Let me begin by saying that this is frustrating for all groups involved. But I wanted to specifically address what Max really can or cannot do regarding this situation.
1. I understand those that say that he should sue. But think of it this way: even if he goes through a long lawsuit to sue and wins, he still comes up worse for wear: people who hated him to begin with will just say he "bought" his freedom with high priced lawyers, and the publicity the trial would generate would just hurt him more no matter what the outcome.
2. What's frustrating to me is even in these HN comments, the fact that he _isn't_ suing is somehow proof that there might be more to the story! You end up not winning -- not going to trial is because you know the "truth" might come out, and going to trial and winning will still prove that you might still be guilty, but celebrity status/money helped you.
3. Other people argue he should / should not have posted this blog post. But again, it's a catch-22: if you don't publish the blog post, it's because you are trying to bury the story because there might be some truth to it. But if you do publish it, now people think you aren't telling the whole truth and are just spinning it to get people on your side!
So really, no matter what you do, there's no good solution. If you sue, your victory will be Pyrrhic at best. If you don't sue, you're hiding something. If you post a response, you are spinning it. If you don't post, you're hiding something.
Worse yet, defending Max can end up being a lose-lose situation as well. If I believe Max's story, and defend him in forums/communications, that can portray me as being a sympathizer to sexual offenders rather than victims, which would anger me very much.
Sexual assault is a travesty. Period. And victims already have many times a hard enough time coming forward and talking about it, yet alone going to the police -- under the assumption that they might not be believed or that they will be shamed. But we need to make sure that there is justice for all, without hurting either side. We still have a long way to go.
While it's very chivalrous of him to not want to lawyer up, what he's describing is libel, pure and simple. This "friend" of his did something completely inappropriate, and is liable to cause significant monetary damage, a possibly permanent stain on his reputation, and significant psychological distress.
Not pursuing this through the appropriate venues—the legal system—simply lets her "get away with it". That's not being nice to her, that's being in an abusive relationship and not speaking up for yourself.
A lot of people in this thread seem to want Max to become a Men's Rights activist and fight this case on behalf of wronged men everywhere.
What he seems to say in his post is that he is willing to let this slide because the alternative could well result in fewer women speaking out about sexual assaults they have suffered. He has decided that the negative (a false accusation against him) is worth an overall positive (women hopefully feeling free to speak out). That is his choice to make.
While this is definitely true, couldn't that just bring more unwanted attention to him in this situation? We see it with celebrities all the time; they go on trial for something, and the trial often gets so much media publicity that people forget if the person in question was even innocent or guilty in the end. They only remember to associate them with whatever the crime was. He doesn't want that, and maybe he doesn't want to give the accuser the satisfaction of tainting his reputation like that.
In libel suits, the truth is the ultimate defense. He would have to prove that she is lying, not that there is an absence of evidence. Going to court would bring her private emails and messages into the court record, but it would take an email of hers acknowledging that it was a lie in order to win the case.
It's somewhat troubling that this top-rated comment and all its children assume this can only be a false accusation.
I can only assume that this is the case with many rape accusations, especially those from years ago, though what limited research there is suggests false rape accusations are rare (2-8%).
The horrible part about it is that when an accusation like this is made, either one person or the other will potentially have their life destroyed, but the alternatives for both parties are also horrible: for the victim to stay silent, or for the falsely accused to not defend themselves.
And here goes the pattern. A lot of people simply assuming she's truthful just because she made the accusation, and a lot of people simply assuming she's lying just because he stated a defense.
I personally think the threat of libel (followed by the claim he won't because he's a good person or whatever) is a creepy move if he accepts there's the possibility she might have misinterpreted something. If she legitimately believes she was wronged, then that comes across as an intimidating silencing technique.
In order for this to be "libel, pure and simple", you have to prove damage to a reputation, defamation of character, that the claims prevented you from doing business, did psychological damage, etc.
His ability to win a case rests on his ability to prove his business or state of mind has been seriously damaged by these claims. The problem with that is also his saving grace: it happened 10 years ago, so most people won't give it much credit without evidence. Because people won't give it much credit, his personal and professional reputation won't be damaged.
If he did initiate a suit, it would probably bring him an enormous amount more trouble both professionally and personally than if he addresses it quickly and lets it die, which is what he's decided to do. So really he probably has no case and this is his best course of action.
But then again, I Am Not A Lawyer, so what the hell do I know? Armchair lawyering sure is fun though.
I agree with you, not taking legal action against this person is not a "respectable decision" and will, indeed, encourage people to report more rapes, but not necessarily real rapes ("hey, I can say whatever I want people won't do anything about it and it will ruin this guy's repuation" kind of stuff).
Also, I agree with some of the posts in this thread: the fact that such an accusation has any value, when it supposedly happened 10 years ago, is ridiculous, as proving that something did or did not happen 10 years ago is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
I'm not saying it did not happen, but it is very unlikely to be proven/disproven (and by proof, here, I mean actual proofs, not people's words on the subject).
"Not pursuing this through the appropriate venues—the legal system—simply lets her "get away with it"."
If he expects this to happen again in the future, then it might make sense to pursue a libel case. But if not, and if the premise here is that what she's saying (regardless of whether it's true) is damaging to him, then it makes sense that he'd have to seriously consider whether filing a libel suit against her would really be an effective remedy.
It's unlikely that the objective truth of the matter could ever be definitively proven one way or the other. Therefore, even if he were to win such a suit, the act of defending himself will tend to make him look more guilty and less like a victim. So I think he has little to gain and much to lose from filing suit.
> I’m not wild about the precedent that [suing for libel] sets for other women to come forward in cases of actual sexual assault.
Very, very, very few men have the wealth, fame, connections, and social media presence that Max has. He can defend his reputation; most men can't. He has to know this.
He is openly trying to set the precedent that suing over a very public false accusation is somehow anti-women. That's just gross.
And yet another example of why public shaming is bad.
If rape did happen, bring it before the courts. If not, don't ruin peoples' lives. And don't wait 10 years to accuse someone.
Who knows what really happened. Were they both blackout-drunk? Was it really awkward and bad? Maybe she consented and then regretted it? Maybe it was rape, in which case she should have reported it 10 years ago... Is she trying to cash in since he's slightly more successful than the stereotype of a philosophy major?
I'm not going to discuss this particular case, which I know nothing about, but generally speaking, I think it's fairly to look at it from a distance and say "Maybe it was rape, in which case she should have reported it 10 years ago".
I am not an expert on the matter, but for many rape victims, it is not as easy as it sounds. A lot of different factors come into play when trying to muster the courage to go report a life-shattering incident such as rape. Guilt, fear of not being taken seriously, facing the incident once again, anguish about legal procedures, etc.
Can't emphasize this enough, it's not something you can look at rationally and say "That person should have done that".
Maybe it was rape, in which case she should have reported it 10 years ago
Thankfully, I've never been sexually assaulted, and I have no insight into either side of this particular situation, but I doubt that it's quite that simple for the victim of a rape.
I saw another tweet from Andy Baio saying that the victim would release her side of the story on an online site (the link he gave was blank, though)...whatever the events, it probably wasn't ideal for a "friend of a friend" to make such a conclusive indictment, for either the OP or for the accuser.
I find it interesting that someone comes along and says, "No one can have a proper dialogue about this here" which then leads to a response of "What you are doing is silencing the victim & being complicit in rape culture. So yeah, that IS you." which seems to directly prove his opinion that you cannot have proper dialogue about sensitive topics on Twitter.
Oh, that guy, interesting. You're saying he doesn't actually directly know the person?
He has a wannabe "Youtube celebrity" channel where feminism is a main topic. I am going to go ahead and say it. Whatever his motivations for writing this, by injecting himself into the middle of it he can now benefit financially off of this.
>It is entirely possible she read something completely different than I did into an awkward college hookup.
Absent any further evidence from either party and giving both the benefit of the doubt, doesn't this seem like the most likely explanation? It isn't that uncommon for two people to have two completely different takeaways from the same event. If you throw in the probable lack of experience of the two parties, the likelihood that alcohol was involved, and the admission by one of the participants that they lacked communication skills, those odds would seemingly skyrocket.
This is the reason for the whole 90's politically correct era of asking permission before every escalation. That is the best way to prevent this possible scenario until both parties gain the experience, the communication skills, the confidence, and the level of safety to properly convey what the want from the situation.
"I spoke with my lawyer, and she thinks I have a clear case to sue this woman for libel and get a restraining order, but I have no desire to bully or harm her."
You have the money to defend yourself, you are luckily able to fight back against these fabrications. What if you were less fortunate? You would be -fucked- my friend. You should definitely sue her ass for libel.
What if you were less fortunate? You would be -fucked- my friend.
It sounds like this is kind of exactly what he doesn't want - to somehow represent or stand up for total strangers who were also accused of sexual assault. And I can see why.
If he sues her for libel what, exactly, does he get out of it? Ironically, he'd get a lot more attention than has already been paid to the topic. I doubt he wants that, either.
The victim should have reported the rape when it occured. I will always support that choice on the part of the victum.
Not reporting rape when it occurred is not the fault of the victim.
However, she leveled public accusations 10 years later when the only chance of evaluating the accusations is the word and unreliable memories of the two people involved.
Now, even that isn't necessarily a bad thing. She should have that right, and people should come forward in case there are other silent, more recent, victims.
Unfortunately, internet culture involves people thinking that they somehow have the ability and responsiblity to judge the truth of these accusations and then publicly voice that opinion. I wish fewer people on this thread were doing that.
We need to have a safe, secure, victim friendly system for logging these types of accusations, investigating them, looking for corroboration, and then strict guidelines for publicizing these accusations even if the statue of limitations has expired.
Public shaming works, the court of public opinion doesn't.
The most honorable thing in that whole post is this:
"You will not harass or threaten the woman making these claims. I am not looking for a mob of people carrying pitchforks on my behalf. If you harass her or go after her in any way, you are not a friend of mine, and you are not a friend of Cards Against Humanity."
We removed all of the “rape” jokes from Cards Against Humanity years ago. We’ll continue to use the game as best we can to “punch up” and not “punch down.”
Is this the same Cards Against Humanity that I'm thinking of? Because I'm pretty sure that game "punches down" quite hard.
It depends on the group of players in my experience. The cards definitely can be insulting if played in that manner. They can also be hilarious and disconnected to any specific person, Glenn Beck notwithstanding.
Yeah I was also surprised by the willful inconsistence of that sentence. "The hardworking Mexican" / "Homeless people" / "AIDS" / etc. Personally, while I think rape jokes belong almost nowhere, I'd be a little disappointed to find that there isn't even a place for them in CAH -- it's the definition of "agreed-upon safe place for offensive jokes" and you would have to neuter the game to consistently remove offensive jokes from it.
Although I realize that on some level it's just not my kind of humor, I honestly think this game is pretty disgusting and I'm surprised by how popular it is.
Her use of the term "rape culture" is a red flag. I've been seeing it used very very broadly, covering "transgressions" as simple as looking admiringly at a woman for her attractive (and willfully emphasized) figure. She might be labeling her short, intimate & dumped relationship with him as "rape" despite nothing forced nor overtly sexual.
Willful misuse of terms to evoke cultural reactions is not uncommon, extremely hard to counter in fairness, and terribly destructive.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - The Princess Bride
I'm sorry you have to go through this, and I think it's admirable that you do not want to get lawyers involved, but think of everyone in your position who doesn't have the means to properly defend themselves from something like this. I think it's important to make a point that falsely accusing someone of rape is never okay, and comes with its consequences.
> I had a really brief relationship with this girl in college; her dorm room was next to mine, and after a few evenings staying up talking all night, we made out. We spent a few nights in each others’ rooms, but we never had sex and neither of us pressured the other into doing anything we weren’t comfortable with. After a few nights, I broke things off in the cowardly way that 19-year-old guys do, and I just stopped returning her calls and texts.
I'm a bit confused by this part. I thought that the ignore calls and texts method of breakup only worked when those were essentially the only forms of communication you had with the person when not on a date. That method then works because with no more communication, they can no longer arrange dates.
How do you make that method work when the other person is in the next room?
I can think of several possibilities, but I'll leave their plausibility for the reader to judge:
- She was also cowardly about how the relationship ended, and could never work up the nerve to confront him in person. In my own dorm doors were usually kept closed, so if you didn't seek someone out, you would rarely see them at all.
- She knocked on his door, and he ignored her then too, but omitted it from the article, focusing on where the relationship didn't go rather than exhaustively detailing how it ended
- The two people kept separate schedules that meant they often weren't home at the same time, save sleeping hours (or, if either had a flexible-schedule night shift job, as my own roommate did, not even then)
- The relationship occurred near the end of a semester, and both parties moved out about the time it ended. They no longer ran into each other.
A terrible comment to make in a serious submission about a serious issue, but:
It's interesting that so many people who are internet-famous feminists seem to love Cards Against Humanity. Surely I'm seeing a pattern where there's only pure coincidence, but it caught my attention a while ago.
It's unfortunate that so many are uncritically jumping to Max's defense. Scratch that--it's wrong, misogynistic, and reflects badly on the HN community. No one knows what actually happened, except for the accused and the accuser, and even they have to contend with time dulling memory.
If you're part of the group that's immediately discounting her accusation and claiming she made it up, I've got to ask: why? The only reasons I see mentioned here are "it was a long time ago, she would have pressed charges then if she were telling the truth" and "she refers to rape culture, she's clearly a social justice warrior trying to pick up some Twitter followers." But both are transparently bad reasons to attack her credibility.
A more interesting question is how to dispel the fog of claims and counterclaims that makes identifying and prosecuting intimate violence so difficult. I can't imagine anything short of the panopticon that could do that, though.
People are uncritically jumping to Max's defense because (1) he's a famous guy who created something they like and (2) as males, it's easier to put themselves in his shoes than hers.
Neither of those reasons are particularly logical, but we're dealing with humans here, not machines.
People are jumping to his defense because of one thing: She isn't providing any details. We don't even know what the nature of sexual assault happened, how it happened, and even when it happened. This isn't to say that a sexual assault didn't happen. However, how can anyone defend themselves from an accusation with no details? Her response doesn't even counter any of the details in Max's response. (i.e. Was kissing the sexual assault in question?)
>A more interesting question is how to dispel the fog of claims and counterclaims that makes identifying and prosecuting intimate violence so difficult.
While you can't really tell in he said-she said cases, rapists and similar are often creatures of habit and if you get unrelated victims with the same story that narrows things down. Plus there can be other evidence. Rolf Harris for example - that was a bit of a shocker.
I wanted to say I'm amazed by the number of commenters who just assume the OP states the truth, but I'm not, not really. HN is awfully quick to take sides, and it's very predictable where it comes down. (In the aggregate. Yes, I know there's no HN group mind)
So, as food for thought: What if something happened between these two that was rather awkward, and can be interpreted either way? In that case, I think the OPs response is entirely reasonable - "Oh fuck, this is not what I thought it was, or what I intended it to be. I'd like to talk to her".
I'm very sad the woman's first reaction was to lob a public accusation, yes. If she thinks it's rape, she should've file charges, instead of instigating a pitchfork campaign. On the flip side, the reactions here show exactly how most women claiming rape are treated, including by law enforcement. It immediately becomes a witch hunt.
So how about we withhold judgment on this for a little while, until there are actual facts?
Or are we so desperate for yellow journalism that we must comment on other's private lives without any information?
Since the post has no title to revert to, we'll use the first sentence instead. The submitted title ("Co-founder of Cards Against Humanity Accused of Rape"), besides being editorialized, was also arguably misleading, since it suggests that the post consists of the accusation.
Commenters: Please follow the HN guidelines and ensure that your comments are substantive and civil.
[+] [-] eggbrain|11 years ago|reply
1. I understand those that say that he should sue. But think of it this way: even if he goes through a long lawsuit to sue and wins, he still comes up worse for wear: people who hated him to begin with will just say he "bought" his freedom with high priced lawyers, and the publicity the trial would generate would just hurt him more no matter what the outcome.
2. What's frustrating to me is even in these HN comments, the fact that he _isn't_ suing is somehow proof that there might be more to the story! You end up not winning -- not going to trial is because you know the "truth" might come out, and going to trial and winning will still prove that you might still be guilty, but celebrity status/money helped you.
3. Other people argue he should / should not have posted this blog post. But again, it's a catch-22: if you don't publish the blog post, it's because you are trying to bury the story because there might be some truth to it. But if you do publish it, now people think you aren't telling the whole truth and are just spinning it to get people on your side!
So really, no matter what you do, there's no good solution. If you sue, your victory will be Pyrrhic at best. If you don't sue, you're hiding something. If you post a response, you are spinning it. If you don't post, you're hiding something.
Worse yet, defending Max can end up being a lose-lose situation as well. If I believe Max's story, and defend him in forums/communications, that can portray me as being a sympathizer to sexual offenders rather than victims, which would anger me very much.
Sexual assault is a travesty. Period. And victims already have many times a hard enough time coming forward and talking about it, yet alone going to the police -- under the assumption that they might not be believed or that they will be shamed. But we need to make sure that there is justice for all, without hurting either side. We still have a long way to go.
[+] [-] eykanal|11 years ago|reply
Not pursuing this through the appropriate venues—the legal system—simply lets her "get away with it". That's not being nice to her, that's being in an abusive relationship and not speaking up for yourself.
[+] [-] untog|11 years ago|reply
What he seems to say in his post is that he is willing to let this slide because the alternative could well result in fewer women speaking out about sexual assaults they have suffered. He has decided that the negative (a false accusation against him) is worth an overall positive (women hopefully feeling free to speak out). That is his choice to make.
[+] [-] NickWarner775|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 3pt14159|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mef|11 years ago|reply
I can only assume that this is the case with many rape accusations, especially those from years ago, though what limited research there is suggests false rape accusations are rare (2-8%).
The horrible part about it is that when an accusation like this is made, either one person or the other will potentially have their life destroyed, but the alternatives for both parties are also horrible: for the victim to stay silent, or for the falsely accused to not defend themselves.
[+] [-] tunesmith|11 years ago|reply
I personally think the threat of libel (followed by the claim he won't because he's a good person or whatever) is a creepy move if he accepts there's the possibility she might have misinterpreted something. If she legitimately believes she was wronged, then that comes across as an intimidating silencing technique.
[+] [-] peterwwillis|11 years ago|reply
In order for this to be "libel, pure and simple", you have to prove damage to a reputation, defamation of character, that the claims prevented you from doing business, did psychological damage, etc.
His ability to win a case rests on his ability to prove his business or state of mind has been seriously damaged by these claims. The problem with that is also his saving grace: it happened 10 years ago, so most people won't give it much credit without evidence. Because people won't give it much credit, his personal and professional reputation won't be damaged.
If he did initiate a suit, it would probably bring him an enormous amount more trouble both professionally and personally than if he addresses it quickly and lets it die, which is what he's decided to do. So really he probably has no case and this is his best course of action.
But then again, I Am Not A Lawyer, so what the hell do I know? Armchair lawyering sure is fun though.
[+] [-] totony|11 years ago|reply
Also, I agree with some of the posts in this thread: the fact that such an accusation has any value, when it supposedly happened 10 years ago, is ridiculous, as proving that something did or did not happen 10 years ago is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
I'm not saying it did not happen, but it is very unlikely to be proven/disproven (and by proof, here, I mean actual proofs, not people's words on the subject).
[+] [-] usefulcat|11 years ago|reply
If he expects this to happen again in the future, then it might make sense to pursue a libel case. But if not, and if the premise here is that what she's saying (regardless of whether it's true) is damaging to him, then it makes sense that he'd have to seriously consider whether filing a libel suit against her would really be an effective remedy.
It's unlikely that the objective truth of the matter could ever be definitively proven one way or the other. Therefore, even if he were to win such a suit, the act of defending himself will tend to make him look more guilty and less like a victim. So I think he has little to gain and much to lose from filing suit.
[+] [-] a-t-shirt|11 years ago|reply
> I’m not wild about the precedent that [suing for libel] sets for other women to come forward in cases of actual sexual assault.
Very, very, very few men have the wealth, fame, connections, and social media presence that Max has. He can defend his reputation; most men can't. He has to know this.
He is openly trying to set the precedent that suing over a very public false accusation is somehow anti-women. That's just gross.
[+] [-] Mikeb85|11 years ago|reply
If rape did happen, bring it before the courts. If not, don't ruin peoples' lives. And don't wait 10 years to accuse someone.
Who knows what really happened. Were they both blackout-drunk? Was it really awkward and bad? Maybe she consented and then regretted it? Maybe it was rape, in which case she should have reported it 10 years ago... Is she trying to cash in since he's slightly more successful than the stereotype of a philosophy major?
[+] [-] VeejayRampay|11 years ago|reply
I am not an expert on the matter, but for many rape victims, it is not as easy as it sounds. A lot of different factors come into play when trying to muster the courage to go report a life-shattering incident such as rape. Guilt, fear of not being taken seriously, facing the incident once again, anguish about legal procedures, etc.
Can't emphasize this enough, it's not something you can look at rationally and say "That person should have done that".
[+] [-] pcl|11 years ago|reply
Thankfully, I've never been sexually assaulted, and I have no insight into either side of this particular situation, but I doubt that it's quite that simple for the victim of a rape.
[+] [-] chaostheory|11 years ago|reply
This is a lot easier said than done. There is still a lot of stigma around rape victims today, especially when the rape victims aren't female.
Statistically most rapes in the military are committed against males. Most of these rapes aren't reported.
[+] [-] danso|11 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/paulidin/status/487237076413612034
I saw another tweet from Andy Baio saying that the victim would release her side of the story on an online site (the link he gave was blank, though)...whatever the events, it probably wasn't ideal for a "friend of a friend" to make such a conclusive indictment, for either the OP or for the accuser.
[+] [-] mkal_tsr|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Torgo|11 years ago|reply
He has a wannabe "Youtube celebrity" channel where feminism is a main topic. I am going to go ahead and say it. Whatever his motivations for writing this, by injecting himself into the middle of it he can now benefit financially off of this.
[+] [-] slg|11 years ago|reply
Absent any further evidence from either party and giving both the benefit of the doubt, doesn't this seem like the most likely explanation? It isn't that uncommon for two people to have two completely different takeaways from the same event. If you throw in the probable lack of experience of the two parties, the likelihood that alcohol was involved, and the admission by one of the participants that they lacked communication skills, those odds would seemingly skyrocket.
This is the reason for the whole 90's politically correct era of asking permission before every escalation. That is the best way to prevent this possible scenario until both parties gain the experience, the communication skills, the confidence, and the level of safety to properly convey what the want from the situation.
[+] [-] sergiotapia|11 years ago|reply
You have the money to defend yourself, you are luckily able to fight back against these fabrications. What if you were less fortunate? You would be -fucked- my friend. You should definitely sue her ass for libel.
[+] [-] untog|11 years ago|reply
It sounds like this is kind of exactly what he doesn't want - to somehow represent or stand up for total strangers who were also accused of sexual assault. And I can see why.
If he sues her for libel what, exactly, does he get out of it? Ironically, he'd get a lot more attention than has already been paid to the topic. I doubt he wants that, either.
[+] [-] tzakrajs|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shkkmo|11 years ago|reply
Not reporting rape when it occurred is not the fault of the victim.
However, she leveled public accusations 10 years later when the only chance of evaluating the accusations is the word and unreliable memories of the two people involved.
Now, even that isn't necessarily a bad thing. She should have that right, and people should come forward in case there are other silent, more recent, victims.
Unfortunately, internet culture involves people thinking that they somehow have the ability and responsiblity to judge the truth of these accusations and then publicly voice that opinion. I wish fewer people on this thread were doing that.
We need to have a safe, secure, victim friendly system for logging these types of accusations, investigating them, looking for corroboration, and then strict guidelines for publicizing these accusations even if the statue of limitations has expired.
Public shaming works, the court of public opinion doesn't.
The most honorable thing in that whole post is this:
"You will not harass or threaten the woman making these claims. I am not looking for a mob of people carrying pitchforks on my behalf. If you harass her or go after her in any way, you are not a friend of mine, and you are not a friend of Cards Against Humanity."
[+] [-] vezzy-fnord|11 years ago|reply
Is this the same Cards Against Humanity that I'm thinking of? Because I'm pretty sure that game "punches down" quite hard.
[+] [-] liquidise|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shawndrost|11 years ago|reply
(Also, "Surprise sex!" is still on the list at http://www.cardsagainsthumanity.com/wcards.txt)
[+] [-] boucher|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ctdonath|11 years ago|reply
Willful misuse of terms to evoke cultural reactions is not uncommon, extremely hard to counter in fairness, and terribly destructive.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - The Princess Bride
[+] [-] heyimwill|11 years ago|reply
Have fun at gX!
[+] [-] tzs|11 years ago|reply
I'm a bit confused by this part. I thought that the ignore calls and texts method of breakup only worked when those were essentially the only forms of communication you had with the person when not on a date. That method then works because with no more communication, they can no longer arrange dates.
How do you make that method work when the other person is in the next room?
[+] [-] spiffytech|11 years ago|reply
- She was also cowardly about how the relationship ended, and could never work up the nerve to confront him in person. In my own dorm doors were usually kept closed, so if you didn't seek someone out, you would rarely see them at all.
- She knocked on his door, and he ignored her then too, but omitted it from the article, focusing on where the relationship didn't go rather than exhaustively detailing how it ended
- The two people kept separate schedules that meant they often weren't home at the same time, save sleeping hours (or, if either had a flexible-schedule night shift job, as my own roommate did, not even then)
- The relationship occurred near the end of a semester, and both parties moved out about the time it ended. They no longer ran into each other.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dictum|11 years ago|reply
It's interesting that so many people who are internet-famous feminists seem to love Cards Against Humanity. Surely I'm seeing a pattern where there's only pure coincidence, but it caught my attention a while ago.
[+] [-] scarmig|11 years ago|reply
If you're part of the group that's immediately discounting her accusation and claiming she made it up, I've got to ask: why? The only reasons I see mentioned here are "it was a long time ago, she would have pressed charges then if she were telling the truth" and "she refers to rape culture, she's clearly a social justice warrior trying to pick up some Twitter followers." But both are transparently bad reasons to attack her credibility.
A more interesting question is how to dispel the fog of claims and counterclaims that makes identifying and prosecuting intimate violence so difficult. I can't imagine anything short of the panopticon that could do that, though.
[+] [-] xsmasher|11 years ago|reply
Neither of those reasons are particularly logical, but we're dealing with humans here, not machines.
[+] [-] chaostheory|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tim333|11 years ago|reply
While you can't really tell in he said-she said cases, rapists and similar are often creatures of habit and if you get unrelated victims with the same story that narrows things down. Plus there can be other evidence. Rolf Harris for example - that was a bit of a shocker.
[+] [-] schrodingersCat|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] learningram|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] x86_64Ubuntu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cheshire137|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] groby_b|11 years ago|reply
So, as food for thought: What if something happened between these two that was rather awkward, and can be interpreted either way? In that case, I think the OPs response is entirely reasonable - "Oh fuck, this is not what I thought it was, or what I intended it to be. I'd like to talk to her".
I'm very sad the woman's first reaction was to lob a public accusation, yes. If she thinks it's rape, she should've file charges, instead of instigating a pitchfork campaign. On the flip side, the reactions here show exactly how most women claiming rape are treated, including by law enforcement. It immediately becomes a witch hunt.
So how about we withhold judgment on this for a little while, until there are actual facts?
Or are we so desperate for yellow journalism that we must comment on other's private lives without any information?
[+] [-] dang|11 years ago|reply
Commenters: Please follow the HN guidelines and ensure that your comments are substantive and civil.
[+] [-] daurnimator|11 years ago|reply