's mind, one in which a woman who makes an accusation of rape is believed unconditionally, is a rape survivor from that day forward, has a support group, doesn't have to report the crime, doesn't have to have the boxes ticked, is never questioned, can accuse individuals of a horrific crime without accountability, where sentencing proceeds directly from accusation with the "proven" box unticked.
