Community contribution

Last night was a very informative ideological gang bang! One defender of Lucy stated that he doesn't care which of the men did what (i.e. the facts are not that important). This is equivalent to saying dude A raped her, therefore, so long as some dude is jailed, justice is served. Can't engage with a twat like that. A second defender said that, even if the boys were found not guilty, he would believe her. A case of linking your support for someone to your identity, rather than a rational evaluation of the facts. A third was silenced when asked about Amber Heard. A fourth claimed to have read the statement by Lucy, but quoted a one-line sound bite from the media that relates to an unreleased transcript of the interview with the police (which is separate from the statement), indicating that the user had no knowledge of the statement. A fifth said people who defend rape should be raped - thereby defending rape, and maybe looking for a bad date. A sixth made a very valid point about Male 2 (Newell) being caught in a lie in a recorded phone call, and provided evidence of this which is very damning, and I'm curious to see how Cornell evaluated this in giving him a suspension. This guy was the sober monitor (had a responsibility to shut this shit down, but didn't), hit Lucy so hard she got bruising, posted the invitation, and then lied about it. If you want to make a point in her defense, but you are too intimidated to read a 6 page document (with comprehension), or unable to provide clear facts, you are just wasting time. If you can, some of us will pay attention - I'm not denying that some of the guys supporting the bros are cunts and not actually interested in the facts, and they should also STFU or at least generate a meme. Make a valid point, make us laugh, or fuck off.