Jump to content

Virginia frat sues Rolling Stone over rape story


Recommended Posts

$25 Million!

"Rolling Stone published the article with reckless disregard for the truth," it said.

 

The lawsuit contends that Rolling Stone and Erdely wanted to advance a narrative of college campus sexual violence by depicting a rape, whether it was true or not, the statement said.

omg!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Well, they weren't guilty THIS time. But they were likely accused of something they were guilty of and just didn't get caught for in the past. We all know frats tend to be a little rapey....

Link to post
Share on other sites

But if they waste time checking facts, they'll all have to go out of business!

Isn't that the company line? Fact checking is too difficult because they have to compete with the evil blogs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

But then again, it IS a frat we are talking about. $25 million to rehab their reputation? Please. Just because they stepped in a big pile of serendipity and were not guilty this time, doesn't mean they are innocent of rape. I am sure it wouldn't take much digging to find a rape victim of Phi Kappa Psi somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But then again, it IS a frat we are talking about. $25 million to rehab their reputation? Please. Just because they stepped in a big pile of serendipity and were not guilty this time, doesn't mean they are innocent of rape. I am sure it wouldn't take much digging to find a rape victim of Phi Kappa Psi somewhere.

I don't know if you are trolling or not.

 

Not a fan of frats. Was not in one in college, but attended too many parties and played guitar at a few Greek events. Generally speaking, they're full of over-privileged, connected (yet socially insecure), tribalistic twats. Not that other groups of people don't behave that way, of course; it's just that those traits are not considered positive.

 

That being said, I believe frat boys are just kinda dumb, not monsters. When I first read the Rolling Stone article, I didn't for a second think there were fraternities throughout the country hosting rape-parties; I thought was "Wow, what a perfect storm of ***holes," because outside of a war scenario, it has to be really ****ing hard finding a group of people committed to perpetrating that kind of violence, keeping it secret, even turning it into a ritual. Violence happens. Criminal conspiracies happen. But the odds of getting that many bad people together from a generally soft, upper-middle class upbringing, and having it be a thing? Come on. Somebody's gonna say something.

 

I am sure it wouldn't take much digging to find a rape victim of Phi Kappa Psi somewhere.

Sure. And if you consider sex-while-highly-intoxicated to be rape, probably just a day or two ago. I have a hard time believing they had a long-time gang rape ritual going on there though, and that they "just got lucky" this time cause the alleged victim was so unreliable.

 

:o

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Pong, yeah, I was trolling a bit, but seriously, it's not that I have any love for Rolling Stone, but do you really want to see this frat collect $25 million? What are the damages again? People might think frats have rape parties? Oh gee, no one would ever think that would they? I mean it is totally undeserved and unjustified that frats have a reputation for having rapes occur at their parties, right? By all means, back the Brinks truck up to that frat house, then. :rolleyes:

 

Sorry, but in a contest of who is more douchey between frats and Rolling Stone Magazine (seriously, does anyone even read it any more, anyway?), it is not even close and its fratboys by a long shot. Where is your outrage when other media outlets report other bad information? You really want to go to bat for these guys? I'm too lazy to look up stats, but if frats are just a bunch of stupid kids having a drunken good ol' time, then why is it that universities across the country are cracking down on sex assault and frats if sex assault is NOT an epidemic? Where there is smoke there's fire.

 

There are a lot of cases out there where someone gets rail roaded by the press. In most cases, I am all for suing said media outlet. But in the case of a frat? Sorry, I don't really give a sh*t that their "reputation" got sullied by Rolling Stone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not at all opposed to killing people who commit violent crimes, but I am strongly against the death penalty because of the way it is applied, human sin and error, and the fact that there just ain't no coming back from it.

 

That said, most of the people who are suspected to have been wrongfully executed were really ****ing bad people. Maybe they didn't commit the specific crimes they died for, but it's rare to find somebody who doesn't have a history of violence and crime -- somebody who society would probably be better off without, if we're being completely honest.

 

But when I say I don't support capital punishment, it's not because I feel a need to "go to bat for those monsters," or whatever, it's because justice is not always 100% fair or accurate, and that's not good enough for me when life or death hangs in the balance. Simple as that.

 

It's the same in this case. It's not about the parties involved, it is about the principle that Kurgan brought up earlier:
when accusing people of criminal acts, facts matter, political narratives don't.

Even if you are the world's biggest douche, it's still not cool for someone to say damaging things about you if they are not true.

 

Sadly, while Kurgan is right about the principle, he is wrong -- facts often don't matter, and the more emotionally charged an issue is, the less they do. But a $25 million lawsuit may, just may lead to people thinking twice before throwing out accusations that can follow a person (even a douchey person) around for their lifetime.

 

I'm too lazy to look up stats, but if frats are just a bunch of stupid kids having a drunken good ol' time, then why is it that universities across the country are cracking down on sex assault and frats if sex assault is NOT an epidemic? Where there is smoke there's fire.

This won't be popular, but IMO, it's because there is more hysteria over sexual assault than there is an actual epidemic. This doesn't mean people aren't being raped, or that the crime should be trivilalized with "boys will be boys" excuses or some horror, of course. But the truth is, violent crime and sexual assault rates have actually been seriously dropping over the last few decades. It's reached such crisis levels, the Association of American Universities was recently forced to come out with a survey, complete with non-response bias and broadened definitions of sexual assault in order to help prop up the popular "1-in-5" narrative!

 

-------

 

Side note: the "where there's smoke there's fire" line of reasoning was used during the day-care sex-abuse hysteria of the 1980s -- "If these adults aren't guilty, if this stuff wasn't happening at epidemic levels, why are we hearing about it all the time in the news and on afternoon television? WHERE THERE'S SMOKE THERE'S FIRE!"

 

Of course, children are molested and perpetrators should be punished, and there will be always weirdos who dabble in the occult. But there was no epidemic, and many people saw charges against them overturned once the hysteria subsided.

 

And of course, a generalized "issues hysteria" is, IMO, different than the Cosby thing where you had 20+ people over the course of decades with the same stories about the same man, same details, etc.

 

:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but in a contest of who is more douchey between frats and Rolling Stone Magazine (seriously, does anyone even read it any more, anyway?), it is not even close and its fratboys by a long shot. Where is your outrage when other media outlets report other bad information? You really want to go to bat for these guys? I'm too lazy to look up stats, but if frats are just a bunch of stupid kids having a drunken good ol' time, then why is it that universities across the country are cracking down on sex assault and frats if sex assault is NOT an epidemic? Where there is smoke there's fire.

 

There are a lot of cases out there where someone gets rail roaded by the press. In most cases, I am all for suing said media outlet. But in the case of a frat? Sorry, I don't really give a sh*t that their "reputation" got sullied by Rolling Stone.

So legal principles don't apply to fraternities simply because they have a reputation for douchiness that's not entirely unearned? I'm no fan of frats either, but the facts remain: Rolling Stone did not do their homework here, and reputations were besmirched. Reputations that are doubtlessly not spotless on the grand scheme of things, but that doesn't make it okay for Rolling Stone to publish a false rape story for the purposes of pandering to one of the few campus groups that might actually be more douchy than the frats themselves: campus feminists. Why is it that universities are cracking down on sex assault nation wide, you ask? Because fear mongering mass media has manufactured a campus rape "crisis" that is way out of proportion with the reality of the situation. Not that campus sex assaults are not terrible things as far as they go, but willfully misrepresenting the scope of said crisis in order to make it appear far worse than it really is, so as to pander to the vanity and egos of campus feminists and use fear tactics to secure the loyalty of the base to an ideological program is not okay, especially if innocent people suffer for it, and even if said people are not necessarily "innocent" of other crimes, again, falsely accusing them in this particular instance is not okay. No matter if the ultimate aim is to eradicate campus rapes - a noble goal to be certain. Nor does it justify exploiting the reputations of campus fraternities, whatever our opinions of them may be or how justified those opinions are. In this manner, the SJWs have actually sunk lower than the frats - no mean feat to be sure, but when you're the holiest of sacred cows in our culture, there's really no pile of **** you can't roll around in and not come out smelling like lavender, isn't there?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

This won't be popular, but IMO, it's because there is more hysteria over sexual assault than there is an actual epidemic. This doesn't mean people aren't being raped, or that the crime should be trivilalized with "boys will be boys" excuses or some horror, of course. But the truth is, violent crime and sexual assault rates have actually been seriously dropping over the last few decades. It's reached such crisis levels, the Association of American Universities was recently forced to come out with a survey, complete with non-response bias and broadened definitions of sexual assault in order to help prop up the popular "1-in-5" narrative!

 

 

 

Why is it that universities are cracking down on sex assault nation wide, you ask? Because fear mongering mass media has manufactured a campus rape "crisis" that is way out of proportion with the reality of the situation. Not that campus sex assaults are not terrible things as far as they go, but willfully misrepresenting the scope of said crisis in order to make it appear far worse than it really is, so as to pander to the vanity and egos of campus feminists and use fear tactics to secure the loyalty of the base to an ideological program is not okay, especially if innocent people suffer for it, and even if said people are not necessarily "innocent" of other crimes, again, falsely accusing them in this particular instance is not okay.

 

 

That is certainly a glass is half full argument if I ever heard one. Essentially you both are arguing that since violent crimes are down, things aren't so bad. It's as if you are arguing that any awareness brought to the public about sexual assaults on campuses is somehow "hysteria" or some manufactured crisis to advance some nefarious agenda? Look guys, there is no national movement to fear monger about sex abuse and rape. Such a statement is quite frankly, absurd, and the only thing more absurd in this case is some frat suing (especially if they win) for $26 million, when the typical victim usually gets nothing. Whether or not violent crimes are down, does not mean that somehow emphasis on campus sexual assaults should be lessened. Granted, if anything, such awareness should be ramped up in an effort to get that number as close to zero as possible. It won't ever be zero percent, but it is possible to make it so that it is a rare crime. Exactly how is that a bad thing?

 

Now I am not saying what Rolling Stone did was right. But you know what? They retracted the story back in April. And again, what are the damages that are worth $26 million? That somebody read a story thinking a frat was guilty of rape parties? Here's a news flash that DOES go on. The reputation is already out there. without looking at the story, can either of you provide names of individuals who had their reputations ruined, because it you can't, then there are no reputations ruined! Not to mention whether or not this specific story happened, I think it is pretty well common knowledge that frats, both good and bad, already have that stigma (deserved or not). And where does the lawsuit stop? By your logic, should Phi Kappa Psi also sue the Texas frat that publicly claimed that "No means yes, and yes means anal?" It's guilt by association, and someone might think all frats do it. SO why not?

 

And to be clear, I never said they should be denied their day in court. I said I don't give a sh*t about their reputations and that I find it repugnant that they would sue for $26 million. In fact, I hope they do go to court, and they have an all female jury and a female judge, and get laughed out of court like they deserve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Essentially you both are arguing that since violent crimes are down, things aren't so bad.

I can't speak for Kurgan, but I would say yes -- in most places in the U.S., violent crime has gone down since the 1980s, including sexual crimes. At least compared to where things were, they are definitely not so bad. Now, such statistics are surely little solace for somebody who wakes up in the hospital with a fractured skull after a mugging and/or rape; just because the numbers are down doesn't mean nobody suffers. But it doesn't change the fact that we are safer today than we were, either. In other words, yes we should still lock our doors at night, but maybe ease up a bit on some of the stranger danger paranoia?

 

It's as if you are arguing that any awareness brought to the public about sexual assaults on campuses is somehow "hysteria" or some manufactured crisis to advance some nefarious agenda?

No. There is nothing hysterical about bringing awareness to sexual assault on college campuses or anywhere. But acting like college campuses are are these hotbeds of sex crimes, like frat houses are only a step away from 1990s Iraqi rape rooms, even though DoJ statistics indicate female students are actually less likely to be victims than non-students... then inflating the numbers from 0.0061% to 0.2% by employing questionable surveys (surveys with authors who warn about their accuracy, even!)? Yeah, seems a bit hysterical to me, sorry. As for nefarious agendas, I missed the last meeting, so I couldn't tell you.

 

Whether or not violent crimes are down, does not mean that somehow emphasis on campus sexual assaults should be lessened. Granted, if anything, such awareness should be ramped up in an effort to get that number as close to zero as possible. It won't ever be zero percent, but it is possible to make it so that it is a rare crime. Exactly how is that a bad thing?

Reducing crime or other social ills to as close to zero percent as you can get is not a bad thing, but how you get there matters to me. If you can't move toward a worthy goal without employing exaggeration and hysterics, witch hunts, offering unnecessarily draconian remedies, etc., you are incompetent, an opportunist, and/or a tyrant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

As someone who has worked in higher education for over 12 years (support staff), I can say that at least where I have worked, the awareness campaigns to educate students about sex assault and violent crimes is no where near the level of "hysteria," or draconian. I believe they present a realistic picture of the risks students face. And really, when you think about it, it is not in higher educations's best interest to create mass hysteria, because they are in the business of recruiting students. So I think this fear of hysteria you and Kurgan have is misguided. I would say that actually the awareness campaign is at about the right level where I work, and many universities follow the exact same model.

 

The fact that violent crime is down since the 1980s is due to the increased efficiency of law enforcement as a whole, as well as increased awareness and prevention. Colleges, universities, and trade schools have a responsibility to ensure their students are safe from violent crimes on campus at a very minimum, and off campus where possible (IE off campus frat houses, school sponsored events, and the like). Trying to make a case that students are safer on campus than other people who are off campus somehow justifies reducing awareness is a bit hyperbolic. As is trying to compare campuses with Iraqi rape rooms. They are mutually exclusive.

 

Much of this current shift in attitude is due in no small part to pressure on universities to provide protection for the students, and not their own interests. Students want to feel safe on campus and have a legitimate expectation, as do the parents who pay for their education. If violent crimes are down and even less than off campus crimes, then I would argue that has a lot to do (not exclusively, but a lot) with awareness of assaults, advice educating students on how to avoid the risks, and encouraging students to come forward when crimes do occur. There WAS an environment not all that long ago on many campuses across the nation where actively assisting with cover ups, and encouraging students to report it to their security departments rather than law enforcement was common. It's this "hysteria" as you and Kurgan are terming it, that has help reduce that attitude.

 

So, no, I don't agree that violent crime awareness needs to be reduced on campus. It should be kept at the level it is at as a minimum. To reduce it, is to risk backsliding to higher crime rates. Not everything is some conspiracy, guys, and this isn't one of them.

 

Now, back on point with Rolling Stone VS the frat. To reiterate, I am not advocating dishonesty to advance agendas. I am simply saying I am not sympathetic to frats, and I admit my bias there. However, the one thing neither of you have addressed is the fact that frats DO have a bad reputation already, and deservedly so. Rewarding the frat with a multi-million judgement, and making an example of Rolling Stone Magazine will never change that. In essence, my argument is you can't damage something that already was damaged in the first place, and frats are to blame for their own bad press. In fact, its on the frats themselves to change that perception. A lawsuit making an example of a magazine won't do it for them. This is not to say Rolling Stone is not culpable. They are, but not to the tune of $26 million.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is certainly a glass is half full argument if I ever heard one. Essentially you both are arguing that since violent crimes are down, things aren't so bad. It's as if you are arguing that any awareness brought to the public about sexual assaults on campuses is somehow "hysteria" or some manufactured crisis to advance some nefarious agenda?

No, not any effort to bring awareness to campus sexual assaults = hysteria. But think a bit more long term here, El Chalup. The cultural zeitgeist now may be such that were the devil to appear on the steps of the Vatican and loudly proclaim herself female while the good lord above was male, every church in the English speaking world (at least) would hasten to tip its crosses upside down. But cultural zeitgeists are fickle things. Two or three generations from now, what may well be remembered about present day feminism is not that sexual assault rates on campus were lowered, but that they thought "embellishing" the truth, or that "being right in a broader, if not specific sense" (in short, lying and falsely accusing) were justifiable and academic astroturf "feminist" ideology advanced as rationalization, in order to draw attention to it. Or that they felt justified in exploiting the issue of sexual assault as ammunition in a broader gender war, to imply that women > men. Or that media outlets felt justified in exploiting popular concern over sexual assaults on campus to sell magazines and pander to its hipster base, fact checking be damned. Or that some chick felt that it was okay to publish this tripe, again fact checking be damned, in order to advance her publishing career under the guise of "making a difference" or some similarly romanticized notion.

 

And I would hate to see that happen. I wouldn't want my grand-daughter's and great grand daughter's generation of women feel it necessary to apologize for being female because the hip, educated women of our time are such arrogant pieces of s**t that a female judge and all female jury would actually base a legal decision on gender identity rather than admissible evidence. That they felt it was okay to do stuff like this because vaginas and feminism were the holiest of holies in the early 21st century, at least in some quarters. When the deeper reality is that concerns for women's issues are really being taken advantage of by a "Jerry Springerized" media machine that thrives on controversy, and angsty activists with much more personal axes to grind.

 

Look Chalup, I have no love of frat boys, and they're just about the last people on Earth I'd willingly associate with given the choice. They do earn their reputations as douchebags. When they really are guilty of "rape parties' or the like ... hang the bastards as far as I'm concerned. Right in the campus main square. Still and all, that doesn't justify making up false accusations against them and their members. That just makes those who do honestly try to raise awareness over sexual assaults look bad in the long run. Those are the reputations that truly suffer in cases like this. The frats come out looking like innocent victims, like their bad reputations are being exploited to advance an agenda. It's not that I want to see some frat boys make a huge bunch of money out of this. It's that Rolling Stone needs to have their fingers rapped, as an example to the media as a whole. The ends don't justify the means. The more important the cause, the more true that ultimately ends up being.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

But think a bit more long term here, El Chalup. The cultural zeitgeist now may be such that were the devil to appear on the steps of the Vatican and loudly proclaim herself female while the good lord above was male, every church in the English speaking world (at least) would hasten to tip its crosses upside down. But cultural zeitgeists are fickle things. Two or three generations from now, what may well be remembered about present day feminism is not that sexual assault rates on campus were lowered, but that they thought "embellishing" the truth, or that "being right in a broader, if not specific sense" (in short, lying and falsely accusing) were justifiable and academic astroturf "feminist" ideology advanced as rationalization, in order to draw attention to it. Or that they felt justified in exploiting the issue of sexual assault as ammunition in a broader gender war, to imply that women > men. Or that media outlets felt justified in exploiting popular concern over sexual assaults on campus to sell magazines and pander to its hipster base, fact checking be damned. Or that some chick felt that it was okay to publish this tripe, again fact checking be damned, in order to advance her publishing career under the guise of "making a difference" or some similarly romanticized notion.

 

And I would hate to see that happen. I wouldn't want my grand-daughter's and great grand daughter's generation of women feel it necessary to apologize for being female because the hip, educated women of our time are such arrogant pieces of s**t that a female judge and all female jury would actually base a legal decision on gender identity rather than admissible evidence. That they felt it was okay to do stuff like this because vaginas and feminism were the holiest of holies in the early 21st century, at least in some quarters. When the deeper reality is that concerns for women's issues are really being taken advantage of by a "Jerry Springerized" media machine that thrives on controversy, and angsty activists with much more personal axes to grind.

 

Kurgan, honestly, I don't see any evidence of this zeitgeist you are speaking of, and honestly I think you are confusing your own personal biases against militant feminist academics (which some can be absolutely bat-sh*t crazy) with mainstream feminist thought, or society in general for that matter. This is definitely not meant to be critical of you personally, because I think you are one of the more interesting posters around here, but this is not the first thread in which you suggest that there is some open cultural warfare going on between men and women, and men are on the losing side. MOST people, men and women, don't think in terms like that, and I am not sure where your opinions are coming from, particularly you aversion to anything feminist. The analogy I would make is just because there are religious extremists out there, does not make the whole religion or their doctrine that way. I suspect much of the views you have might be from literature you have read, coming from extremist feminist academics (I know they exist),or interactions with some people who subscribe to some radical views, but I think one thing that should be kept in mind is that such thought and opinions are NOT mainstream. And they won't ever be, either, because they are extreme views that only reside in academia, and are actually kind of obscure on the grand scale. So, you need not fear for the future of your grandkids. Just a thought here, but I think to you such extremists may seem mainstream, but maybe its because you actively look for those extreme examples to the point they are common place to you, and you see it everywhere, even when it isn't.

 

 

 

Look Chalup, I have no love of frat boys, and they're just about the last people on Earth I'd willingly associate with given the choice. They do earn their reputations as douchebags. When they really are guilty of "rape parties' or the like ... hang the bastards as far as I'm concerned. Right in the campus main square. Still and all, that doesn't justify making up false accusations against them and their members. That just makes those who do honestly try to raise awareness over sexual assaults look bad in the long run. Those are the reputations that truly suffer in cases like this. The frats come out looking like innocent victims, like their bad reputations are being exploited to advance an agenda. It's not that I want to see some frat boys make a huge bunch of money out of this. It's that Rolling Stone needs to have their fingers rapped, as an example to the media as a whole. The ends don't justify the means. The more important the cause, the more true that ultimately ends up being.

 

OK, I thought I had clarified myself, but apparently I didn't I am not saying Rolling Stone was justified in misrepresenting the story. They should be held accountable, and since they have retracted the story, they have taken steps to be accountable. I am also not saying that lying to advance an agenda is justifiable. I am not even saying that Rolling Stone shouldn't be sued by individuals that can prove they were affected directly, just not the fraternity itself.

 

What I am saying is that this frat is filing a frivolous lawsuit. They do not deserve $25million in damages. The reputations of frats in general is already damaged, and in most cases because of what they have done in the past. Whether or not Phi Kappa Psi was guilty or innocent of this case does not change the fact that the common perception (true or not) is that what goes on in frats is pretty much universal, and one of those things is sex assaults at frat parties. As such, they already have a stigma from the get-go. It's pretty hard to then suggest that the ruined reputation of Phi Kappa Psi is solely due to Rolling Stone and that they deserve $25 million.

 

Also, as I admitted to earlier, I have a bias against frats. I think it is unconscionable for a frat to sue over rape allegations as if they are totally innocent, when Phi Kappa Psi (including an incident at University of VA, no less) has faced rape allegations before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi_Kappa_Psi#Controversy

If what Liz Seccuro is true (and one of the rapists has in fact admitted and was convicted ), don't you find it distasteful that the same frat would then turn around and potentially get a $25 million profit because of some stupid mistake at a second rate magazine? Unless Phi Kappa Psi will then then donate 100% of the money (after legal costs, and assuming they win) to victims like Liz Seccuro or to programs to help reduce on campus and frat violent crimes, then I find what Ph Kappa Psi is doing to be completely disgusting, and it only serves to reinforce my distaste for frats overall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding extremism, Chalup, I'll suggest that the extremes of a belief system are the most pure representations of that belief system. As a kind of parallel analogy, consider Westboro Baptist. It's easy to simply dismiss them as "extremists" while ignoring the fact that there IS some scriptural basis for their anti homosexuality. Quite often it's the so called "moderates" that merely see what they want to see, that want to have their cake and eat it too. That want to be nice and politically correct and wishy washy while ignoring the darker side of the ideas they're avoiding confronting. A cartoon I saw once put it like this: "The extremist Muslim wants to behead infidels and apostates. The moderate Muslim wants the extremist Muslim to behead infidels and apostates." There's frequently truth to this. The differences between mainstream moderate feminists and extreme feminists, in my direct and ample observation, is that the extremists put their money where their mouths are. They want to go off and live on "womyn's lands" and be political lesbians and so forth. The so called "moderate" feminist mouths feminist platitudes when they want to show off how progressive and enlightened they are, or make men they don't like or don't know squirm, while making ample exceptions for the men they know personally, and especially from the one they're gettin' the 'D' from, as it were. In light of all this, I actually respect the extremists more. They're silly and they're ignorant, but they're also honest.

 

Regarding the frat - they may have been guilty as sin in other rape cases NOT covered by Rolling Stone in this particular instance, but that doesn't make it okay to impugn their guilt in a case where they are, in fact, innocent. Suppose you have a fellow who is known to have committed rape. So you suggest that he's committed it again in a separate instance, but it turns out that he wasn't guilty of it this time. Are you saying he would have no case for slander here because of the prior conviction? Less of a case than someone with no prior convictions maybe ... It might also depend on whether this was willful or merely professional negligence on Rolling Stone's part. I suppose a Carrie Mathison or a James Madison would have to step in here and clarify for certain, but I really don't think the laws actually work that way. The prior conviction and the present accusation would be two separate instances, and would have to be treated as such. I'm not sure it's worth 25 million in this case either, and they probably won't get that. But "Aim high", at least from the outset, to end up getting something in the end seems to be a thing in U.S tort law. Likewise, I don't doubt that the frat is motivated in large part by flagrant greed and desire to exploit the situation for more personal benefit, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't get something, at least in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Kurgan, as far as extremism goes, I am on the opposite end of the spectrum as you. I believe that extremism is a very narrow, very specific , often obscure (or incorrect) interpretation of a mainstream belief, and is not representative of the mainstream. Oftentimes, that interpretation could either be a completely different one from mainstream beliefs of a particular religion or ideology, an obsolete view (IE LDS (proper) Mormons no longer practice polygamy, whereas FLDS do), or in cases where beliefs of a religion is subverted and distorted by an individual for their own purposes (IE David Koresh, Jim Jones). If one likes to see things in black and white, then one might love to point to extremists as the "truest" example of the group or philosophy in order to make their own point. But I think that is really closed minded and paints people with too broad a broad brush. Not to mention how do you know what is in the minds of these moderate feminists or moderate Muslims for that matter? Basically you are saying the only difference is an extremist does what the moderate dreams of doing. That is something that is not knowable really, and it literally is something that can only be discovered on a case by case basis.

 

As far as the frat itself....I think you are unclear on my point there. First off, I am not saying they don't have a right to sue. Anyone has the right to sue anyone else, or at least try. I am saying I don't support their effort to file suit personally because I find it hypocritical, and that they don't deserve such a large amount, and that I hope they lose. Also, I am not saying that they should be denied the ability to sue based on past cases of similar situations, just that in my opinion they ought to lose because of them (which is why I would never be picked to sit on a jury in a case like this, I suppose). Also, I question exactly how much damage this Rolling Stone article did in the first place. As I have said in previous posts, frats have a pretty poor reputation, largely because rapes do happen at their parties, so one story that falsely accuses them of said action isn't going to do much more damage to them, because the damage is done. If I were a juror trying to figure out what the frat's compensation ought to be, I would simply say the retraction would be enough. Finally, I have a very low opinion of frats in general, but I freely admit my bias. I am not trying to be a judge or juror here. I am just expressing my (low) opinion of frats for sake of discussion, and that I hope they lose, not that they should be denied their day in court. Now does that make me closed minded with regard to frats? Probably, but I believe they earned that low opinion I have of them. Phi Kappa Psi certainly did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who spent a lot of time on the Greek system and married a douchey frat boy who spent all of his spare time dropping roofies into every open drink he saw, I can tell you that insurance on fraternities is pretty expensive. $26 million is probably based on that. The reputation would increase rates (and probably already did, before the retraction) and lower future membership. When you have a drop in membership at the chapter level, the remaining members have to spread the operating costs amongst them and dues go up. I think they have a legit case. Something like this could've shut the national organization down.

 

Seriously, I've had a hard time contributing to this conversation because your bias is so out of hand. There are decent human beings and terrible human beings in every type of organization. You know why so many ***holes exist on college campuses? Because they're young and spoiled kids. They're in every organization on campus, not just the Greek system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that Rolling Stone continues to allow Erdely to write for them is proof that they don't care about what happened. If they don't care, they're going to do it again. The only way to make them care is for everyone who was injured in any way to sue the hell out of them.

And just because you hate someone doesn't mean that everyone hates them, Chalup. I mean, we all get that a group of frat boys take turns shitting in your mouth every morning, but that doesn't mean that they don't still have a reputation that can be damaged by intentionally false allegations of brutal gang rape.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

And just because you hate someone doesn't mean that everyone hates them, Chalup. I mean, we all get that a group of frat boys take turns ****ting in your mouth every morning, but that doesn't mean that they don't still have a reputation that can be damaged by intentionally false allegations of brutal gang rape.

You say that in jest, but I seriously was attacked by 3 drunken frat boys unprovoked and put in the hospital, and an ER visit that cost me $2000 out of pocket (when you are in college making $10/hour, that is a LOT of money). I had my nose broken,had a concussion so serious I saw double for 3 days and threw up constantly, and 2 ribs cracked. I lived with a deviated septum and crooked nose for almost 10 years, until I finally had a good enough job that had good enough health insurance to repair the damage. When you have severe allergies and half your nose effectively not able to breathe, life can be miserable sometimes. The f*ckers jumped me 3 on 1, and kicked me in the face when I was down. One tried to grab my wallet, and as the bouncer and other people were coming to my aid, another of them said "You are lucky we didn't kill you." They took off and the cops never found them. What was my crime? I was passed out in the back of my truck at a club hurting no one (yeah, I made a dumb choice going alone without a designated driver, but I at least did the responsible thing and didn't drive), and these assh*les woke me up messing with my truck. When I told them to stop, they assaulted me because they were drunk and bored.

 

Excuse me if I don't have any sympathy for frats. So, yeah, I'm biased. But I think I'm entitled to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Replace that story with any other group. Would you have a right to hate blacks if it was 3 black guys? 3 gay guys? 3 women?

 

Sure, you have a right to be biased against whoever you want, and that story is awful, but it's not in any way indicative of an entire group and doesn't at all support the stance that you're taking, which is effectively "Who cares that Rolling Stone acted illegally and immorally? They did it to people I hate!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that in jest, but I seriously was attacked by 3 drunken frat boys unprovoked and put in the hospital, and an ER visit that cost me $2000 out of pocket (when you are in college making $10/hour, that is a LOT of money). I had my nose broken,had a concussion so serious I saw double for 3 days and threw up constantly, and 2 ribs cracked. I lived with a deviated septum and crooked nose for almost 10 years, until I finally had a good enough job that had good enough health insurance to repair the damage. When you have severe allergies and half your nose effectively not able to breathe, life can be miserable sometimes. The f*ckers jumped me 3 on 1, and kicked me in the face when I was down. One tried to grab my wallet, and as the bouncer and other people were coming to my aid, another of them said "You are lucky we didn't kill you." They took off and the cops never found them. What was my crime? I was passed out in the back of my truck at a club hurting no one (yeah, I made a dumb choice going alone without a designated driver, but I at least did the responsible thing and didn't drive), and these assh*les woke me up messing with my truck. When I told them to stop, they assaulted me because they were drunk and bored.

 

Excuse me if I don't have any sympathy for frats. So, yeah, I'm biased. But I think I'm entitled to be.

Look, I'm sorry for what happened to you, that's truly awful, but how do you know they were in a fraternity? Did you see them wearing letters for sure? If so, you absolutely should've reported the incident to the university and the cops. When they have a limited number of people to look through, it makes the job way easier, and someone is going to rat someone else out because they don't want to go the jail because their dumb friend jumped a guy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Replace that story with any other group. Would you have a right to hate blacks if it was 3 black guys? 3 gay guys? 3 women?

 

Sure, you have a right to be biased against whoever you want, and that story is awful, but it's not in any way indicative of an entire group and doesn't at all support the stance that you're taking, which is effectively "Who cares that Rolling Stone acted illegally and immorally? They did it to people I hate!"

First off, that isn't a "story." It is what happened to me.

 

Second, this is a thread of people offering nothing but opinions. I am offering mine, which is as valid as any of yours. I've not said that ALL frat members are like this, but it is my opinion that frats overall have earned the reputation they have, and that I am freely admitting my bias. With you making an analogy and comparison that my bias against white privileged drunken frat boys is exactly like being racist, homophobic or sexist is not a valid comparison.

 

Third, there is a whole world of a difference between me saying I don't care about the hurt feelings of a frat, and me personally rooting for them to lose in court (that IS in fact what I said), and what you are implying what I said, which seems to be that I am saying that nothing should be done at all. I did in fact say I support the retraction. I even support people who individually can show how the Rolling Stone article damaged them personally, having the right to sue. What I am AGAINST is the frat itself, as an organization, collecting $25 million.

 

 

 

Look, I'm sorry for what happened to you, that's truly awful, but how do you know they were in a fraternity? Did you see them wearing letters for sure? If so, you absolutely should've reported the incident to the university and the cops. When they have a limited number of people to look through, it makes the job way easier, and someone is going to rat someone else out because they don't want to go the jail because their dumb friend jumped a guy.

Yes, one of them did in fact have a ball cap. At the time, I was unfamiliar with the Greek alphabet, so I was not able to ID which frat. This happened more than 20 years ago.

 

Yes, I did in fact file a police report with that info.

 

No, it did not happen ON campus, just near it, and in fact I was not enrolled at the university this happened near at the time, but another college within the same metro area. So at the time I was actually in unfamiliar territory and I was much younger and less knowledgeable about what to do in situations like this.

 

As an aside, the club where I was at when this did happen was actually closed almost a decade ago, so it doesn't even exist anymore.

 

 

And this is why people hate Muslims.

Wow. I didn't know having a bias against frats collecting $25 million = hating on Muslims.

 

 

 

 

You know what guys, no offense, but this is a touchy subject for me here, and quite frankly I don't appreciate the direction this discussion is going. Before I lose my cool, I am going to bow out of this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.