It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:
After dealing with Lindy West and her cohorts earlier today, I think I am due a good laugh. I give you McEwan:
That is all. I have nothing else to add.
Actually, that is untrue. I would have included the actual tweet, however, if I did so:
I can’t state this more emphatically: If Jackie’s story is partially or wholly untrue, it doesn’t validate the reasons for disbelieving her.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) December 5, 2014
one would find McEwan’s Twitter page is gone. Apparently she could not stand the criticism for her comment, which has been rather vociferous, and deactivated her account.
There is just one more thing: If Jackie’s story being wholly untrue would not validate the reasons for disbelieving her, what would?
Toy Soldiers 
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Feminists like McEwan are subject to episodes of extreme gullibility whenever they hear a story that meshes with their biases. They will believe the absolute worst about men, without fail.
Tell me again how they’re not man-haters?
https://judgybitch.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/proof.png?w=300&h=134
via
http://judgybitch.com/2014/11/12/twitter-is-censoring-accounts-before-a-single-tweet-goes-out/
Let me get this straight. If someone’s story is partially or wholly untrue it doesn’t validate the reasons to disbelieve her.
I’m curious what “the reasons” to disbelieve her are. But skipping that let’s apply this to any other crime. Would she be so quick to “believe the victim” in any other crime where there are proven inconsistencies?
Danny, I assume McEwan was referring to the accusation that Jackie lied given the inconsistencies of her story. I hope she did not. I do not want her to have been gang raped, yet I also do not want to believe this woman conned so many people. If she lied, she has damaged a college, a fraternity, and nearly a dozen young men’s reputations. She has fooled her friends and a number of activists (who would have believed anything she said anyway).
I highly doubt that McEwan would support a male victim to this degree or anyone else accused someone of a different crime.
Again, I do not know that Jackie lied. However, there are enough questions here that people should wait until more information becomes available before assuming that something did happen.
I think part of the problem is that some people have worldviews that are too simplistic to handle the burden of proof. When someone makes an accusation, the right thing to do is be open to the possibility, let the case be made–innocent until proven guilty. But some people can’t handle that, they want black or white, believe or don’t believe.
By the way, McEwen believes that rapists should have their lives totally ruined, including life in prison, so it’s especially despicable that she goes around insisting we.treat all accusations as fact.
“After dealing with Lindy West and her cohorts earlier today”
What happened, if I may ask? Sorry you had to mess with those goofballs.
“I’m curious what “the reasons” to disbelieve her are”
For me, if someone tells a story then begs and pleads that you not try and verify what they’re saying, that means they’re probably selling snake oil.
Ummm… what?
I told West on Twitter that I think she is exploiting LaBeouf’s story to get attention. I do not believe she thinks LaBeouf was raped or that it is “a feminist imperative” to believe male victims. I think she saw an opportunity to use the accusation for her own benefit. That angered her fanbase, and I spent a good deal of time fending of insults.
Who is Jackie?
James, Jackie is the woman from the Rolling Stone story who alleges seven men gang raped her during a frat party at the University of Virgina.
Pingback: Police find no evidence in U-Va rape case | Toy Soldiers