Jason Thibeault, The Lousy Canuck of FreeThoughtBlogs Rebuts our Article (Where he Outs Himself as a Rapist by Feminist Standards)
Watch how a feminist takes aim straight at his foot, repeatedly – and also confesses that he might have made up a false rape accusation. Plus his wondrous defense of injustice (only for men, mind you) – And a big bonus at the end you must read to believe.
Trigger Warning: More Truth
Jason now treated us to Part 2 of his serialized rebuttal of our article. We couldn’t have asked for a more wonderful vindication of what our article stated.
One piece of advice, Jason: Quit while you are behind, before you are totally lost.
Our original article can be found here.
Jason’s first rebuttal had nothing to do with our article. It’s a long convoluted arithmetical tour-de-force, based on assumptions, which (as far as I can see) tries to prove that the number of false rape claims approaches zero.
Now, even a charitable reading undermines his claim that HIS story of a false rape claim is true. It underlines what our article states: Jason apparently leads a charmed life. He’s that extremely rare bird who had a false rape claim and miraculously could disprove it with ease. Other people’s lives (like Shermer’s) are not that charmed.
However, in the 2nd installment of his rebuttal he tries to summarize – and there he shows his real colors:
Far from calling for ways in which men AND women could address the problem, he clearly states that he is perfectly happy if 10 percent of men convicted of rape are innocent. This is jaw-dropping in its moral bankruptcy. It spits on everything the Free World stands for.
Needless to say, the privileged Hausfrauen (or rather Hauspersonen) on FreeThoughtBlogs immediately jumped to Jason’s defense, apparently without reading our piece. But, there is deafening silence from the one who should be most interested – the Ueberhausfrau (arm, -person) PZ Myers, their Great Mother Hen. Where’s his mighty mop with which he is wont to scour the world of accused rapists? I’m sure he read our piece closely. I’m sure he is very well aware of the mountain of hard evidence in our piece (all based solely on the very words of Jason Thibeault/Lousy Canuck) – while he (PZ) himself has only innuendo and second hand gossip. So far, all PZ could prove about Michael Shermer was that he filled a wineglass. So, PZ, when will we see your potent broom – or has it somehow shrunk, like a certain piece of anatomy, in the face of withering feminist support for Jason?
Sorry, I lied in the last paragraph. Jason tells us an even more heinous crime by Shermer I didn’t even know about. I’m not making this up. In Jason’s own words:
“. . . a number of people have even allegedly woken up the morning after to find a copy of Shermer’s book, signed, on their night tables.”
Now, what are alleged books on alleged night tables proof of? Might it be r-e-a-d-i-n-g?
Most people identified our piece as satire. So did I when I was approached by a friend of my friend outlining the basic ideas. I’m not sure any more if it is satire. When I saw the mountain of clear evidence based solely on Jason’s own words at FTB the matter became quite convincing. Particularly the argument based on the different life consequences for the girl and him cannot be lightly dismissed. Why was he believed and the girl disbelieved, especially when, in his second post, he expressly shits on the credibility of the kind of people he uses as witnesses?
Why is he objectifying, shaming and erasing a woman who may have acted out of great anguish (assuming it was a false accusation)? Why would he not even listen to her even when he himself mentions mitigating circumstances for her? Where is his humanity? – But then again, where is his humanity regarding the 10 percent of men innocently convicted of rape?
At that point I saw it as my “ethical” duty to warn others.
Clearly Jason has no clue what our piece was talking about when legal proceedings were discussed. Jason even quotes both our paragraphs. Two legal systems are contrasted – the criminal court and a university disciplinary hearing. The picture drawn of both is fair. In criminal court, cases do depend on evidence and a jury and the judge is not necessarily a feminist. However, the article pointed out what kind of evidence is NOT permitted in a criminal court. It clearly would have helped to convict Jason. Likewise in a University hearing. The article clearly states what is allowed there and who makes the decisions. “Preponderance of evidence” is the standard here. You bet those administrators are steeped in feminist theory! University hearings don’t result in criminal convictions – they merely destroy your life. The picture painted is true to life. Jason wouldn’t have a prayer.
Jason confuses it all and drags in Law and Order episodes. Yes, I’ve never seen a single full episode of that putrid show. If Jason thinks that’s how the real world works he has a bigger problem than I thought. Even feminist superdreadnaught Stefanie Zvan (in the comments) offers to enlighten him about his misconceptions. How embarrassing.
Jason now may say that he only told fibs for that girl. However, his own words say “I became an adept liar . . .”
BTW, Nobody is asking for the name of that girl.
It does not help Jason that he now says we could assume his whole story was made up. Indeed, in feminist eyes that would make it worse. Can you imagine the fallout? A feminist INVENTING a FALSE rape accusation? You better shut up, Jason, while you are only behind. Surely in feminist eyes the one thing worse than a man who can prove a false rape accusation is a man who makes up a false rape accusation. HA!
In fact, Jason comes pretty close to admitting that the whole screwdriver (and rape) story was made up (by Jason himself):
“”"Absolutely possible that she misjudged stabbing me. Absolutely possible that I healed without a scar.
Also absolutely possible that she didn’t stab me at all.
Additionally, since that detail was relayed to me through a third party, it’s also possible that she never claimed this as part of her rape claims. This is something I did not cover, because I assumed that the person relaying it relayed what most of the other folks in my school had heard.”"”
Also, Jason, we certainly do NOT assume you are an unreliable narrator. On the contrary, we assume that every single word in your original narrative is true and exactly what you meant to state.
Also, Jason, our argument is not that your story proves that all women lie about rape all the time – on the contrary, we merely suspect that ONE MAN lied about a rape THIS time – and also disclosed the evidence for coming to that conclusion, by feminist standards.
Next: Our article stated “It’s quite clear that Jason did most of the eroding . . . [of trust in her]” Jason answers:
“Nope. That’s not clear at all by what I wrote, and I should know, as I wrote it. And I experienced all the bits I didn’t write, so I think I have the advantage here. I didn’t elaborate much on it, but I have now . . .”
Nope, Jason, YOU have the disadvantage, and you just made it worse. As a skeptic it should be blindingly clear to you that later embroideries (as with Bible stories) make a story LESS credible. I’m sorry, but we have to go with the original text.
There is a long section for which Jason really better should have kept quiet since again, in his own words, he confirms that the central arguments of our article fully hold water.
There is a lot more embroidery that asserts now that his original words didn’t quite mean what they said. There is also the idea again that he could have made it all up – naively assuming that that wouldn’t be worse.
Here are some highlights of Jason aiming straight at his foot:
To our question, “Why did HIS lies not ruin HIS reputation?” he answers, “Possibly because of patriarchy . . .” No kidding! That was exactly our point. The kind of menz that believed you were exactly the kind of men that would (according to your own statement) have believed you even if you had had a gaping wound in your chest. Remember your remark that “those” men will disbelieve even visual evidence when it suits their agenda?
And, surprise, surprise, suddenly, right out of the woodwork, there tumble people who didn’t believe Jason even back then. “Most” people disbelieved her, he says – How many DID believe her? And why? In light of the “patriarchy” consideration, that is quite an admission!
After mentioning that we accused him of callousness, he asks why we are so callous? Well, here is my short answer: You, Jason, and your ilk on FTB have forfeited any right to ask for pity. For years your blog has enabled the vilest feminist princesses to get up in the morning and spew their venom. YOU have brought immeasurable pain to untold numbers of boys, girls, men and women. All in the name of a few hateful hornets in your ever-decreasing echo chamber. Look at the Internet at large (if you dare) and see the condemnation heaped almost unanimously on your crimes – and yes, crimes they are. Crimes against humanity.
Your whole rebuttal of our article is one big whining yammer fest. “Oh look what they are doing to poor Jason!” If this came from the other side you would be the first to rush into print with taunts of “mansplaining” and “privilege” and all the rest of the bile at your disposal. Shut up and learn to listen! Maybe you will become a man yet.
And now, as promised, here comes the bonus:
Jason links to one more of his own FTB posts. Oh, Jason, you really should have shut up for your own good!
It contains a further rape accusation made by some woman against Jason. It’s hearsay, and Jason denies it, of course. But that is not the bonus. It’s in the comments 1 and 4.
As the first commenter PZ Myers (!) chimes in with his own tale. He, too was falsely accused of rape. And then he says:
“I took it very seriously and moved quickly to provide evidence that it was false.”
I bet he could. A rich, white, privileged Prof like Meyers surely can move quickly to shut up some woman. You brought it up, PZ, you own the remark, what were the details? Is your proof as “iron-clad” as Jason’s? Feminist minds need to know. Let’s have the details. Let the Internet judge you, like you want it to judge Shermer.
But that’s not all. A mere 3 comments below another staunch defender of feminism (Axelblaster) pipes up with yet another story of a false rape accusation. This one, he says, easily disproved by an “air tight alibi.”
There are two things very wrong here. First the smaller of the stinking fish:
Apparently, all these three horsemen of the feminist apocalypse had charmed lives. It looks like all false rape accusations are a cinch to disprove. So never fear, men, even if it happens, you will be fine and safe.
PZ, isn’t there a corner in your estrogen-soaked soul where you could concede that men have a hard time proving their innocence? That lots of them get falsely convicted? After all, it is YOU, yes, YOU who tirelessly whine that women can’t make their cases heard? Wouldn’t men have it much harder?
But this is the big stinking rotting whale:
Think about it – within a few hundred words 3 ueber-feminists converge to tell the same tale of false rape accusation parried with perfect counter evidence. How incredibly, mind-blowingly unlikely is that? A+ keeps whining about ordinary evidence. Now, this is extraordinary evidence of cosmic proportion. I’ll leave it to Jason’s superior math skills to figure out just how astronomical the odds against this are.
Let me spell it out. There are these three guys who stridently argue that false rape accusations don’t happen, that men are putrid filth and that women must always be believed. But all three apparently lead charmed lives. They all tell about that ONE absolutely, definitely, never-happening-to-ordinary-people, event – a false rape accusation. Jason even had 2. That makes four false rape accusations within the space of a blog entry and 4 comments. And that’s not where the coincidences end. Each of the accusations could be disproved by “iron-clad” evidence. These people must lead the most blessed lives ever. No Sir, no ordinary fate for them, nothing like a Michael Shermer.
But this incredibly unlikely convergence leaves the three on the horns of an awful dilemma: Either it is true that those were false accusations, in which case they themselves are the best proof positive that false rape accusations must be quite common – or those were NOT false rape accusations, and that makes one or more of them – RAPISTS.
I know what my money is on . . .
Proudly using both heads.