Justice on the gossip standard

January 28, 2018 § 79 Comments

Consider two college classmates, Bob and Fred.  For a time they seemed to be friends; later they stopped being friendly.

Fred talks to a professor about his falling out with Bob.  Fred claims that a year and a half prior Fred had driven Bob out into the Shenandoah wilderness to go hiking.  He says that the two had disagreed about how far into the wilderness they were going to hike, and that when Fred insisted that they go no further the larger and stronger Bob attacked him, beat him up, and forced him to go all the way to Old Rag.  Then Fred drove the two of them back to campus and said nothing about the incident for a year and a half.

The professor (correctly) tells Fred that if this story is true he was a victim of criminal assault and battery.

Bob denies that he ever threatened (criminal assault) or hit (criminal battery) Fred, and says that Fred was the one insisting that they go on a longer hike.

As an administrator at this small college with a very small campus and very limited resources, you have to decide what to do.  Fred already has a psychiatrist/counselor, and in the course of investigating one of the things you do is ask Fred if you can talk to his counselor.  The college is far too small, maybe a few dozen classrooms in total, to enforce a regime of strict separation every time two students don’t get along and accuse each other of wrongdoing.

Knowing all this Fred’s parents continue to send him back to the college, where his alleged attacker also continues to attend, because apparently they themselves don’t think he is in any danger.  Bob is subjected to special scrutiny; is reprimanded and punished in a few cases where there is evidence of obnoxious behavior toward Fred.

Seven years later a flock of shrieking harpies descend, demanding justice for Fred’s victimization to “assault and battery,” carefully avoiding the inconveniently truthful word “alleged.”  The form of justice they demand is to insist that the college must “take accusations seriously” — that is, the college must treat (some[1]) gossip and rumor as if it were true for the purpose of making administrative decisions.

It is at this point that you, gentle reader, have to decide what sort of society you really want to live in: a civilization where public justice is carried out based on evidence available to third parties, third parties who out of necessity have to make authoritative decisions about what to do; or a banana republic in which public justice is carried out based on unverifiable gossip.  It is indeed a weakness of evidence based justice that some people get away with wrongdoing; though of course this is also true, to an even greater extent, in a gossip-based system.

Be careful what you decide; because the most common refrain some time after saying “what could it hurt?” is “how were we supposed to know?”  You are setting up your own daughters to fall victim to a future transsexual/non-cis gossip system of justice; since natural, surgically unaltered women are not at the top of the liberal victim hierarchy.


[1] The gossip and rumor which must be treated as authoritatively true are the gossip and rumor that the harpies favor.  Other gossip and rumor is to be discounted.  The criteria for accepting some gossip and rejecting other gossip is ambiguous, but definitely does not involve evidence.

§ 79 Responses to Justice on the gossip standard

  • Bruce Charlton says:

    @Zip – The answer is probably that of ‘medieval’ and earlier systems of law – You believe a Good man of known truthfulness and disbelieve an habitual liar and cheat.

    https://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-social-function-of-law-ancient-and.html

    If that situation doesn’t apply, you do nothing unless there is specific evidence.

  • T. Morris says:

    The professor (correctly) tells Fred that if this story is true he was a victim of criminal assault and battery.

    I must have missed that little detail in mommy blogger’s O.P. when I initially read it, but I’m not really all that inclined to go back and revisit the post to verify it is there.

  • Mike T says:

    Be careful what you decide; because the most common refrain some time after saying “what could it hurt?” is “how were we supposed to know?”

    Anecdotally, during the Trayvon Martin case I worked with a number of black folks. Most of them were obviously to the right side of the curve, but one wasn’t. The dimwitted one was the one who wanted Zimmerman crucified, all logic be damned, cuz “dat rayycissss.” The others supported Zimmerman’s case, even if they thought he may have provoked it (though all of them conceded it’s impossible to know that). Every single one of them saw that the case was really about giving the police the ability to turn self-defense on its head and make it guilty until proven innocent which amounts to a license to toss out murder charges like candy when it’s just the victim’s word. The men in particular said they could easily imagine a scenario where if Zimmerman lost, it could cost them their lives.

    Incidentally, the only white person there who ignored the complete lack of witnesses to the actual fight was also… basically a dumbass too.

    This is the natural danger involved in letting people who aren’t very smart influence things like due process. They literally aren’t smart enough to trace out a chain of events to see where unintended consequences may come into play.

  • Zippy, I appreciate your points and I can see the truth of your words as it applies to this particular college and this specific case. However, I’m still going to disagree.

    Men are not victims. Flat out, if men fear false allegations or misunderstood sexual encounters or devious women, there is way to totally protect yourself. Just assume that all women not your wife DO NOT want to have sex with you. Period. Any woman who gives the impression that they do, is lost, broken, brainwashed, sick, or confused.

    I have yet to find a single rape allegation involving a man who was a virgin. I have yet to find a sexual harassment case where man was actually busy honoring a woman as his sister in Christ. I’m sure we can find one somewhere, but I’m going to declare it’s very, very, rare.

    “Just assume that all women not your wife DO NOT want to have sex with you. Period”

    This is something I call “biological injustice.” Biology is not real interested in equality here. Men get ten times the testosterone load and face a world full of women who actually DO NOT want to have sex with them. Conversely, women get less than tenth of the testosterone and face a world where a vast majority of men DO want to have sex with them.

    What you are doing is actually attempting to place an unfair burden upon women, one where women are obliged to protect their own bodies, to protect men’s bodies too, while also creating a society that shelters men from the consequences of their own actions, and at the same time promises them due process and light sentences should they ever mess up.

    And what do women get out of this deal? The right to remain silent, and the right to bear the emotional, moral, consequential, and spiritual weight of ALL sexual sin.

    No thank you.

  • Insanitybytes,

    I’m at a loss as to what to say to that. It’s too much crazy for me to process at once.

  • Zippy says:

    The important thing is the end result, I guess: administration of justice and policy more generally must be based on unsubstantiated allegations and gossip, not chauvinistic evidence.

  • “The important thing is the end result..”

    Well, all in good humor here, but in my mind the most important thing is how to avoid an administration of justice in the first place. So for men who fear false allegations it’s pretty simple, just don’t have sexual encounters with women who aren’t your wife. I’m pretty sure that’s what our faith teaches, isn’t it?

  • Lydia McGrew says:

    Zippy: I agree with you.

    Is this an historic moment? I guess in the context of the last couple of years it is. But anyway. I agree with you.

    InsanityBytes: Yeah, actually, if we put in place the lack of due process that many activists are demanding in these contexts, you bet your life that a man who was a virgin could be accused and even “convicted” (at least in the court of public opinion, if not in a court of law, if standards of evidence were changed as desired by activists). Pretty much anyone could be. In fact, a woman could be as well. Those demanding these lowered standards of evidence would apply the same rule to, say, a foster mother whose malicious foster child accused her of sexually inappropriate behavior. Or a sweet little old lady who teaches Sunday School to 8-year-olds. If some nasty 8-year-old boy (angry because she stopped him from beating up a smaller boy in class) accuses wholly innocent Miss Prismadoodle of touching him inappropriately, these folks would want the police called in and Miss Prismadoodle charged and tried, at least. Possibly convicted just on the word of that boy (even if he doesn’t seem very credible), because “Children very rarely lie about such things” and “We must always believe the [child or female who claims to be a] victim.”

    So yes, we have to hold onto standards of evidence, and even as we speak, this isn’t even just about men and woman and testosterone levels.

  • Lydia McGrew says:

    I personally know someone who was upset that a newspaper recently referred to some alleged victims of sexual assault as “alleged victims.” Even though the newspaper has to do that, as standard journalistic practice, because, y’know, libel laws.

  • Lydia McGrew says:

    ISB: Wouldn’t there be a difference between a) both of them getting in trouble for consensually violating the school’s “no sex” policy and b) his getting in trouble for raping the girl? Yes, there would be. It would be entirely possible for the school to uphold “what our faith teaches” by believing her about the sex but not about the assault and then expelling them both for sex outside of marriage.

    But that isn’t the outcome you seem to be angling for here.

    Nor am I advocating that outcome. Since she *claims* assault, fine, just leave it at “he said/she said” and don’t punish either of them, because it would be too difficult to do so justly.

    But let’s not pretend that just applying the sexual standards of the Christian faith would simplify matters here all that much. Actually, they would make things more complicated. Because then we have to decide if the school is supposed to punish both of them for sex outside of marriage or not! You probably don’t want to bring in that complication.

  • “…..you bet your life that a man who was a virgin could be accused and even “convicted” (at least in the court of public opinion, if not in a court of law, if standards of evidence were changed as desired by activists).”

    Well first off, no such thing has happened. Show me the virginal men being falsely accused? A piano could fall on someone’s head too, but that’s not a good argument for pre-emptively banning pianos.

    Second of all, the court of public opinion is not the same thing as a court of law.

    Third of all, sexual harassment, everything short of assault and rape, is a civil matter.

    Forth, in order for anyone to be criminally charged, it must be reviewed and deemed a crime against the state, charges must be filed by a prosecutor, evidence presented, and a trial must happen. We have due process and rights.

    So the entire objection here is about being perceived negatively in the court of public opinion or perhaps losing favor with an employer or perhaps being sued civilly.

    So basically what men are wanting is the right to act like complete cads, to continue to blame women for all sexual sin, and to never have to suffer any loss of reputation,employment, or financial penalty. Sounds like a good deal to me! But it sure isn’t justice, it isn’t morality, and it isn’t how God has called men to walk in the world.

  • Mike T says:

    Men are not victims. Flat out, if men fear false allegations or misunderstood sexual encounters or devious women, there is way to totally protect yourself. Just assume that all women not your wife DO NOT want to have sex with you. Period. Any woman who gives the impression that they do, is lost, broken, brainwashed, sick, or confused.

    You were saying?

  • Mike T says:

    Possibly convicted just on the word of that boy (even if he doesn’t seem very credible), because “Children very rarely lie about such things” and “We must always believe the [child or female who claims to be a] victim.”

    It’s not “possibly,” it’s actually happened. See the 1980s “Satanic Abuse” cases where the kids’ testimony. Actual human beings listened to accounts like “I was sodomized with a sword” and came back with a guilty verdict.

    And what do women get out of this deal? The right to remain silent, and the right to bear the emotional, moral, consequential, and spiritual weight of ALL sexual sin.

    Please, if a woman got caught making snuff kiddy porn there’d be a small army of people clamoring to give her a pass because something done by men back when the Jews were lost in the desert.

  • Zippy says:

    The main thing seems to be that in the absence of any actual verifiable evidence, a particular narrative must be the default and must drive authoritative choices. Unsubstantiated allegations and gossip – but only the right sort of unsubstantiated allegations and gossip – must drive the choices of people in positions of authority.

  • LOL! Did Mike just leave me a link to Roosh’s, “Return of the Kings?” I guess there’s a certain kind of logic to that. I mean, who better than a notorious pick up artist with the literary genius of “Bang Everything that Moves” to instruct me on the finer points of sexual sin?

  • Mike T says:

    One of the many elephants in the room is that being married is no real protection because of marital rape statutes. If a woman hates her husband’s guts and wants to screw him, it’s this simple:

    1. Take a small dose of nyquil to get drowsy.
    2. Have sex with the husband.
    3. Call the police and claim “I woke up him having sex with me, and he wouldn’t stop.”

  • Patrick says:

    “Just assume that all women not your wife DO NOT want to have sex with you. Period. Any woman who gives the impression that they do, is lost, broken, brainwashed, sick, or confused.”

    That’s hot.

  • buckyinky says:

    Insanitybytes22:

    Try this one instead.

    You were saying?

  • Wood says:

    That’s hot.

    Exactly. The way to fight game isn’t to prove the PUA’s sick point. I mean who are the real misogynists here?

    Anyway, what’s really brainwashed and broken is the notion that needing some hard evidence before we publicly convict someone of a heinous life altering crime is somehow controversial. Is it not shocking how casually people assign “rapist” and “sexual abuser” to other people?

  • Mike T says:

    LOL! Did Mike just leave me a link to Roosh’s, “Return of the Kings?” I guess there’s a certain kind of logic to that. I mean, who better than a notorious pick up artist with the literary genius of “Bang Everything that Moves” to instruct me on the finer points of sexual sin?

    *Cough*Ad Hominem*Cough*

    As I predicted, you’d find a way to ignore the actual content because showing that a man can be literally unaware he even walked past a woman and still get prosecuted for “sexually assaulting her in public” puts the lie to your argument.

    Is it not shocking how casually people assign “rapist” and “sexual abuser” to other people?

    In a lot of cases, it’s not. The go-to tactic of the activist left is character assassination. They’ve seen it work time and again how “good folks” will wilt when it’s directed at them or turn like a mob on the accused. Look at how many people told Roy Moore to step down because of the volume of accusers. Maybe he did something 40 years ago, but the fact remains that he’s accused by the side who employed a strategist in the 90s who famously said something to the effect “if you drag $100 through a trailer park, you never know what you’re gonna find.”

    This is why the seemingly @$$hole behavior VD recommends in books like SJWAL is essential in dealing with these folks. Christendom opened themselves up to harm by even saying “well, maybe there is room to improve.” Of course there is, you aren’t perfect. However, your enemy is demanding improvement over existing sufficient good or even excellence and doing so from a position of rank dishonesty and lack of genuine concern.

  • Professor Q says:

    I think this incident is merely a symptom of the contemporary gossip-rag / reality-show / online lynch mob culture in which anyone you dislike (or simply want to score a point against) is guilty until proved innocent, and sometimes even “proved innocent” isn’t enough. In this particular case, there is the additional confounder of gender / gender politics, which makes it even harder to try and be a voice of reason without ruffling someone’s feathers.

    By all means, if there is credible evidence that someone has committed a crime, punish him (or her). But don’t besmirch his (or her) reputation in the court of public opinion before a search for said credible evidence can be carried out, even if (rather: especially not if) said besmirching is being carried out not to punish the allegedly guilty, but a third party against which an axe is being ground.

    I think that is more or less what our kind host is trying to say, and it’s a universal problem. Heck, I see it in my own professional setting, in cases that have absolutely zip to do with feminism or liberalism per se.

  • William Luse says:

    “Just assume that all women not your wife DO NOT want to have sex with you. Period.”

    But this would be a false assumption, so it can’t be right. Maybe you meant: to any woman not your wife who wants to have sex with you, just say NO. Further, real rapists don’t think like that. They don’t care whether the woman wants to have sex.

    “Any woman who gives the impression that they [sic] do, is lost, broken, brainwashed, sick, or confused.”

    Well, maybe (though certainly not brainwashed), but I’d also say that any woman not my wife who wants to have sex with me has good taste in men.

    “What you are doing is actually attempting to place an unfair burden upon women, one where women are obliged to protect their own bodies…”

    Awful prospect, isn’t it?

  • Zippy says:

    There is no reason to let the discussion be reframed. How men and women should behave with each other in private generally speaking isn’t even on topic.

    At issue is what those in authority should do when confronted with unsubstantiated allegations. What is a reasonable response by persons in authority to unsubstantiated allegations?

    The approach of advocates of the gossip standard of justice is to ignore that central issue. It is as if they lack the capacity to even understand the question.

  • Zippy says:

    (Hint: in order for, say, a “preponderance of evidence” standard to apply there has to actually be some evidence.)

  • Rhetocrates says:

    Hi IB! Good to see you; I was worried that after the last time you’d wandered off into the aether to never be heard from again, and that would be a loss.

    I agree very much that the crime of rape is very heinous. It is one of the most heinous possible, and all sane legal codes have treated it as such – putting it right up there with things like murder.

    I also agree that any married man should not be having sex with (or even impure thoughts toward) any woman who is not his wife. Or anything remotely sexual, for that matter, including even ‘harmless’ flirting.

    Further, even single men should be chaste, by which I mean not only not sexually active but circumspect and pure in their thoughts and in their words, showing themselves to hew to Christ rather than the concupiscience of this world.

    (Needless to say, the same goes for women.)

    In this light, ‘Game’ is a disgusting aberration of the male spirit which precisely mirrors (and is tailored to take advantage of) the current popular disgusting aberration of the female spirit.

    To the point at hand, as a secular judicial matter, we can’t adjudicate saintliness. We can encourage it in our laws and our customs, and we should most certainly do so, but such is not the world we live in, alas.

    (In fact, I’d make it a capital crime, though that’s another point on which we disagree.)

    However, I don’t see there’s anything so categorically special about rape such that we need to actively create further injustice to address it. And yes, I do think that the standard of ‘guilty until proven innocent’ upheld in the special case of rape is an injustice.

  • Zippy says:

    Justice doesn’t only apply to criminal matters though. Justice applies to all human interaction, and even to things we do completely by ourselves.

    All of which is a very general – and in that sense off-topic – discussion.

    At issue is what college administrators should do – what is a reasonable course of action – when confronted by unsubstantiated allegations.

    One approach – the evidence approach to justice – is to look for evidence, and act prudently based on any actual evidence discovered. Findings are usually mediated through more or less formal standards of evidence. Expelling a student may not require “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but there has to actually be some evidence (other than the allegation itself) in order to apply any standard to it at all.

    The Current Year does away with the pesky requirement for facts to support the narrative. In the gossip approach to justice there is no need for any actual evidence: a particular narrative is treated as true a priori, and pesky truth-revealing words like “alleged” are dispensed with (or ignored as artifacts of ancient patriarchal structures such as laws against libel).

  • Patrick says:

    His verified, punishable behavior on campus is “evidence” in their minds. That’s how the lady on Shea’s blog can say she “knows” he’s a rapist. Feminists feel that feelings are more important than reason.

  • Peasant says:

    Here’s a question that probably shows how out-of-the-loop I am: why is any college involved in handling allegations of rape (or assault-and-battery, or theft, and so on) at all? If a felony has been committed, the school ought to assist the alleged victim in contacting the police and pressing charges so that our actual justice system, with a couple of thousand years of legal tradition behind it and with actual accountability and fair evidentiary standards, can do its job. Who in the world wants a panel of bureaucrats who struggle to manage dorms and cafeterias adjudicating murder cases?

  • “This is why the seemingly @$$hole behavior VD recommends in books like SJWAL is essential in dealing with these folks.”

    As gently as I can, it is no strawman to point out that people who follow Roosh or Vox are lost in a red pill quagmire that advocates nurturing perpetual victimhood in men and violent sexual immorality as a form of entitlement and revenge.

    It’s relevant to Zippy’s point in the sense that that is rape culture, that is what the alleged harpies are screaming about. Do the red pills need, “facts to support the narrative,” or have they simply dehumanized and labeled all women guilty? Is not AWALT a real thing? So women are condemned and judged guilty before they even open their mouths.

    Given those cultural conditions,there are no facts and evidence that women could give that will ever be heard. There has simply been grave injustice and silenced women for so long that what you now have is vigilantism going on. Makes perfect sense to me.

  • Zippy says:

    Peasant:

    The problem is that police and courts still require that pesky evidence and stuff; whereas private colleges theoretically can expel any student they like for any reason (only theoretically, because doing so does open them up to all sorts of nasty lawsuits and other repercussions).

    The really telling thing here is that if you read the mommy blogger’s own account, the school acted with almost astonishing reasonableness. I can’t say whether her account is accurate, of course. But granting its factual accuracy for the sake of argument, eliding hyperbolic adjectives, the school’s actions were a model of reasonableness.

  • Zippy says:

    insanitybytes22:

    Try addressing the actual subject.

  • Hrodgar says:

    In somewhat related news, it looks like after the brouhaha died down the case against Cosby more or less fell apart due to provably false claims made by the accuser. Not that no damage was done:

    “Believe the “victim”? But if the hard evidence conclusively proves her claim false, what then? It’s certainly possible that believers will forgive her for claiming the rape occurred on the wrong date. After all, everybody knows how traumatic it is to be the victim, and to expect traumatized victims to be factually accurate is to expect too much. There is an explanation for every failing.

    The motion to dismiss appears to be conclusive. The defense has presented incontrovertible evidence. The prosecution can respond with rhetoric and excuses, but beyond Constand’s testimony, it’s got nothing. Excuses are not a substitute for proof, no matter how much you want them to be.

    The dismissal of the charges against Cosby on the basis of this motion may be unsatisfying to those certain of his guilt. It will be called a technicality, even though it goes to truthfulness and accuracy of Constand’s accusations. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus covers the rest, as her claims fall apart.

    But it will convince no one of Bill Cosby’s innocence. America’s Dad, that black man that even white folks liked, who spent a great deal of his career trying to help others to overcome the stigma of racism, all destroyed when women came forward, who at one time sought to bask in the glow of his star, until later when their anger served them better, is done. Gone. There is nothing to be done that will ever return Bill Cosby to his former status.”
    https://blog.simplejustice.us/2018/01/28/cosby-moves-to-dismiss/

  • But granting its factual accuracy for the sake of argument, eliding hyperbolic adjectives, the school’s actions were a model of reasonableness.

    Which is why it makes it so interesting that the Fishers chose the Smith case as the flagship case; if that’s the most controvertible case they can find, then they really are grasping at straws.

  • Zippy says:

    Hrodgar:

    That blog led me to learn a delightful new term, “Gertruding.”

  • Zippy says:

    TimFinnegan:

    Right, the usual rhetorical tactic would be to soften the ground, to make later even more outrageously unfounded claims seem reasonable to the gullible who were roped in by the first set of hit pieces.

  • buckyinky says:

    Insanitybytes22 unwittingly gives a good illustration of the tyranny of the new gossip standard now being implemented in a jurisdiction near you. Its two most salient principles:

    1. The terms of discussion are such that merely to engage accusations of criminal wrongdoing is to acknowledge in an important way that criminal wrongdoing actually occurred; and
    2. We’re not going to shut up or leave until you engage the accusations.

  • […] the man, not the woman; at least according to recent critics of Christendom College who favor a gossip-based approach to justice over an evidence-based […]

  • “insanitybytes22: Try addressing the actual subject.”

    Okay.

    [You didn’t address the actual subject. Comments will be held unless you do address it, by answering a simple question: “Should college administrators make administrative decisions based on unfounded allegations, or should they make decisions based on evidence?” –Z]

  • Well first off, no such thing has happened. Show me the virginal men being falsely accused? A piano could fall on someone’s head too, but that’s not a good argument for pre-emptively banning pianos.

    Didn’t take me long.
    http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/wrongfully-imprisoned-banks-career-nfl-article-1.2090727

    You want more?

    Or when you say “virgin” you meant, “man who has never touched a woman”?

  • “You didn’t address the actual subject. Comments will be held unless you do address it, by answering a simple question: “Should college administrators make administrative decisions based on unfounded allegations, or should they make decisions based on evidence?”

    They have proven themselves unworthy to handle the evidence in a fair manner, they have failed to make administrative decisions that are just, and therefore the culture is declaring a mistrial.

    My answer is “No,” Zippy.

  • Zippy says:

    insanitybytes22:

    My answer is “No,” Zippy.

    Just to be completely clear: your answer is that college administrators should deliberately not make administrative choices based on evidence: they should instead make administrative choices based on unfounded allegations?

  • Zippy says:

    I’m starting to suspect that insanitybytes22 is a sock puppet for one of the Game ‘gurus’ I spent so much energy criticizing a while back. She is precisely the sort of female interlocutor they would invent.

    That sort of raises the question: on the Internet, where the sex of writers is self-reported, how do we know if we are correctly applying the “woman is always right” rule?

  • “That sort of raises the question: on the Internet, where the sex of writers is self-reported, how do we know if we are correctly applying the “woman is always right” rule?”

    Because you will always respond by trying to apply the, “man is always right rule,” to shut me down and silence me? It’s as predictable as clock work with authoritarians.

    Be of good cheer however! I’m harmless. I have a blog,I have a gravatar, I am not a troll. The gamers know me well however, and would probably be far more offended by suggestions of sock puppetry than I am.

  • Zippy says:

    insanitybytes22:

    Because you will always respond by trying to apply the, “man is always right rule,”

    Only if by “man” you mean “the truth”, which is not how I use that string of letters.

    The truth is always right no matter who speaks it. That’s just how we roll around here, as unfashionable as that may be.

    But I suppose I am Gertruding in response to you living up to your handle.

  • Men always believe they alone possess the truth, Zippy. Hence the handle insanitybytes.

    Given those conditions, the nature of the world around us, there is no amount of evidence, no facts and truth we can ever provide that will satisfy, because by virtue of our gender we’re already disqualified, dismissed.

    So when you say, “Should college administrators make administrative decisions based on unfounded allegations, or should they make decisions based on evidence?”

    The answer is “no” because everything a woman says is going to be automatically dismissed as unfounded.

    Only men can ever possess the truth. That’s called a rigged system.

  • Zippy says:

    I’m going with sock puppet. The persona is a great caricature of an impervious-to-reason woman, convinced of her helpless victimhood, etc. Any appeal to fact or reason is just male question-begging.

    But too cartoonish to be real.

  • “The persona is a great caricature of an impervious-to-reason woman, convinced of her helpless victimhood, etc…”

    With all due respect Zippy, you seem to a have gotten the genders confused. Your thread is about a man and a college you allege are being victimized. I began my comment with the words, “men are not victims.”

    So call me crazy if you like, but the best way to prevent male victimization is to simply avoid going out in the woods to have sex with women you don’t know very well.

  • Zippy says:

    The incapacity to stay on topic is a nice touch too.

  • Mike T says:

    I’m starting to suspect that insanitybytes22 is a sock puppet for one of the Game ‘gurus’ I spent so much energy criticizing a while back. She is precisely the sort of female interlocutor they would invent.

    Unlikely, she got banned by Vox Day–on both of his blogs–for this sort of behavior. If you do a Google/DDG site search for her username on both sites, you can find him letting her have it. The people you’re thinking of typically have zero motivation to troll VD since they a) tend to respect and agree with him and b) know that trolling him tends to result in a very ugly series of unfortunate events like “cops showing up at your door with an arrest warrant and a care package of evidence against you with a gift tagged labeled ‘To DA, From VFM.”

  • JustSomeGuy says:

    Given those conditions, the nature of the world around us, there is no amount of evidence, no facts and truth we can ever provide that will satisfy, because by virtue of our gender we’re already disqualified, dismissed.

    Holy cow. Are you for real? Women are disqualified and dismissed from presenting evidence? What color is the sky in your world?

    Zippy’s right, you’re just the sort of woman that the man-o-sphere would have a field day with, because the only way their positions seem even slightly less than laughable is if they’re reacting against crock like this.

    The truly ironic thing is that miss bytes will probably only feel validated by this whole kerfuffle. To her, it will be more evidence that she is being “disqualified and dismissed” because of her gender.

  • “The incapacity to stay on topic is a nice touch too.”

    The problem being, anything but complete agreement with you is always going to be considered off topic. My answer to your question is simply “no.” I did my best to explain why.

    Carry on, however! Everyone needs a place to lament the sheer injustice of it all and to wallow in that delicious sense of offense.

  • buckyinky says:

    That blog led me to learn a delightful new term, “Gertruding.”

    Wow. That term is so useful, it makes me scared to use it.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    IB has been banned by myself, Dalrock, VD, and others; each for different instances. She contributed mightily to Doug Wilson’s conviction that his blog would improve if he disabled comments. IB was one of the rare commenters to whom DW would reply. In many failed attempts of gertruding he tried to convince her he was really a good guy, and not one of those beastly sorts like most of the rest of men out there.

    I believe she is as fake as most SJWs out there; which is to say thoroughly, but convinced nonetheless.

  • So call me crazy if you like, but the best way to prevent male victimization is to simply avoid going out in the woods to have sex with women you don’t know very well.

    Yes, we all know the best way to be safe is the Pence rule. Oh wait, that’s still wrong apparently.

    Anyway Mike & I both provided examples of men getting in trouble in contrast to your claim. Not to mention even the most hardcore of feminists acknowledge that rapes are more likely to involve people that do know each other than strangers.

  • Parser says:

    I have yet to find a single rape allegation involving a man who was a virgin.

    You have now officially found such a person. You are free to ask me questions regarding that situation (without asking for personal details, of course).

  • So call me crazy if you like, but the best way to prevent male victimization is to simply avoid going out in the woods to have sex with women you don’t know very well.

    And it’s been staring us in the face all along! How could we possibly not have seen it!

  • William Luse says:

    Zippy, is the basic approach of the mommy blogger types (I haven’t read all of her piece because of time constraints) to blame the school for students’ misbehavior, even though the school has written policies condemning said behavior?

  • Zippy says:

    Bill:

    Her basic thesis – as far as I can tell – is that rape and sexual assault happen to Christendom girls because Christendom’s stifling and successful policies force students to go off campus for their sexual trysts.

  • Mike T says:

    So call me crazy if you like, but the best way to prevent male victimization is to simply avoid going out in the woods to have sex with women you don’t know very well.

    I’ll call you stupid because sex doesn’t even have to happen between a man and a woman for him to be accused. A man can walk through the woods, minding his own business, cross paths with a woman and find out that she accused him of raping her because he didn’t flirt back.

  • Mike T says:

    FFS, half of the controversy around child support laws is that in many jurisdictions, if a woman randomly names a man she knows-even if they didn’t even have sex–he becomes the legal father of her child if he doesn’t contest it. And that includes if the sheriff is too lazy to ensure they delivered the summons to the real current address instead of the “laws known address.”

  • Urban II says:

    After reading all the comments and watching this interview, bytes and Cathy Newman provide solid evidence that most women should never be allowed anywhere remotely close to positions of power. Evidence be damned; it’s all feelz now.

  • Urban:

    Considering Paterson’s Answers to some of those questions, like the pay gap, it’s a good thing that interviewer wasn’t talking with our host:

    https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/single-people-and-women-should-receive-less-pay-for-equivalent-work/

  • Urban II says:

    TimFinnegan:

    Very true. Peterson wasn’t saying anything outside standard liberal thought. He thinks “equal work for equal pay” is a positive goal. Yet even the suggestion that the “pay gap” is not all about gender causes this woman to shriek. I give Peterson credit for his patience. He would say “x” and she would follow with “so what you’re saying is y”. It’s crazy.

  • William Luse says:

    “Her basic thesis…”

    So the answer is yes. Does the mommy do what real journalists used to do, i.e., dig a little deeper, to find out what percentage of Christendom girls live chastely (do not indulge sexual trysts at all outside of marriage) as compared to other colleges with less “stifling” policies? I will venture that the answer in this case is ‘no.’

  • donnie says:

    So here’s something I’m wondering…

    Is “innocent until proven guilty” a prudential matter or a matter of justice?

    In the West we have, by and large, a tradition that a defendant’s guilt must be proven. “Better 100 guilty men walk free than 1 innocent man be punished” and all that.

    But in the East (and I’m thinking of China here, specifically, though I believe other Eastern countries took a similar approach) they have the opposite tradition. Traditionally it was/is thought better that 1 innocent man suffer than allow for the possibility that guilty men might walk free. Guilty until proven innocent for the greater good, in other words.

    It is pretty clear that this Eastern approach is desired by a surprising number of people in this country when it comes to matters of alleged rape and sexual assault. This seems to me to be a terrible idea. But I can’t help but wonder – is it an inherently unjust idea?

  • Zippy says:

    donnie:

    There is good reason why, in moral theology, the commandments which bind always and everywhere are negative precepts (see Veritatis Splendor.

    Punishing the guilty is a good act. But it is not possible for us to do every conceivable good act. Prudence always dictates that we choose to do some good acts and refrain from doing other really possible good acts.

    Unjustly punishing the innocent is an evil act. We should always refrain from evil acts.

    So the natural bias in moral theology is to punish only the guilty: only those whom conclude are guilty from reasonable evidence. That this bias leaves some of the guilty unpunished is no objection, because any approach at all is going to leave some of the guilty unpunished. Ultimately justice belongs to God.

  • I think though it is important to keep in mind that “proven guilty” doesn’t mean “convicted in a court of law.” OJ was proven guilty, even though he was not convicted in a court of law, and there have probably been many cases of people being convicted in a court of law where the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof. Most of us though really do not know enough about specific cases (nor are we meant to) in order to make a judgment of guilty.

  • Mike T says:

    It’s also not coincidental that human life is also cheap in most of those countries. When you’d rather a few innocent men swing from the gallows rather than a few guilty men go free, it’s not a big leap to mass murder unborn children to keep the population in check.

  • Zippy says:

    The gossip standard is similar to the “One Percent Doctrine” which was used to justify the Iraq war: it substitutes hysteria, rumor, and unsubstantiated allegations for evidence.

  • ACThinker says:

    Donnie @1/30/2018 7:05pm
    ‘So here’s something I’m wondering…

    Is “innocent until proven guilty” a prudential matter or a matter of justice?

    In the West we have, by and large, a tradition that a defendant’s guilt must be proven. “Better 100 guilty men walk free than 1 innocent man be punished” and all that. ‘

    Zippy gives a good moral theology response.

    Here is a “from logic/science reasoning” method. I appologize for the length.

    There are 2 possiblities, he is guilty, he is innocent. there are two possible outcomes, he is convicted, he is let free. This gives 4 possible sets. **
    1. guilty and convicted – this is good and true. and as it should be
    2. not guity and let free – this is good and true and as it should be

    3. he is guilty and let free – this is not good, it is false and not how it should be.
    4. he is not guilty and convicted – this is not good, it is false and not how it should be.

    Ok 1 and 2 are true results. We keep them. 3 and 4 however represent type 1 and type 2 errors (I forget which is which) one is the false negative, the other the false positive. Because of how western thought developed, we by default are set up to favor the false negative (guilty and set free) and reject the false positive(not guilty and convicted). Classic example of #4 is the boy who cried wolf the first two times. He is believed. But upon discovering he lied, when he cries wolf correctly, he is not beleived – #3.
    Anyhow because in the western approach to science*, we reject both 3 and 4. Thus we miss possible facts because they come back as false negatives. But it can be no other way. To assume something is true ABSENT evidence (the point of Z’s post) means that we have no certianty that it is.
    Think of it with say an airplane, if we take something to be true that has no evidence, that airplane might not fly, or worse, might crash.

    *Western approach to science – ha Rodney Stark in his book “How the West won” makes a very good argument that only in the Catholic West starting about 1000 AD did science emerge. A method of challenging received wisdom, testing it and going forward with results driven by data (evidence) and great men like Fransican William of Ockam (Ockams Razor) and other scholastics were critical in it founding and florishing until the modern era.

    **The method I mention above can be used to evalute any proposition – it is true or untrue. We observe and understand it to be true or untrue. for some reason our observations and understanding may be flawed, so which is generally the better choice when dealing with a false result?

  • Different T says:

    It’s very clear that IB is pointing at the concept of corruption. It’s also very clear that Zippy knows this, which is why he attempts to dis-embed his “topic” from the surrounding context; ie, it’s a specific use of language to demonstrate dominance, IOW “Thanks for proving their point about ‘phallogocentrism.'”

    Per MacIntyre’s explication of how our concepts implicitly contain a characterization of a “good” referent, framing the question as:

    “Should college administrators make administrative decisions based on unfounded allegations, or should they make decisions based on evidence?”

    takes for granted exactly what IB is disputing; IOW, we are quite unlikely to ask what a “bad” or “corrupt” college administrator “should” do.

    Again; it’s incredibly unlikely Zippy is unaware of this, preferring to use his words to play games.

    @ IB

    “They have proven themselves unworthy to handle the evidence in a [b]fair[/b] manner, they have failed to make administrative decisions that are [b]just[/b], and therefore the culture is declaring a mistrial.”

    ?

  • Zippy says:

    Different T:

    “Should college administrators make administrative decisions based on unfounded allegations, or should they make decisions based on evidence?”

    takes for granted exactly what IB is disputing;

    Of course a distinction between good and bad is presumed. That you consider this a ‘word game’ says more about your own approach to this subject than mine.

    It seems to me that three answers to my straightforward question are possible without changing the subject.

    1) Yes, administrators should [it is good for them to] make decisions (e.g. to expel students) based on unfounded allegations;

    2) No, they should not; or

    3) The very idea or possibility of college administrators making good decisions at all is disputed.

  • Zippy says:

    (3), it goes without saying, is tantamount to just refusing to talk about what constitutes making good decisions in these kinds of circumstances. The most obvious reason to refuse to talk about it is as a way to avoid admitting a commitment to the ludicrous (2). But there are other possible reasons: one might believe that colleges and universities are so universally corrupt that they all ought to be destroyed. Obviously a person with that commitment would never send their kids to college or approve of their kids going to college.

  • Different T says:

    “The very idea or possibility of college administrators making good decisions at all is disputed…. it goes without saying, is tantamount to just refusing to talk about what constitutes making good decisions in these kinds of circumstances. The most obvious reason to refuse to talk about it is as a way to avoid admitting a commitment to the ludicrous”

    But that seems to be exactly her point (it looks like she’s steeped in postmodernism and feminism); which your attempts to “win” the “argument” not only prevented from being drawn out, but also demonstrated the exact behavior that fuels the resentment driving those ideologies.

  • Zippy says:

    Different T:

    Moderating discussions to keep them on topic is my prerogative as a blogger. Call that “winning” if you want.

  • Mike T says:

    but also demonstrated the exact behavior that fuels the resentment driving those ideologies.

    Feminists’ biggest source of resentment is that when you accept the “radical idea that women are people,” you get to hold them accountable for their choices. Choices like getting on a casting couch, sodomizing a bridge troll wearing a human suit and then getting a multi-million dollar role.

  • […] I would have no problem with colleges punishing extramarital sex – as demonstrated by actual evidence – severely, independent of consent.  The idea that consent turns extramarital sex into a […]

  • […] college and other backward troglodyte institutions – those which still require actual evidence before taking punitive action against students accused of committing sexual assault – really […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Justice on the gossip standard at Zippy Catholic.

meta