Should “Jackie” from the Rolling Stone article be doxxed?
Another day on twitter and there are some who
#IStandWithJackie. Apparently Roosh who runs the “infamous” Return Of Kings has information that exposes “Jackies” real identity from Rolling Stones infamous article on the UVA “gang rape” and is pondering on whether to publish it or not. This is a turning point for him. I don’t know if Roosh considers himself to be a journalist, but I do consider him to be such to an extent.
Will he lower himself to the SJW tactic of doxxing people? Doxxing has been the realm of those on 4chan – well now 8chan- Reddit, ect. However even mainstream publications like The New York Times have participated in doxxing – most recently publishing Darren Wilson’s address – the officer in Ferguson who shot Michael Brown – via showing an image of his marriage certificate.
While the address was already floating around on the internet, it sets a new precedent when a respectable publication like the NYT is willing to publish private details such as that. Also note that the NYT still has one of the largest audiences of any one publication – both digital and in print.
When it comes to the disclosure of the private details of someone’s life, the question that must be asked is, “How necessary and pertinent is it to the story”? In this case I would suggest that it’s not at all pertinent to the story. She may deserve to be doxxed, considering what she’s done to “Barry One”, but at what point should we lower ourselves to the standards of people like that?
The moral high ground is often useless nowadays, but Mike Cernovich is right in that whoever claims the moral high ground can easily be destroyed by it as so many SJW’s have been when details about them leak out that aren’t so “moral.”