By indirections find directions out

More of Ben Radford’s…indirectness, from the comments on that public Facebook post.

benradTorkel Ødegård and now that this is out in open, let the rageblogging commence!

Scott Mardis Good luck, ben.

Ben Radford I will not be participating in any discussions, debates, or blogging about this. This is now a legal matter, and it will be decided by a judge or jury.

Torkel Ødegård I wasn’t referring to you. I was referring to THOSE people.

Laurie Miller Tarr Yes, Torkel, they are going to blog about it, and they are going to say that all Karen did was speak out, and Ben is being a bully and and further punishing her. But the truth is she accused Ben of both sexual harassment and sexual assault, without providing any evidence. They are taking her accusation as proof of Ben’s guilt. But in court Ben will finally have a chance to answer her, for the first time. And Ben has evidence, and the truth, on his side.

Note what Radford said. (Note also the stupid malice about “rageblogging”, but what Radford said is what I’m getting at.) He will not be participating in any blogging about this, it’s now a legal matter.

But he did participate in blogging about it. He wrote a whole long post about false accusations last week. The date on it is February 26. The date on the lawsuit – which is right there on Facebook, in a public post – is February 17.

That’s very…indirect.


  1. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    How can Laurie Miller Tarr possibly know that Radford “has evidence and the truth on his side”? By what means could she possibly fucking know this? Isn’t that MEGA UNSKEPTIC of her? She hasn’t seen the trial yet, has she? Therefore she can’t draw any conclusions at all, right? Right?

  2. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    Y’know, every single time I think my opinion of the skeptic community can’t possibly get any lower…

  3. Stacy says

    CFI launched an independent investigation and wound up suspending Radford as a result. Nobody took Stollznow’s accusation as “proof of Ben’s guilt.” People expressed support. People noted that he continued to be invited to things and she seemed to be sidelined.

    P.S. I wonder if Orac will be included among the dreaded “ragebloggers” now, for having had the temerity to criticize Radford for his ridiculous false accusation post(s)?

  4. leftwingfox says

    There’s certainly a breed of skeptic who only apply skepticism to other people’s statements, never their own beliefs. It’s my biggest issue with skepticism, the second being people who confuse ignorance of an issue for skepticism.

  5. Blanche Quizno says

    I do hope he’s not attempting to set up a situation where he can claim some sort of prejudicial atmosphere or something or other, trying to get the whole circus sidelined before it can even begin. You know, “Poor me – look how all this adverse publicity has made it impossible for me to get an impartial jury” sort of thing.

  6. says

    So his line in this is going to be that they were “lovers”, given Karen was married at the time (?) and describes his persistent unwanted harassment as an attempt to make that a reality, urgh. I hope she can easily counter that as I cannot imagine the stress on her. Since the only evidence is an accusation of sexual harassment, very common, with a suspension and rap on the knuckles from CFI then I don’t know how they “know” he is innocent. Personally I think it’s extremely unlikely and I’ll carry on not having anything to do with him… Even if he won the libel case and somehow managed to prove they were in a relationship and she lied, I doubt I’d have anything to do with him. What he has written on feminism and in particular his recent “false rape accusations” post has made that decision for me. Not any harassment accusation, true or false. (If however, as I suspect, he did do it and this is an attempt to leverage that anti-woman trope for his benefit then I hope Radford learns chupacabra is real in a very up close and personal way)

    People expressed support. People noted that he continued to be invited to things and she seemed to be sidelined.

    Yes and unless there has been some secret sharing of damning rock hard evidence against Karen (unlikely!) peoples actions in believing him by default is a manifestation of rape culture. Even if it turned out she is some MRA caricature of the woman who lies about harassment to cover an affair, both of them should have been treated equally. At the very least! But despite all those “rage bloggers” and “SJWs” trying to destroy poor Ben the outcome is exactly as usual – the woman is disbelieved, sidelined and damned and the man believed by default with his gold plated victimhood. With no evidence… So skeptic and ironically shows exactly why “I believe her” is needed in this culture of disbelieving women by default.

    I hope Karen is getting support from the community as it appears Ben is, regardless of if it’s deserved.

  7. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    I like* how an accusation of sexual harassment/assault is “no evidence” but Ben Radford’s word that he did no such thing is apparently “evidence, and the truth.”

    *for values of ‘like’ equal to ‘loathe.’

  8. Maureen Brian says

    Even if they were “lovers” and if the whole thing was entirely consensual – those are very big “ifs” given that we know of an inquiry and a suspension, however ineffectual – then the minute Karen S wanted out and told him so any further sexual advance and any whinging about the matter became harassment. If it had all been smoochy and delightful we would never have heard of this story.

    Clearly, this is an idea too simple for Mr R’s masterly brain. I hope that someone is kind enough to explain it to him before he gets to court.

  9. says

    It’s been long enough, and there have been so many of these cases, that I went back to the harassment timeline to refresh my memory of the whole Radford affair. Some key things stand out:

    First, the harassment has been corroborated. Specifically, by Carrie Poppy (with some documentation), Joe Anderson, Brian Thompson, Ian Murphy, Matthew Baxter, and Ron Lindsay. Now I know a woman’s word isn’t as credible as a man’s, but I’m pretty sure Islam only requires corroboration from three male witnesses. Then again, that’s why they’re stupid religionists and the Ben Defenders are smart super-rational skeptics!

    Sarcasm aside, that’s a whole lot you have to ignore or handwave away if you want to claim that Ben has the facts and evidence on his side.

    Second, with regard to the legal status of the lawsuit (note: I am not a lawyer), I don’t see where it can go well for Ben. To be successful against PZ & Carrie, I think he has to show that they knew the allegations to be untrue and reported on them anyway. If they were honestly reporting what they believed to be accurate information, I don’t know that Ben has a leg to stand on. And as far as I can tell, Karen Stollznow never publicly named him, so I don’t see how she could be responsible for damaging his reputation. If anything, he’s got a case against Ian Murphy, but even that’s pretty shaky.

    It’s a SLAPP suit, designed to bully people into silence because he doesn’t have any legitimate recourse. It’s the kind of thing that skeptics typically oppose, but obviously the freedoms of one misogynist douchebag who figured out that Bigfoot’s not real are more important than fighting the British Chiropractic Association.

  10. says

    @Tom, I’ve seen this stuff about PZ and Carrie on Twitter too, where does it say he is suing them? The facebook post only mentions Karen …. But assuming that’s the case then, what!? Shermer has had no luck in getting the post with an anonymous accusation taken down. What chance does he think he has against PZ and Carrie when this has been corroborated by multiple people, including CFI by suspending him. Even if all the facts are wrong they had no reason to disbelieve them so free to report on it.

    How long before Emery Emery starts a legal fund for Radford?

  11. says

    Yes and unless there has been some secret sharing of damning rock hard evidence against Karen (unlikely!) peoples actions in believing him by default is a manifestation of rape culture.

    There has been something passed around about Karen behind the scenes. I haven’t seen it. I’m not in the crowd it would be shared with. But to the best of my knowledge, it’s just something that makes Karen look bad about an entirely different matter. I think in normal cases, skeptics have a two-word, Latin phrase for that, but apparently some of them find it convincing here.

  12. says

    @Zvan, Jeezis, I was postulating on a very unlikely scenario and didn’t think anyone would really be passing stuff around, let alone unrelated smears. I thought this side were the bullies? I think I’d choose people blogging in the open about what they think of me over smear campaigns behind closed doors. “Rage blogging” has a lot to say for it in that there is no cowardly whispering behind peoples backs and you then have the right of reply. Given it’s out there I’d be totally unsurprised if it was of the form of “bitch be crazy” to complement the “bitch be lying” theme.

    Actually didn’t Karen mention there was a “nut and slut” aspect to Ben’s “defence”?

    Ah yes, looking it up from the PDF Greg Laden hosts ->

    This “fact collector” also collected a lot of hearsay from my harasser, about how I’m a slut and “batshit crazy”. This tactic of the accused is so common it’s known as the “nut and slut” strategy.

    *sigh* and doubly so if any “skeptics” were convinced by this crap.

  13. cuervocuero says

    ..Is he going to take action against CFI for having suspended him on ‘spurious’ accusations? Or is he finding it too useful to show CFI is still giving him a platform to poison a well about behavorial accusations?

  14. says

    @cuervocuero: Oh, haven’t you heard? Richard Reed explained just that to me on Twitter today: “because you don’t sue your employer for following reasonable practices, you sue the person that caused your suspension.”

    But since Ben Radford can’t sue himself, apparently he settled on suing Karen Stollznow.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>