----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roosh claims today to have the identity of "Jackie," the young woman who may or may not have been raped at UVA, and whose veracity is at the heart of a recent controversial article in Rolling Stone. His dilemma: Should he dox her?
So I was sent the real identity of "Jackie" (full name and picture). I'll think about this carefully before deciding what to do.
Hard call, indeed (hard call, that is, for someone who has no moral compass whatsoever). Good thing he has the sagacity (and flattery) of the Juice Bro lawyer to guide him!
Mike Cernovich
@PlayDangerously
·
2 hours ago
This is a heavy decision. I do not envy
Mike Cernovich
@PlayDangerously
·
18 minutes ago
That said, I am not a journalist. If I were Roosh, I would probably publish her name. It is newsworthy. Hard call, though.
Right now the SJWs are on the run. Hoaxes and frauds are being exposed. It's better to not let them regain high ground.
I *personally* would not publish "Jackie's" name. It will lead to her claiming death threats and change conversation.
If
you run a news organization, you print the news. Free speech isn't
free. There will be backlash. But "Jackie's" real name is newsworthy.
Roosh has gone from a random guy who writes about meeting women to a cultural critic and now a journalist. I am proud of him.
Roosh @rooshv has a First Amendment right to publish "Jackie" the Rolling Stone hoaxer's name. I believe he should exercise that right.
Having examined the purported image of "Jackie" now in his possession, Roosh concludes that, in his expert opinion, she is simply not "attractive enough" to be raped, and therefore, her story is patently false:
Jackie is a 5.5 or 6: not attractive enough to get top attention from an elite fraternity. Her rape story is seeming like wish fulfillment.
Well, then, I guess nothing else needs to be said. I mean, who better than Roosh to assess whether a young woman is "worthy" of being sexually assaulted?
I will say something, though:
ReplyDeleteUugh.
"Roosh has gone from a random guy who writes about meeting women to a cultural critic and now a journalist. I am proud of him."
Aww, one psychopath is proud of another who's upping his psychopathic quotient (PQ) as we speak. "Cultural critic and journalist" -- ROFLMFAO.
The manosphere is such an esteemed society... of creeps, freaks, losers, and abusers.
How exactly would he have obtained this information and how does he know it's legitimate?
ReplyDelete"Roosh @rooshv has a First Amendment right to publish "Jackie" the Rolling Stone hoaxer's name. I believe he should exercise that right."
ReplyDeleteWell, the brainiac self-described lawyer is right in a sense. Roosh has the first amendment "right" to do that. But his liability cost for doing so could be potentially staggering. By by "bangs" money. And no one will weep for him.
I very much doubt that Roosh has her name. Not least because he wouldn't hesitate to publish if he honestly thought he had it, because morality is hardly his strong suit. It's possible somebody sent him a name, but if he were to publish he would - as he well knows - open himself to a defamation suit if he got it wrong. Whatever he does or does not do, he is not a "journalist" any more than the other guy is anything other than a minor league blogger.
ReplyDeleteSo he's a journalist now? Because possibly some vindictive prick sent him the name and photo of a girl and claimed it was 'Jackie'? And his exhaustive journalistic efforts led him to conclude that she was too ugly to get raped? Lovely.
ReplyDeleteAt least in the Washington Post article it reveals that people are at least bothering to investigate the story and establish that there are holes in the story with regards to times and dates, which is surely the only way to disprove such a story since it transcends the more common 'he said, she said' line of inquiry.
I feel bad about this whole thing on two counts; one, this will give undermine all genuine allegations of rape taking place upon college campuses in a climate where girls are finding it hard enough to come forward as it is. Two, I feel bad for this young woman who is clearly really messed up about something, and who has not actually accused any man publicly, so cannot therefore be accused of 'trying to ruin some poor boy's life'.
Unfortunately the fact she hasn't named anyone clearly won't stop people trying to name her.
Interesting that Cernovich is advocating doxxing this young woman. A while ago he was casting himself as the victim of a would be swatting by evil SJWs, all because he had been inadvertently doxxed by idledillitante. By his logic that would mean doxxing any individual opens them up to the risk of swatting, so kind of hypocritical of him to push for naming this girl.
Even the Rational Male has piped in on Roosh's feed, offering to dox Jackie himself: "I'll take the fall, my rep can handle it." How dumb is that guy? Does he seriously not realize what the consequences to his IRLidentity would be?
DeleteThe Irrational Male Tomassi is a full-blown psychopath, as is the rest of this lot, so that's no surprise. Too bad that he did not do it -- watching the IRL fallout for him would be a popcorn-passing occasion.
DeleteHe's an overweight, middle-aged, underemployed liquor salesman in Reno with an (older?) menopausal wife who won't sleep with him, isn't he? What sort of consequences are there to a fuck up like that?
DeleteAnd he's not coping all that well with her menopause, as his recent post suggests.
DeleteYeah, it's very brave of him to stake his "rep," that of an anonymous blogger, on doxxing a rape victim. A grandiose d-bag imagines himself a blooming hero. Fancy that.
oh, I doubt Rollo's wife is really any older than he is. I saw that menopause post, too, and chuckled a little. Menopause often brings big changes and Rollo seems like exactly the kind of brittle dogmatist who copes poorly with change. A few days ago he had a pic on his website of him playing poker w/a pair of sunnies and a ballcap on, but even with all the camouflage I'd have put him a lot closer to 50 than 40.
DeleteThat pic he keeps up of the tanned, toned shirtless fratboy with the ballcap on backward might still be what he sees in his mind's eye...
but aren't we all as beautiful and firm as we were 15 years ago, only WISER? ;)
It's all those OTHER people who've gone to pot, I tell ya. lol
Oh, I doubt his wife is really any older than he is. A few days ago (can't find it now) he had a pic of himself playing poker with sunnies and a ball cap on. Even with all that camouflage, I'd have put him a lot closer to 50 than 40, even.
DeleteThat pic he likes of the tanned, toned shirtless fratboy might still be how his mind's eye sees himself.
But aren't we ALL as firm and beautiful as we were 15 years ago, only SMARTER? It's all those OTHER people who've gone to pot and/or gotten pitiful and desperate trying to hang onto their youth. ;)
@Anonymous 7, 2014 at 8:06 PM
Delete"The Irrational Male Tomassi is a full-blown psychopath, as is the rest of this lot, so that's no surprise."
Paranoid malignant narcissist is more accurate wrt Tomassi.
Re:update,
ReplyDeletethat is sickening. What other reason could there be for publicly ridiculing and shaming this girl except for punishing her? I'll bet they'll be delighted if this girl winds up hurting herself, or getting harmed by someone else.
These guys act like this then wonder why everyone hates them?
For the record though, I don't believe the names of people charged with rape should be published either, only if they're convicted. I know false accusations are very rare, but all the same I don't think it's in the public interest.
"Even the Rational Male has piped in on Roosh's feed, offering to dox Jackie himself: "I'll take the fall, my rep can handle it." How dumb is that guy? Does he seriously not realize what the consequences to his IRLidentity would be?"
ReplyDeleteWow, that is beyond dumb. That's more like dumm.
And so the manosphere find itself another hate figure to demonize and harass. I wonder when Matt Forney will add his two cents?
DeleteWanna bet?
DeleteEach and every one of them will not miss the opportunity to throw his stone at this woman. Good times.
"Wanna bet?
DeleteEach and every one of them will not miss the opportunity to throw his stone at this woman. Good times."
I doubt that any of them would risk a defamation suit to do that though.
I could be wrong, but if they were going to, they probably would have road the main avalanche of outrage and done it already.
Matt Forney must be seething with envy of Charles C. "Chuck" Johnson right now.
DeleteI tried to find that doxxing bit by "Chuck" and couldn't…I see a lot of references to it, and I saw his threat, but I didn't see him actually state a name (whether accurate or otherwise).
DeleteStill not sure where he or Roosh would obtain this information either. They should probably compare notes and make sure they're holding the same names.
You have got to go to his website www.donotlink.com/gotnews.com for the latest "breaking news" from "The Ginger Avenger."
Delete"You have got to go to his website www.donotlink.com/gotnews.com for the latest "breaking news" from "The Ginger Avenger."
DeleteGot it! Thanks. It will be interesting to see what happens now. There are some pretty obvious potential long-reaching consequences here that could backfire on them in a huge way. How many participants value their anonymity in the manosphere? The vast majority, I would guess.
why are you so obsessed with such "anonofaggots?"
ReplyDeleteWake up and realize it's YOU who is the real loser.
Seriously, though... I don't have cable.
A legitimate question, Mr. Anonofaggot! Why do I have every book Ann Rule has ever written? Why do I pore over pictures of celebrities' botched plastic surgeries? Why are horrible things fascinating? And why are YOU here?
ReplyDelete"And why are YOU here?"
ReplyDeleteLOL! The question to end all questions. Or at least to shut the troll up. One hopes.
Gawker has more, much more, on "Jackie's" doxer:
ReplyDeletehttp://gawker.com/what-is-chuck-johnson-and-why-the-web-s-worst-journal-1666834902
Aaaand this is a message Chuck Johnson, according to a Gawker's commenter who captured and posted it, wrote yesterday on his FB page:
ReplyDelete"Charles C. Johnson
10 hrs Edited
Dear past classmates,
I have received a number of emails, tweets, and phone calls, etc. from you and want to make some things clear about me and you now.
Please relay this message widely as it needs to be internalized by you about me.
I wasn't friends with most of you. Most of you weren't particularly kind to me throughout my academic career. That's fine. I didn't ask for it. I did well despite you. I wrote books, formed companies, got married, traveled widely, and had interesting, formative experiences.
Perhaps you were angry at me because I was poor. Perhaps it was because I was neuroatypical. Perhaps it was because my mother was ill. Perhaps it was because we didn't get along because I was busy making a living and doing interesting things while you were not. Perhaps you were mad because your parents saw more of themselves in me than you and so liked me more and you were resentful. There are many reasons why weaker people dislike strong people: jealousy, misunderstandings, hatred of what's different.
That's not important now.
Now that I have some measure of notoriety and success, I do not owe you phone calls or responses to your condescending "concern" for me. Please know that most of these emails will be deleted or archived. Some will be openly mocked. Others may be retweeted or written about in future things.
Some of you have talked to the press about me and pretended that we were close. We were not but you've decided to trade on relationships we never had in the hopes of seeing your name in the press. This is pathetic.
Here's what you may not do:
You may not accuse me of racism, sexism, blah blah-ish without asking me for my point of view first. I may or may not choose to give it to you.
I'm also not interested in your pop psychological explanations about what's wrong with me.
The truth of the matter is that I'm the happiest I have ever been doing the work I love doing. I'm very busy on that project.
I have lived a colorful, difficult, exciting, crazy life thus far and it's only just beginning. I make no apologies for it. I have made and will make mistakes and some of them may be huge. But I have lived life on my own terms.
Those of you I count as true friends, you know who you are. I owe you the world."
First, wow. No deep-seated psychological problems there, no sireee. Neuroatypical, eh? Another autistic malignant narcissist exacting revenge on the world for his past hurts. The manosphere should welcome him with open arms, if they haven't yet.
Second, he is married...?
Third, wow, again.
lol! You may not accuse me of racism/sexism without asking if I agree first.
DeleteThere's a guy who understands how the world works.
Right?
DeleteThe grandiosity and cluelessness takes one's breath away.
Chuck clearly needs an urgent transfusion of some self awareness.
DeleteA good dose of basic humanity would also be advised. But his immune system would violently reject both.
DeleteOK, my last comment on this pathetic excuse for a human being, but you MUST read the comments, under Gawker's story, from people who went to school with him. Terrifying stuff. He was already a little fascist then.
ReplyDeleteNot so little. A fascist obsessed with the size of (his and male in general) genitals, and submissive Asian women, one of whom he apparently married (does she know what a total creep her hubby is?).
DeleteIt is remarkable how similar these right-wing spherian eff-ups are.
@ Cinzia. Matt must be seething, Johnson looks set to steal his crown of most hated man on the internet.
ReplyDelete"Matt must be seething, Johnson looks set to steal his crown of most hated man on the internet."
DeleteHe'll need to dig deep. From the links above it looks like Chuck Johnson used to crap himself in college. Compete for world's biggest human turd with a self-crapping encopretic must be…um, a real strain.
Yes, those who look at ugly scabs are the real scabs. Those who squeeze pimples are the true pus.
ReplyDeleteThe more I read, the more I think Rolling Stone and the author of the article have some culpability for the whole thing. First, it appears that the young woman was very hesitant to share this story and requested that they cancel it, but they published it anyway. Then, the author relayed to the public that Jackie was her real first name.
ReplyDeleteNow, we have dipshits coming out of the woodwork trying to "prove" she is rape and sex obsessed. Not doing a very good job considering they have used mistaken photos and out of context statements (in one case, she was protesting drunk driving and they took the statement about prom night being a big drinking and party night to make it appear as though she were promoting that).
Imagine what the manosphere would do if this were a confused young man who asked for anonymity and had had an obviously traumatic event happen to him and a bunch of random jackals came to feast on him metaphorically, to the point of stalking his parents. But, that said, I've been searching quite a lot and there actually seems to be some caution in the manosphere (truly). THe only ones who seem to be hate-peddling are the ones affiliated with Chuck the psychopath.