"Rape denialists and apologists will always find some way to say something is untrue," said Laura Dunn, executive director of SurvJustice, a group that is pushing for tougher enforcement of laws against sexual assault of students and others. Dunn said that Rolling Stone, by talking about "discrepancies" in Jackie's story, is "blaming the victim."
Buzuvis also said she was concerned that the backlash over the article
may be used by those who are questioning the current move of many
colleges and universities (prodded by the U.S. Education Department) to
move to a "preponderance of evidence" standard in judging sexual assault
cases, not the criminal standard of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
Want an actual investigation, and facts and evidence, you're a 'denier' and 'rape apologist'. Point out problems, or errors, or flat-out lies in a case, you're 'blaming the victim'.
Want to stick with those 'presumption of innocence' and 'beyond reasonable doubt' things that people fought so hard for, you're a Bad Person because "We want a hanging, and that's getting in the way! We want presumption of guilt!"
Buzuvis, this just proved that your 'preponderance of evidence' standard is bullshit. Going by that, people in that fraternity could've had their lives ruined over this; but you'd be happy with that, wouldn't you?
Also, notice that the campus paper has taken its lessons from the major media:
..."The possible discrepancies being brought to light (by the fraternity's
lawyer, people!!!) in this story don't change the fact that rape is
rampant at this university and has been since women were first admitted
Because if the lawyer of the accused points out problems with a story, that should be ignored; at least if the accused is male. And rape is RAMPANT, because we say so! Etc.