11 ms·

(throwaway to express unpopular view on touchy / inflammatory subject) I think it's clear that Rolling Stone engaged in poor journalism. They did not properly

(throwaway to express unpopular view on touchy / inflammatory subject) I think it's clear that Rolling Stone engaged in poor journalism. They did not properly fact check, and the story had too many questions and holes to publish. Sabrina Erdely failed in her job as a journalist. That said, I'm not convinced that Jackie fabricated this story. From my read of the situation, Jackie was hesitant to be featured in the article. There is not much upside for a woman to be featured in a national "rape on campus" story. You risk becoming the subject of internet hate and death threats in exchange for basically no personal gain. It has come out that many aspects of her account were false. However, just because she lied about the details of the rape does not mean she was not raped, or sexually assaulted, or that something terrible did not happen to her. It's possible she lied about the location, the fraternity, etc., and I can see motivations for that: avoiding retaliation or attempting to remain anonymous. If you believe that she was raped or assaulted, squirrely behavior like that seems more reasonable. Thus, it's very likely that Jackie lied about the specifics of the situation, but that something terrible (rape or assault) did happen to her. This interpretation is more in line with a rational persons motivations than inventing a rape story for unclear motives. In a similar vein, I would recommend this This American Life podcast on the subject: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/581/anatomy-of-doubt https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/581/...

danieltillett 10y ago
Even if something very bad happened to "jackie" it does not give her license to go around and accuse innocent people of gang rape. Two wrongs do not make a right. More importantly it was the amplification of the accusation through the national media that made this case so much worse. Every case of false rape reported damages thousands of real rape victims by undermining their credibility. On the use of throwaway accounts to avoid downvoting I think you should be brave and stand by your opinion. At worst you will lose 4 points.
- Pyxl101 10y ago
  Does something specific happen when you're downvoted by four points? I didn't realize there was a downside limit.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    Nothing in my experience other than your comment is marked as dead. If all your comments ends up downvoted then HC may hellban you, but if you have the occasional controversial post nothing much happens.
Lazare 10y ago
I don't disagree with your overall point, however I would raise three quibbles: > That said, I'm not convinced that Jackie fabricated this story. This seems like an overly technical quibble. You even admit, further on, that "many aspects of her account were false", and that she "lied about the details". Many people would term that a fabrication, and while Erdely certainly helped, much of the false details seem to have originated with Jackie. I'm really not quite sure what distinction you're trying to make here? > it's very likely that [...] something terrible (rape or assault) did happen to her. "Very likely" might be pushing it a bit. It's certainly very plausible, but I think far too little is known about Jackie to say anything in particular is "likely". Then again, I'm not sure why it matters? Even more to the point, I don't think any of the details about Jackie are especially relevant to the story here, which is about Rolling Stone, Erdely, and UVA. Once it became clear that the story Rolling Stone told was fiction rather than fact, this stopped being about the young woman Erdely interviewed, and started being about Rolling Stone's editorial policies, their fact checking, and Erdely's skill and integrity. That being said, I take your overall point as being that it is worth keeping in mind that very little is known about Jackie, that by all appearances she is as much a victim of Erdely is anyone, she is unquestionably troubled and did not receive help, and that she is not being sued or prosecuted, nor should she be, based on what's known. And with that, I agree strongly.
wtbob 10y ago
> There is not much upside for a woman to be featured in a national "rape on campus" story. You risk becoming the subject of internet hate and death threats in exchange for basically no personal gain. I disagree that there's not much potential upside: one gets fame & attention, which I think would be pretty appealing to a fabulist. > However, just because she lied about the details of the rape does not mean she was not raped, or sexually assaulted, or that something terrible did not happen to her. That's quite true. But, at a certain point one has to quit paying attention to a boy crying 'wolf!'; if someone has established himself as a poor witness and — worse — an outright liar, eventually one just dismisses his statements. > It's possible she lied about the location, the fraternity, etc., and I can see motivations for that: avoiding retaliation or attempting to remain anonymous. If you believe that she was raped or assaulted, squirrely behavior like that seems more reasonable. Squirrely behaviour also makes sense in the context of someone who's untrustworthy. I think you're affirming the consequent here: that her behaviour makes sense if she was raped is not logical evidence that she was actually raped, since there are other explanations for her behaviour. > Thus, it's very likely that Jackie lied about the specifics of the situation, but that something terrible (rape or assault) did happen to her. That's a non-sequitur. I don't think that there's any compelling evidence that anything terrible happened to her in college (what problems in her upbringing or character led her to spin tales are another story). > This interpretation is more in line with a rational persons motivations than inventing a rape story for unclear motives. Why do you assume that her behaviour was rational? Clearly it wasn't: lying to friends, inventing people, asking folks to text the invented people.

danieltillett 10y ago

Even if something very bad happened to "jackie" it does not give her license to go around and accuse innocent people of gang rape. Two wrongs do not make a right. More importantly it was the amplification of the accusation through the national media that made this case so much worse. Every case of false rape reported damages thousands of real rape victims by undermining their credibility. On the use of throwaway accounts to avoid downvoting I think you should be brave and stand by your opinion. At worst you will lose 4 points.

Pyxl101 10y ago
Does something specific happen when you're downvoted by four points? I didn't realize there was a downside limit.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  Nothing in my experience other than your comment is marked as dead. If all your comments ends up downvoted then HC may hellban you, but if you have the occasional controversial post nothing much happens.

Lazare 10y ago

I don't disagree with your overall point, however I would raise three quibbles: > That said, I'm not convinced that Jackie fabricated this story. This seems like an overly technical quibble. You even admit, further on, that "many aspects of her account were false", and that she "lied about the details". Many people would term that a fabrication, and while Erdely certainly helped, much of the false details seem to have originated with Jackie. I'm really not quite sure what distinction you're trying to make here? > it's very likely that [...] something terrible (rape or assault) did happen to her. "Very likely" might be pushing it a bit. It's certainly very plausible, but I think far too little is known about Jackie to say anything in particular is "likely". Then again, I'm not sure why it matters? Even more to the point, I don't think any of the details about Jackie are especially relevant to the story here, which is about Rolling Stone, Erdely, and UVA. Once it became clear that the story Rolling Stone told was fiction rather than fact, this stopped being about the young woman Erdely interviewed, and started being about Rolling Stone's editorial policies, their fact checking, and Erdely's skill and integrity. That being said, I take your overall point as being that it is worth keeping in mind that very little is known about Jackie, that by all appearances she is as much a victim of Erdely is anyone, she is unquestionably troubled and did not receive help, and that she is not being sued or prosecuted, nor should she be, based on what's known. And with that, I agree strongly.

wtbob 10y ago

> There is not much upside for a woman to be featured in a national "rape on campus" story. You risk becoming the subject of internet hate and death threats in exchange for basically no personal gain. I disagree that there's not much potential upside: one gets fame & attention, which I think would be pretty appealing to a fabulist. > However, just because she lied about the details of the rape does not mean she was not raped, or sexually assaulted, or that something terrible did not happen to her. That's quite true. But, at a certain point one has to quit paying attention to a boy crying 'wolf!'; if someone has established himself as a poor witness and — worse — an outright liar, eventually one just dismisses his statements. > It's possible she lied about the location, the fraternity, etc., and I can see motivations for that: avoiding retaliation or attempting to remain anonymous. If you believe that she was raped or assaulted, squirrely behavior like that seems more reasonable. Squirrely behaviour also makes sense in the context of someone who's untrustworthy. I think you're affirming the consequent here: that her behaviour makes sense if she was raped is not logical evidence that she was actually raped, since there are other explanations for her behaviour. > Thus, it's very likely that Jackie lied about the specifics of the situation, but that something terrible (rape or assault) did happen to her. That's a non-sequitur. I don't think that there's any compelling evidence that anything terrible happened to her in college (what problems in her upbringing or character led her to spin tales are another story). > This interpretation is more in line with a rational persons motivations than inventing a rape story for unclear motives. Why do you assume that her behaviour was rational? Clearly it wasn't: lying to friends, inventing people, asking folks to text the invented people.