In case you don’t know, The New Republic (TNR) has been around forever (since 1914, to be exact). Recently, there was a huge uproar over there, because their owner, Chris Hughes, decided that he didn’t like long-form journalism, and that he wanted to be more like Yahoo, Salon, Slate, Gawker, etc. So, he fired immensely respected editor Franklin Foer, and replaced him with Gabriel Synder. Guess what he used to be? The editor-in-chief of Gawker. Hopefully I have your attention now. 

So, Synder has been trying to take The New Republic into a new space. Instead of being more along the lines of liberal establishment site/magazine, they now want to compete with the likes of Mother Jones, The Nation, Harper’s, etc. In other words, they want to be “progressive” and not liberal. Jonathan Chait explained the difference between the two pretty well in his column. I consider myself a liberal and not a progressive because I reject SJW dogma. I’m a free speech absolutist, for one. I’m also a huge supporter of strong protections for the accused. The whole innocent until proven guilty thing? That actually means something to me.

It doesn’t mean anything to ideologues like Jessica Valenti, though. In fact, it’s a major impediment to their Listen & Believe agenda. As Cathy Young pointed out, this is the same Jessica Valenti who was all about #IStandWithJackie last fall. Who’s Jackie, you ask? That was the woman at the center of the Rolling Stone rape hoax. This isn’t the first time Valenti has done something like this, and it will not be the last. She’s a radical feminist zealot. The rights of the accused are not a factor for her.

Don’t believe me? Well, take a look at some of the tweets I’ve been sending out as a promo for this article:

This is the person The New New Republic decides to quote in an article about rape on college campuses. This phony “epidemic” was cooked up by feminists as a way to usher in new rules for university disciplinary hearings. In short, they want to make it a lot easier for the accuser to prevail. They want to institutionalize Listen & Believe, basically. So when someone starts talking about using the “reasonable person” standard, it’s an affront to their radical feminist sensibilities (full article here):

Feminist author and journalist Jessica Valenti, who parried Shulevitz’s concerns about due process in her Guardian column, was similarly incredulous when I spoke with her. “We’re not very reasonable when it comes to rape,” she told me. “As a society, we don’t have a reasonable understanding of what rape is, we don’t have reasonable responseswe’re still a culture that overwhelmingly victim-blames.

Thankfully, we have advocates like Based Aunt Cathy Young to fight for reason and rationality:

She’s not the only one standing up, though. Some law professors, along with Judith Shulevitz, a former TNR writer who resigned after the recent shakeup, (and who wrote the “reasonable person” op-ed TNR is shitting on) are as well. As it turns out, some people still value due process:

We have a lot of work to do to fight these bastards on college campuses around the country. The SJWs have had some big successes there recent years. Their agenda is now in place at many universities, Harvard among them. They will continue to push disrespect for due process. If the radfems had their way, it would be up to the accused to prove his innocence. We simply cannot allow that sort of ideology to go unchecked. Young, Shulevitz, and the law professors have it exactly right. Join the fight and help them beat back this disconcerting tide. Don’t sit back on this one. If you do, the nutters like Valenti are going to prevail.

    1. Goddamn Ralph
      What is this world coming to?
      A woman can literally make up a rape to pin on a man and ruin him for LIFE
      FOR LIFE
      Fucking Brad Wardell’s accuser APOLOGIZED TO HIM IN FUCKING COURT
      IN COURT
      And people STILL slap that shit in his face and he’s a fucking CEO of Stardock!!

      1. To be clear, Wardell was not accused of rape.

        But yes, apparently “they”, whoever they are, are hard at work at creating systems where the accusation alone can be used to destroy political opponents.

        Accused students are fighting back. Law profs are protesting. Press is not YET 100% shit. Things are not hopeless, though it is hard to believe it could even get this bad to begin with.

        1. Yeah, it was sexual harassment he was accused of, but it was dismissed by the judge and the accuser wrote a public letter of apology to Wardell.

          Of course, this hasn’t stopped some SJW dumbasses from calling him a “rapist” on Twitter, because why let a silly thing like facts get in the way of slandering someone you don’t like?

          1. Wasn’t he also the dude that had to pay, what was it? $10,000 to their accuser even though he was cleared of all charges? Or am I thinking of someone else?

      2. Take heart. They are NOT getting their own way all the time.

        That stupid bint carting around her mattress at Columbia? Her story’s falling apart after it came out she’d had a perfectly congenial relationship with her ‘rapist’ for SIX MONTHS after the ‘assault’ occurred.

        Over FIFTY lawsuits hitting universities for pushing so called ‘administrative courts’ that don’t use due process and deny the accused basic rights. Part of this goes back to the Department of (In)Justice, playing silly buggers and forcing these procedures onto colleges.

        TNR’s fall from grace was pretty heavily covered by various conservative and libertarian blogs. When Hayes decided he wanted to build Gawker 2.0, the resulting bloodbath (figuratively speaking) was stunning. They lost so many key personnel that they couldn’t continue the print runs anyways!

  1. I expected with all the emerging equality, feminists and progressives in general would of made national headlines by now, with this wacky notion rape can happy to anyone. It’s not just straight women. lol Yet, you never hear anyone talking about gay/lesbian/straight male rapes now do you? But they are happening.

  2. It’s already starting to happen in Britain where the new Director of Public Prosecutions has implemented guidelines to Police forces where the onus is now placed on the accused to prove consent was made. It’s as close as you can get to California’s “yes means yes” rule. If the accused can’t prove consent (as would be the case in a false allegation), the case will likely go to court, where at least the European Convention on Human Rights (enforced with the Human Rights Act) and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights requirement for presumed innocent until proven guilty and evidence based due process still applies.

    Of course, by that point when it hits court, your name is in the press, your reputation is ruined, you’ve likely lost your job, your livelihood and respect from others.

    It is of no surprise whatsoever to see Valenti being against the core priniciple of due process and the idea of men being given their day in court and being able to prove their innocence instead of the court system being based on “listen and believe”. An idea being broadcast by The Guardian, who has shown their true colours during GamerGate.

    1. I have to agree with you mate re The Guardian. I have been a loyal reader since the early 80s. Over the past couple of years, as twats like Valenti become mainstays, I began reading it less and less. Now its just one of the least used bookmarks on my system.
      The proud days of Paul Foot level investigative journalism are long gone, and the Wikileaks and Greenwald stuff are now occasional flashes in the pan, drowning in a sea of panty wringing whinge columns by the Valenti crowd and their mangina lackeys bitching about how its soooo hard to be feminist at Christmas.
      Its become a fucking disgrace, and about time a corporate enema was delivered, initially by sacking the editors.

    2. Of course, by that point when it hits court, your name is in the press, your reputation is ruined, you’ve likely lost your job, your livelihood and respect from others.

      The approach these policies take relies on this outcome because it’s a ‘guilty’ verdict (trial by press) even if a tribunal found someone not-guilty of the charges brought against them.

      It’s a vindictive administrative procedure.

  3. This type of stuff pisses on the legacy left us to care-take, the history and the graves of all the people that have died just so we even have due-process today. Every tinpot dictator knows the power of proving a negative.

    1. The problem with that quote is that she needs to “lose something” when she falsely accuses people. Like people’s respect, or the ability to write for the Guardian.

      1. You already know by-and-large radfems will sockpuppet to make sure their “glorious leaders” stay in the press and prevent women from paying for their willing stupidity.

        I’m sure when Aldous Huxley wrote, “A Brave New World,” this wasn’t in the book.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *