Slut shaming in the Buffalo News?

Dick, I completely understand the limited point you're making, but I think folks are troubled that you've once again chosen the role of men's rights advocate and they're confused as to why you apparently don't share their empathy for the accuser and annoyance with the Buffalo News for publishing the slut-shaming quotes offered up by Kane's friend.

 

I was right about Jackie. Let's not forget that. I was right.

 

And I think it's bigger than that, cran: I'm a defendant's rights' advocate.

 

Great. You can be all of those things and still understand it was wrong for the Buffalo News to allow itself to be used for the purpose of slut shaming the accuser.

 

I have plenty of empathy for the accuser. I believe her. Has anyone else said they believe her?

I believe that the Buffalo News should have presented the quotes better, with context expressing a recognition that they reflected this so-called "slut-shaming" rhetoric.

I also believe that they were legally significant to Patrick Kane's defense and, thus, should have run. The Buffalo News isn't in the business of protecting its readers - or its sources - from inelegance.

 

Does anyone believe this woman believes she is being harrassed:

I’m tired of being kind to creepy men in order to stay safe | Daisy Buchanan

 

People "believed" that Jackie's story was worth viewing as credible until proven otherwise. Nobody who matters believed her unequivocally and without further investigation. Even the university, which we agree mishandled it.

I have no problem taking a position on the Kane case: I think he did it.

It doesn't mean I automatically "believe" the victim's story. It means the accuser should be afforded enough credibility to warrant an investigation, and it means I believe the more we do that, the fairer the system, which specifically discourages women from coming forward, will be, for both parties.

 

Did the people who vandalized the fraternity house and gathered to protest outside of it simply believe "that Jackie's story was worth viewing as credible until proven otherwise," and not "believe[] her unequivocally and without further investigation"?

 

You keep returning to this: "It means the accuser should be afforded enough credibility to warrant an investigation."

Who would disagree?

I suppose what's unsaid is: A credible investigation, and not a shitshow circus like Tallahassee.

And I would agree.

But I think that it's a big leap from there to: "I have no problem taking a position on the Kane case: I think he did it."

Why? We haven't even heard from him yet.

 

They ran the quotes as they ran them. It was bad journalism to publish quotes offered up by a guy with an obvious agenda in the absence of context and apparently without so much as a follow-up question.

 

Yes, correct. I agree. I think the quotes should have run, and I think the quotes should have run with much better context presented. (Same, by the way, with the bite mark and scratch story.)

 

I genuinely believe you genuinely believe you are correct.