Someone was bored tonight »« Academic Mansplaining

Woody Allen: cradle-robbing android, or psychopathic liar?

I read Woody Allen’s defense yesterday, and was disgusted — seriously, it was nothing but ‘Mia Farrow was out to get me, me, me, me’. I was wondering whether he’d bothered to get an objective source to review it first, because all it did was convince me that he hasn’t got a speck of humanity left in him.

Now Ashley Miller has dissected Allen’s letter in detail, and not only was my impression correct, but Allen is lying throughout. Bleh. Gotta go take a shower now.

Comments

  1. steve oberski says

    cradle-robbing android, or and psychopathic liar

    No charge for the editorial service.

  2. says

    Going by the other thread, all the defenders of rape apologia everywhere should be along shortly, to let us know how utterly evil we are being to Mr. Allen.

  3. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    But Inaji, his life will be ruined. Ruined, I tell you!

    (Never mind Dylan Farrow. Who’s that again?)

  4. Granny Sue says

    Did you read the judge’s reasons for denying Woody Allen custody of his kids back in the 90s?
    The judge wasn’t impressed with him.

  5. says

    Beatrice:

    But Inaji, his life will be ruined. Ruined, I tell you!

    Funny that being ruined hasn’t shut him up at all. I noted over in Ashley’s thread, there’s a busy rape apologist already, stating they are a professional*, and of course, there’s just all kinds of ‘cray cray’ to go around, so, y’know, it isn’t all Allen’s fault.
     
    A professional what they didn’t say.

  6. Al Dente says

    Damn, I just read the “professional cray cray” person over at Ashley’s blog. I’m not sure if rape apologist is the right description or whether pedophile/incest apologist is more apropos.

  7. says

    Allen has forgotten that his accuser is Dylan, not Mia.

    When lunacy calls, there is no distinction.

    Woody’s biggest mistake (ie, character flaw) was hooking up with Mia and perpetuating that union. Woody’s a distasteful dork; Mia is an evil wench.

  8. ChasCPeterson says

    his accuser is Dylan, not Mia

    I’ll just point out gently here that that’s an assumption, not a proven fact that is known, or can be, by anybody except Mia and (maybe) Dylan themselves.
    I will even paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld to the effect that there are known knowns and known unknowns and unknown unknowns and knowns that are unknown to everybody that wasn’t there at the time, and furthermore that one thing we know damn well is that everybody is wrong about some of the things they think they know or remember.
    Confidence that you as an observer decades removed know what actually happened is purest hubris.
    Then I will run away.

  9. says

    Socially Extinct:

    When lunacy calls, there is no distinction.

    There’s no lunacy involved. Allen hasn’t forgotten that Dylan is the accuser, he simply refuses to address the accusation or Dylan.

    Woody’s a distasteful dork; Mia is an evil wench.

    No Bayesian priors operating here, no sir. :eyeroll:

  10. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Poor Woody Allen, I say. He’s never going to pick up after this.

    Career…. ruined.

    Life…. ruined.

    Expectations, dreams, everything gone.

    Um, what were we talking about again? Who’s this Dylan person?

  11. imthegenieicandoanything says

    I said my piece in the earlier thread. I won’t defend Allen – I don’t really believe his story.

    Will or can there be prosecution? Let it go forward.

    Does this sour his work? Yes, even that done before.

    Will I obsess about this story, and join a bunch of people I generally fully agree with in using his illness to allow me to boast of my own and my pals own purity and fidelity to whatever the hell makes many of them feel better than other mere humans?

    Nope.

    If Woody Allen admits the charges, seeks treatment, and attempts to make what amends he now can, that would (have to) satisfy me, but experience here makes it a certainty that there would be a mob here demanding (someone else) REALLY let him have it!

    Demonstrations, sure. Petitions, often. But no joining mobs for me, even in it-don’t-really-matter-any-more-than-internet-poll-comments-sections. The anger there is mean and useless, and meant to allow the shrill the chance to imitate people whose methods we always discuss with distain.

    See you in the funnier papers, maybe.

  12. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    one thing we know damn well is that everybody is wrong about some of the things they think they know or remember

    Oh yes, thanks for bringing this up.
    Besides having his whole life ruined, Woody Allen also looks like he is having some strange memory gaps.

    I weep for him.

  13. says

    “Android”? “Psychopath”? It’s so easy, so tempting to deny humanity to people accused of child abuse, or to make instant mental pathology diagnoses, but it doesn’t help anybody, including the victims. I thought this was well-established knowledge, here? And as for labelling rebecca gavin’s comments “rape apology”, erm… did you read them, Inaji, or just skimmed the first words? As for what kind of professional: obviously a social worker, as the rest of the comment makes clear.

    Oh, this is kind of a tangent, but I’m sick and tired of so many people confusing issues of false memories and emotional entanglement with “he accused her of being crazy and/or lying”. Argh.

  14. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    If I wasn’t embittered already, this would surely push me over that particular edge.

    If Woody Allen admits the charges, seeks treatment, and attempts to make what amends he now can, that would (have to) satisfy me, but experience here makes it a certainty that there would be a mob here demanding (someone else) REALLY let him have it!

    Did you read his letter?
    Glanced at it?
    Even one sentence of that self-important bullshit?

    Because he’s not even close to admitting to anything, or making amends. He’s just about on the other end of the spectrum, working hard on destroying any semblance or future possibility of a healthy relationship with any of the children. Including those he adopted, since he makes it pretty clear that adopted children aren’t one’s children for realz.

    I’m dried up. There’s only sarcasm and despair left.

  15. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Irène Delse

    As for what kind of professional: obviously a social worker, as the rest of the comment makes clear.

    I wonder how she handles her cray cray clients. Must be horrible for her when she gets some nutcase in front of her. Ew, right?

  16. WhiteHatLurker says

    This has little to do with his “cradle robbing” (which I take to mean dating/marrying much younger women) – it is his child molestation and rape that is at the heart of the matter.

  17. says

    I’ve been avoiding this story entirely, because frankly at this point you could put together a form with blanks to be filled in for this sort of thing:

    “[SELF-IMPORTANT FAMOUS MALE] today dismissed the charges brought against him by [FEMALE] as being untrue and the product of [CIRCLE ONE: JEALOUSY, ACRIMONY, BITTERNESS, BLACKMAIL]. Although the accusations are supported by [LIST OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND/OR DIRECT EVIDENCE], and there is testimony from [NAME] that he [BEHAVIOR WHICH WOULD BE ALMOST COMPLETELY INEXPLICABLE IF S.-I.F.M. WERE INNOCENT], he has been defended by [LIST OF OTHER FAMOUS PEOPLE WHO OUGHT TO KNOW BETTER], on the basis of his many important works, such as [LIST].”

    Can anyone tell me whether Allen’s alleged crimes took place before or after his “early, funny movies”? I did look around on Wikipedia, but the timeline for this particular scandal there is a little vague. It would be interesting if Zelig were made while he was contemplating acting on his urges but had not yet done so, and the attempts to be taken seriously as an artist (as opposed to a “mere” comedian) began around then as well.

  18. Sili says

    But Inaji, his life will be ruined. Ruined, I tell you!

    He could always move to France (or Poland in a pinch).

    Of course, it’d be bit of a gamble with either of those countries whether they love rapists more than they hate Jews.

  19. says

    I tried to go into reading Woody Allens defense with an open mind, giving him a chance to convince me he was actually innocent.

    And I read an attack on Mia Farrow instead of the expected defense. Assertions of Mia manipulating the situation with essentially no evidence- except a single doctors report and a lie detector test he passed- that apparently he paid for but didn’t think it relevant to mention the potential conflict of interest. I get that properly defending himself, if he were innocent, would probably require him to attack Mia and Dylan’s credibility… on relevant grounds. And ideally, grounds that don’t damage his credibility at least as badly.

    I provisionally gave back the presumption of innocence when I started, and I wasn’t even halfway through before Allen hit bottom and kept digging. This response was terrible enough that even if, against all odds, he presented irrefutable proof of innocence tomorrow, he’s still a raging asshat.

    He did seem to take some pains to avoid a direct attack on Dylan, trying to excuse her actions as being under Mia’s influence(which is rather insulting in its own right) but I doubt it’s because he actually cares how she feels- he’s probably worried about the PR fallout if he did go after Dylan explicitly.

  20. anteprepro says

    Will I obsess about this story, and join a bunch of people I generally fully agree with in using his illness to allow me to boast of my own and my pals own purity and fidelity to whatever the hell makes many of them feel better than other mere humans?

    “His illness” =/= “His raping a young girl, using sleazy tactics to get away with it, and continuing to use sleazy tactics to continue to deny it to this way, in a way that it is emblematic of our country’s poor handling on the issues of rape and child abuse”

    If you are reading these threads and your take away is that we are mocking him for being attracted to little girls, and patting ourselves on the back for being “Pure”, then you aren’t even fucking reading at all.

  21. chigau (違う) says

    anteprepro #23
    Not to worry, lack of imthegenieicandoanything in a thread is a positive thing.

  22. anteprepro says

    Not to worry, lack of imthegenieicandoanything in a thread is a positive thing.

    Always look on the bright side.

  23. unbound says

    I’m sorry PZ, but you are guilty of what I’ve seen you decry of others in the past. A rush of judgement.

    The guy is hardly a beacon of humanity, but we really don’t know what happened. And for those of you that may call me a rapist defender, you really need to understand that being a skeptic is really about.

  24. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    I’m sorry PZ, but you are guilty of what I’ve seen you decry of others in the past. A rush of judgement.

    The guy is hardly a beacon of humanity, but we really don’t know what happened. And for those of you that may call me a rapist defender, you really need to understand that being a skeptic is really about.

    Not this shit again.

  25. chigau (違う) says

    I’m sorry unbound #26

    A rush of judgement.

    “rush”
    Where have you been for the last 20 years?

  26. mikeyb says

    If any of this is true – Woody Allen has a eerie resemblance to the Martin Landau character in Crimes and Misdemeanors.

  27. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    On the evening news, the prosecutor who decided not to bring charges against Allen said that there was cause to bring charges and he did not in order to protect the Dylan. Not quite the exoneration that Allen and his defenders claim, neh?

  28. says

    unbound #26
    8/10; if you’d added another sentence or two, you could probably have made a clean sweep of stupid rape apologist dogwhistles, but you get credit for packing so many into such a small post. Few people out themselves as total shitheads with as much elegance and compactness.

  29. ajb47 says

    unbound @26:

    I’m mostly a lurker here, but I am very interested in learning what being a skeptic is all about, as you suggest.

    So, we have Allen, who was in therapy due to inappropriate actions towards a minor and who dated and married the daughter of his long time girlfriend almost as soon as she passed the age of majority. On the other side, we have Dylan Farrow saying he molested her. Allen’s answer is that Dylan’s mother is vindictive.

    What are we supposed to be skeptical about in this situation?

  30. Merlin says

    @9 ChasCPeterson
    It is entirely possible that I am misreading your post (this would not be the first post I have misread in my life), but did you say that we don’t know who is accusing Woody Allen of sexually assaulting Dylan Farrow?

  31. says

    Chas @9

    My only hope is that this self-serving pile of bullshit is dragged out every time you try and pretend that you aren’t always reflexively on the side of rapists, misogynists, and child molesters. I mean for fuck’s sake, Chas, just when my opinion of you couldn’t sink down any further.

    To all the survivors of childhood sexual assault on this blog:

    I know you are legion and I hope you are keeping yourself safe. Because this shit and too many of the responses to it are just disgusting in the extreme.

    To the child molester defenders on this blog and Ashley’s blog:

    Look at your life, look at your life choices, and then just fuck the right off and keep fucking off until you have nothing left to fuck with. You are not “skeptics”, you are just the same exact fucks as the assholes who defend catholic priest child molesters. Just like them, you are the scum of the fucking Earth and there’s no amount of sophistry that will change that.

  32. atheistblog says

    chigau (違う)

    No its my first day teaching chigau (違う) how to try to reproduce yourself. You know what! you did try yourself very awesome. Bravo Bravo.

  33. says

    I’ll just repost what I said at Ashley’s blog:

    It’s classical victim blaming, only that the mother is swapped for the child victim, because apparently even Allan realises that blaming a back then 7 yo is not a viable strategy.
    If Mia Farrow didn’t behave perfectly at all points during the 12 years they were together then it’s clear that he couldn’t have behaved bad at one point.

    I also find it totally believable that Allan himself is completely convinced of his own innocence. Because we all know that people who abuse children are bad people, he isn’t a bad person, therefore he cannot have abused Dylan.
    I come from a physically and emotionally abusive family (thankfully not sexually.) Thing is, my mother actually loves me and she thinks that she is the victim and that I have been indoctrinated by the psychologist I went to in my thirties(!). For years she went on telling one particular incidence of abuse as a funny annecdote about what a difficult child I was and how bad she had it as my mother.

  34. knowknot says

    # 26 unbound
    Found this today:

    And for those of you that may call me a rapist defender, you really need to understand that being a skeptic is really about.

    !
    Then, already amazed, I found this as well:

    And for those of you that may call me a rapist defender, you really need to understand that being a skeptic is really about.

    !!
    But here’s the real kicker, which I couldn’t have anticipated at this point:

    And for those of you that may call me a rapist defender, you really need to understand that being a skeptic is really about.

    !!!
    I can’t remember whether the 3 responsive regurgitations occurred concurrent with these revelations, one at a time, or all together afterward; but it’s moot now anyway, because subsequent occurrances leave me nothing but to hope it doesn’t continue unabated until Jesus returns to bless the MRA.

  35. Gregory Greenwood says

    Many of the Woody Allen defenders out there seem to have an incredible capacity to suffer from selective amnesia with regard to Allen’s less than entirely confidence-inducing behaviour in the past, and yet will go through Mia Farrow’s life with a fine tooth comb looking for any excuse to decry her as a manipulative harridan and thus to dismiss Dylan’s account of events as simply something her mother coached her to say as a means of using her as a weapon against Allen.

    You know, for all their attempts to wrap themselves in the flag of ‘Tru Skepticism(TM)’, it is almost as though they have an alternative agenda entirely unrelated to what actually happened in this case, and rather more to do with maintaining a general presumption of dishonesty with regard to any accusation of rape or sexual abuse made by any woman against any man (doubly so if that man is famous), unless that man happens to fit a very narrow list of prerequisites to be taken seriously as a rapist, a list that seems to include wearing a dirty rain coat, being unshaven, hiding in bushes and, of course, being black.

    That it is a rare rapist indeed that actually satisfies those requirements is very much a feature rather than a bug…

  36. Gregory Greenwood says

    ChasCPeterson @ 9;

    I’ll just point out gently here that that’s an assumption, not a proven fact that is known, or can be, by anybody except Mia and (maybe) Dylan themselves.
    I will even paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld to the effect that there are known knowns and known unknowns and unknown unknowns and knowns that are unknown to everybody that wasn’t there at the time, and furthermore that one thing we know damn well is that everybody is wrong about some of the things they think they know or remember.
    Confidence that you as an observer decades removed know what actually happened is purest hubris.

    This seems to be skating dangerously close to a creationist-esque ‘were you there?’ style of argumentation.

    At this rate you are going to start drawing a distinction between observational and historical rape allegations, with the former perhaps requiring the presence of three or more male witnesses…

  37. anteprepro says

    To the child molester defenders on this blog and Ashley’s blog:

    Look at your life, look at your life choices, and then just fuck the right off and keep fucking off until you have nothing left to fuck with. You are not “skeptics”, you are just the same exact fucks as the assholes who defend catholic priest child molesters. Just like them, you are the scum of the fucking Earth and there’s no amount of sophistry that will change that.

    This, a thousand times over.

  38. Markita Lynda—threadrupt says

    Steve Oberski @1, Or includes and. It’s not XOR. Therefore, it is sufficient to write, “cradle-robbing android or psychopathic liar?” and the answer can be, “Both!”

    The comma in the original is not needed.

  39. frankb says

    I have a brother who accuses me of things I never did and he refuses to listen to me. I would like a reconciliation with him but apparently that is not going to happen. So I have to stay away from him. Even if Woody is innocent he still needed to stay away from Dylan. His refusal to consider her needs speaks volumes. It is all about him.

  40. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    This seems to be skating dangerously close to a creationist-esque ‘were you there?’ style of argumentation.

    At this rate you are going to start drawing a distinction between observational and historical rape allegations, with the former perhaps requiring the presence of three or more male witnesses…

    I logged on to say exactly this. But hey, it’s Chas, the only objective human in the world.

  41. says

    presence of three or more male witnesses

    It’s something the judicial system is fond of called “evidence.”

    It’s the reason you need to produce a corpse or physical traces of a corpse in order to accuse someone of murder, and from what I can tell, Dylan has produced little to nothing in the way of a corpse other than her present blathering.

  42. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    Dylan has produced little to nothing in the way of a corpse other than her present blathering.

    Is there anything that will satisfy you in terms of evidence? Coz we have doctor’s reports, eyewitness accounts and victim testimony here and it’s still not enough for you. So what will be enough, then?

  43. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Asking for a metaphorical corpse is asking for physical evidence, I presume? What kind if physical evidence is she supposed to present after all this time?

  44. says

    Socially Extinct #49

    from what I can tell, Dylan has produced little to nothing in the way of a corpse other than her present blathering.

    Did you read the article linked from the OP?

    Still, it’s nice to know that, in the face of your vaunted “lack of evidence,” you’ve managed to come to the conclusion that Dylan is doing nothing more than “blathering.” Is hypocrisy a habit with you, or is this a special occasion?

  45. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    Hey, there wasn’t any physical evidence of my childhood sexual abuse and rape. I guess it never happened, because a court of law didn’t declare my abuser guilty.

    Or wait, maybe the memories I suffer from were false. Right? Lucky me. Never happened after all.

  46. Gregory Greenwood says

    Socially Extinct @ 49;

    It’s something the judicial system is fond of called “evidence.”

    A couple of points; firstly, this is a discussion thread not a court of law, which is a rather important distinction. Secondly, note the gender modifier – there is a reason I wrote it as three male witnesses. It was a reference to the reflexive tendency to disbelieve a woman who reports a sexual assault simply because she is a woman. Speaking of which;

    It’s the reason you need to produce a corpse or physical traces of a corpse in order to accuse someone of murder, and from what I can tell, Dylan has produced little to nothing in the way of a corpse other than her present blathering.

    Sexual assault and rape are not murder – there are no convenient bodies lying around to satiate the demands of hyperskeptic arsehats like your august self. It is also worth noting that we are not required to maintain a beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof, or to offer a presumption of innocence (not a court of law, remember?), and all Woody Allen and his defenders have brought to the table are equally unsubstantiated denials and mundane, regurgitated misogynistic talking points.

    I do, however, find it very interesting indeed that your first impulse is to assume that the woman in question simply must be lying. That wouldn’t have anything to do with any pre-existing assumptions about the trustworthiness of women on your part, would it?

    Here’s a pro-tip – before you try to patronise anyone else here, you should really get some more practice in first. Egg-on-face is not a look conducive to projecting gravitas you know…

  47. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    So Socially Extinct, What evidence will convince you? Can ANY evidence convince you?

  48. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    Socially Extinct:

    The only metaphor stinking the place up are Dylan’s hackneyed accusations. A metaphor for “I’ve turned into a psychotic victim, just like mom.”

    I’ve got no physical evidence of what was done to me, and what I did, when I was nine and ten years old (unless some of the photographs he took are still kicking around) back in the mid 1970s. So I was never raped? None of the survivors here were ever raped? Did it ever occur to you that Dylan’s testimony IS evidence? It is even evidence that would be admissible in a court of law? And in the ‘court’ of public opinion?

    So, tell me, Socially Extinct, what is in it for you to convince others that children lie about being raped or assaulted? What are you hiding?

  49. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    Sorry, forgot to close my bold tag. All hail Hypertextio, son of Tpyos.

  50. says

    So, tell me, Socially Extinct, what is in it for you to convince others that children lie about being raped or assaulted? What are you hiding?

    You’re taking so many leaps there that you’ve begun to smell (and sound) like a mountain goat.

  51. omnicrom says

    Yes Socially Extinct, inquiring minds want to know, what do you consider a good enough standard of evidence in this case? What does it genuinely take to get past your reflexive rape apologies? What would be the smoking gun in this case? Why would it be so much better than the evidence we already have?

  52. ajb47 says

    Socially Extinct @ 49

    It’s the reason you need to produce a corpse or physical traces of a corpse in order to accuse someone of murder

    Right, because no one ever gets accused, let alone convicted, of murder without a body.

    Oh, wait.

  53. says

    I have “reflexive rape apologies!?” Do you even know me?

    You folks (you who practice “reflexive rape accusations”) love to paint with broad strokes. I can’t figure out if you are close-minded or victim-fetishists.

  54. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Socially Extinct,

    Are you trolling? It looks like it.

  55. says

    Socially Extinct certainly doesn’t seem inclined to explain themselves, whatever it is they’re up to.

    I’m getting the vibe from this person that if someone did find external evidence Dylan Farrow was assaulted, like say photos, or a journal entry by Woody Allen, they would turn around and claim it as all Ms. Farrow’s fault, that she “came on to Allen,” or something equally ridiculous.

  56. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    Socially Extinct:

    You show up and claim that an adult making the claim that she was raped and/or sexually assaulted as a child is ‘blathering’ and presents no evidence. I asked whether I would be held to the same standard. I was raped, repeatedly, for about two years and involved in some shit that still gives me nightmares. So am I also ‘blathering’?

    Further, I asked why you seem to have a knee-jerk reaction towards denying that Dylan was raped. And before you deny that, you wrote:

    It’s the reason you need to produce a corpse or physical traces of a corpse in order to accuse someone of murder, and from what I can tell, Dylan has produced little to nothing in the way of a corpse other than her present blathering.

    See it? Your automatic assumption is that Dylan is lying and that Woody Allen is being 100% truthful (despite evidence already offered just in this thread pointing in the direction that something may have been happening). Why is that? Why do you assume that the survivor is lying? Near as I can tell, you are either so deep in rape culture that you cannot see it in operation, or you have a vested interest in making sure that people think that children lie about sexual assault and rape.

    I have no physical evidence that I was raped almost 40 years ago. So am I also a blathering liar?

    (You could try actually answering a question at some point)

  57. says

    Socially Extinct, what evidence will be enough for you?

    Concrete medical evidence or third-party witnesses. Especially in a case such as this where the break-up/separation were acrimonious.

  58. omnicrom says

    I have “reflexive rape apologies!?” Do you even know me?

    No I do not know you socially extinct, but you have painted a rather poor picture of yourself. Your very first post in this thread is calling Mia Farrow “an evil wench” and saying that Woody Allen’s only sin was marrying her. You have since refused the evidence in the case without any explanation, called Dylan Farrow a “psychotic victim”, and then dismissed the rest of the commenters here as bleating mountain goats.

    Frankly you’ve done nothing but spew bile and attack rape victims, so I’m not sure I actually want to know you. And yes you have attacked rape victims. You have dismissed their evidence and done nothing but denigrate and doubt the victims in the case. That is Rape Apology. By saying these things you are a rape apologist.

    You folks (you who practice “reflexive rape accusations”) love to paint with broad strokes. I can’t figure out if you are close-minded or victim-fetishists.

    Reflexive rape accusations? All evidence points to Woody Allen sexually abusing Dylan Farrow. If you want to dispute the evidence then do so. If you want to argue for a higher standard of evidence before being convinced then lay those standards out. If you are unconvinced then reason why. You have done none of those things Socially Extinct. You’ve done nothing but carelessly fling insults. If you want us to think you’re right you’ll have to actually address the evidence in the case, and you’ve said nothing of substance.

  59. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    Concrete medical evidence or third-party witnesses. Especially in a case such as this where the break-up/separation were acrimonious.

    Translation: Bitchez Lie!

  60. says

    As I wrote in the other thread:

    Just what evidence do you expect to waiting about, ready to leap to the eye? Hair, skin, fibers? The man lives in the house, of course those things will be there. Semen spills? That can easily be dealt with by someone living in the house. A rapist is capable of wearing a condom, y’know. When it comes to raping children, it’s quite easy to deal with such evidence anyway. Give the child a bath, clean up very well. So much for evidence. Do a load of laundry, so much for evidence. Oh, and in case you’re thinking of a broken hymen – it’s possible to rape without breaking it, and if it is broken, it’s not necessarily evidence of rape. And so on. Seems to me you don’t have the slightest idea of what you’re talking about.

  61. Dave, ex-Kwisatz Haderach says

    I’ve been arguing at length with hyperskeptics on varies blogs and in RL, and it just sickens me. So I’ll just go ahead a throw up Cerberus’ quote one more time, cause it does a good job of covering my feelings on the matter. Take note Socially Extinct, this one’s for you…

    Look at your life, look at your life choices, and then just fuck the right off and keep fucking off until you have nothing left to fuck with. You are not “skeptics”, you are just the same exact fucks as the assholes who defend catholic priest child molesters. Just like them, you are the scum of the fucking Earth and there’s no amount of sophistry that will change that.

  62. says

    Socially Extinct:

    I have “reflexive rape apologies!?” Do you even know me?

    Your nym is hyperlinked, you know. Going by the screed you wrote about how evil Mia Farrow is, and poor, poor Mr. Allen, I’d say you’re quite invested in rape apologia.

  63. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    Concrete medical evidence or third-party witnesses. Especially in a case such as this where the break-up/separation were acrimonious.

    This is both present in this case.

  64. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    (cont from previous) But hey, it wasn’t present in my own case so I guess I was never abused and raped. Thanks for telling me.

  65. says

    Inaji #74

    Your nym is hyperlinked, you know.

    Why, oh why, in the name of all that is unholy, did you have to mention that?

    From their blog:

    And right now, Woody Allen is wildly unpopular, and older men (“creeps”) who take advantage or abuse young girls are downright reprehensible. And the burden of proof is womanly soft in the realm of such allegations.

    *retch*

  66. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    And the burden of proof is womanly soft in the realm of such allegations.

    Jesus fucking christ.

    Socially Extinct,let me get this straight. that because there were no third party witnesses to my rape and abuse (because surprisingly, here on earth abusers and rapists try to get away with what they’ve done, try to not get caught and whatnot) and there were no doctor’s examinations done (because there were no physical evidence, another thing abusers and rapists are good at cleaning up).

    Socially ExtinctIn the light of this, is it your contention that my abuse and rape in my childhood did not happen?

  67. says

    Not a very good writer, is he?

    There’s a fine, sophisticated demarcation between legal and something most people would not choose to do. They do not overlap.

    Is that really what you meant to write? I suspect you meant something else.

  68. Gregory Greenwood says

    Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk @ 75;

    Concrete medical evidence or third-party witnesses. Especially in a case such as this where the break-up/separation were acrimonious.

    This is both present in this case.

    But, but, but Socially Extinct isn’t done moving the goalposts yet! I don’t doubt for a second that xe will declare any evidence short of a live semen sample harvested directly from Dylan’s body to be insufficient to amount to ‘concrete’ medical evidence, smug in the knowledge that, so long after the fact, there is no possibility that hir unreasonably high evidentiary standards could ever be met.

    And as for third party witnesses, taking into account Socially Extinct’s various posts on these threads I find it likely that xe will have great difficulty taking the testimony of anybody lacking the holy rod of truth a penis seriously.

    And anyway it was all so long ago, dontchaknow. No one really knows which unknowns were known unknowns and which unknowns were unknown unknowns, not to mention those pesky knowns that were knowingly unknown, y’know?

  69. Pteryxx says

    It’s common knowledge that rape victims’ own testimony won’t be believed without medical evidence or third-party (preferably male) witnesses, and mostly not then either. The predators know it, the victims know it, and the potential victims and aspiring predators-in-training know it too. Disbelieving victims is the blank check these human scum rely on.

    (TW for yet another, unrelated case)

    “It never works out, unless you’re bleeding and there’s DNA and an eyewitness. I was 19 and he was the king of the world, so how was it going to work?”

    By the way, Dylan Farrow responded:

    From the bottom of my heart, I will be forever grateful for the outpouring of support I have received from survivors and countless others. If speaking out about my experience can help others stand up to their tormentors, it will be worth the pain and suffering my father continues to inflict on me. Woody Allen has an arsenal of lawyers and publicists but the one thing he does not have on his side is the truth.

    Better polish up those worn excuses, rape apologists. There’s still an awful lot of survivors out there watching this happen.

  70. nutella says

    One thing about the people insisting that all this stems from a bitter ex exploiting a custody dispute, they seem to have skipped looking at the timeline. There was no custody dispute at all (that is, WA had no interest in custody of any of the children and left it all to MF) until AFTER the abuse was reported. So the person mixing the abuse allegations with a custody dispute is WA and only WA.

  71. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    Oh, no, nutella. You see, a lying child has the ability to time travel and change the order that things happen in order to trap the innocent man.

  72. says

    Skepticism in the face of overwhelming evidence is not skepticism, it’s denialism.

    I mean, look at every group of denialist. Climate change denialists, evolution denialists, genocide denialists, slavery denialists, etc…

    Every last one of them praises themselves on just being “skeptical” and needing overwhelming evidence that they then procede to ignore in defense of an untenable personal “truth” that has absolutely no evidence for it.

    And so we see it again with this child molester denialist bullshit. Oh, sure, the guy has admitted to sexualizing children, has been in and out of therapy for years for being a molester of children and literally groomed and married one of his children, but we’re still supposed to presume he’s right and every accuser is wrong because… well, that’s how the denialism works. Because it’s about protecting a specific belief one wants to have over the reality we live in.

    Because the reality of child molestation is inconvenient to some worldview the denialist has. Iin this case, probably something about the eternal untrustworthiness of his victims, I mean, women and children in general or more mundanely (and sadly more common) the fact that he doesn’t want to associate a favorite movie with the horribleness of what the creator has done.

    And for all those in the latter category.

    Fucking grow up. A lot of things you like are going to be made by people that are terrible. Wagner’s music is still evocative and beautiful despite the fact that he was a Nazi. Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby is still a great film despite the fact that it was made by a man who brutally raped children. And so on…

    Something we love does not need to be morally spotless to be a worthy piece of art. And frankly, if you’re tired of great art being made by people who are shit, then you should be even more outraged by vile human beings who are artists. Instead of protecting them (and thus ensuring that terrible people will know they’ll be protected for their obvious crimes if they produce good art), call them out and support those who take the personal risk to speak truth to power.

    It’s the only way the art scene will be as “pure” as you seem to need it to be to enjoy a piece of art.

    Also, no seriously, all you chid rape denialists who want to pretend to be super-brains seeing through evil lady tricks?

    You are scum. Fuck off to infinity and stay there, in the brutal unflinching awareness of what you are and what you support with full glee when it supports your needs.

    You. Never. Get. To. Pretend. To. Be. Moral. Ever. Again.

  73. says

    Socially Extinct-

    So, let me get this straight. You are speaking even though you haven’t been called by a court-recognized lawyer and without being sworn in before giving testimony you have been told there are legitimate legal consequences for lying within.

    So, either this means you are right now absolutely shit-spewingly terrified that you are going to be held in contempt of court and facing jail time for it or you possess enough awareness of the world around you to recognize the difference between a court of law and the everyday world you are within.

    As such, I would expect a global space brain like yours that totally isn’t a pathetic child molester defender no different from every Catholic trying to defend their rotted institution, to recognize that it doesn’t threaten Woody Allen’s personal safety or freedom for people to recognize and be dismayed by the crimes he has gotten away with.

    If I was to think that Woody Allen is the scum of the fucking Earth and recognize all the evidence that his wealth and profile bought him a permanent get out of jail free card from the rape of his children, that doesn’t impact Woody Allen one fart. Woody Allen will get out of bed at his house, live his life, receive awards and undeserving praise from child molester supporters like you and my condemnation will not matter.

    So why don’t you drop the transparent silencing bullshit if you ever want to be taken as something other than a lying asshole and/or a delusional moron?

  74. doubtthat says

    In late, missed the denialist at his peak.

    I will just state that anyone discussing this case needs to read the court transcript of the 1992 custody case brought by Allen in response to learning about the allegations made by Dylan. This is an important procedural point as Allen sued for custody, not Farrow:

    http://www.vanityfair.com/dam/2014/02/woody-allen-1992-custody-suit.pdf

    There is a handy section there called “Findings of Fact” where the judge lists the evidence so genuinely (I’m sure) craved by Socially Extinct and others.

    I find it impossible that anyone could read all of that and not be more or less certain that Woody Allen was grooming Dylan as a victim and more than likely actually molested her. As I said at Ashley Miller’s place, as a family law attorney that works regularly on these sorts of cases, here are some of the portions of that transcript that I find revelatory:

    1) Allen didn’t give a shit about any of the kids until Dylan comes along, then he focuses on her so intensely that Farrow is concerned. She takes her concern to a therapist who begins treating Woody Allen for this disturbing behavior years before the allegation of abuse is made. This evidence comes from Farrow and the therapist, who was being paid by Allen, not just Mia Farrow.

    2) This judge is obviously experienced and learned in the subtleties of the abusive personality. He focuses precisely on the exact ways in which Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi was disturbing and destructive to the family. Allen tried all of the apologetics that you hear from his media defenders in court — she was adopted, the relationship started when she was an adult…The judge finds these arguments nonsensical and rips them apart.

    3) The behavior of several of the therapists and experts is deeply troubling. First, the therapist working with Dylan tells child welfare that Dylan never described molestation during therapy. A week later, this therapist hires and attorney then suddenly remembers that Dylan told her of a very specific episode of molestation during their sessions. Second, the therapist and social workers tasked with the investigation destroyed all of their notes and refused to testify. The only participation in the custody case was via a deposition of one of the participants. The judge slams this unprofessional behavior and demolishes the conclusions they reach.

    That activity makes it appear that Allen was attempting to influence the investigation. The therapist with the poor memory was being paid by Allen, and Farrow expresses a lack of trust. That appears to have been very much warranted.

    4) Finally, the ruling — no visitation with Dylan, supervised visitation with Satchel, Moses can do what he wants, + an award of attorney fees to Farrow based upon Allen’s frivolous and destructive behavior — is the family court version of saying this guy is guilty, at a minimum, of being incredibly dangerous to the well-being of the kids.

    Despite it being several decades old, I hadn’t read the transcript until this recent flare up. I find it impossible that anyone could read that and 1) defend Allen or 2) more amazingly, say stupid shit about needing “evidence.” There was a shitton of evidence, but probably not enough to convict Allen in front of a jury, mostly because of Dylan’s age.

    The fucker did it. Just like OJ. Maybe it’s not “official,” but the apologist needs to cling to a level of denial that should be anathema to folks considering themselves rational.

  75. says

    doubtthat:

    There was a shitton of evidence, but probably not enough to convict Allen in front of a jury, mostly because of Dylan’s age.

    It has been pointed out, in Ashley’s post and many other places, that the prosecutor at the time felt there was indeed enough evidence to go forward, however, they didn’t proceed because they did not want to traumatize Dylan further. At the time, that was a fairly common thing to do, and it’s still done, depending on the condition of the child.

    For a lot of people, there’s a deep misunderstanding of the effects of being raped as a child. As I said in the earlier thread, most children aren’t stupid and are perceptive enough to know just how much their situation is weighted against them. In my case, I knew I wouldn’t be believed by anyone outside my family, and the adults I supposedly could go to and tell were aware of what was going on. In cases like mine, that’s the reason that people don’t speak about it until they are adults. In other cases, like Ogvorbis’s, when they do tell someone, they are branded a liar, so they quickly learn not to speak about it.

    When those of us who were raped as children do speak about it, it’s generally not about seeking redress or punishment, it’s not about vengeance. It is about having to lance a toxic boil, to allow the hurt and the anger to drain, at least to a point. You can’t continue to carry such festering poison without massive harm. When you are an adult, you’re also in a better position to articulate what happened to you, and the life long effects of what was done to you.

    All of those people who are so desperate to believe that Mr. Allen didn’t do anything wrong at all don’t have the slightest understanding of just how easy it is to rape a child and get away with it. Those of us who were raped as children are acutely aware of just how easy it is, and that nothing we can do will ever have the same sort of impact on the person who raped us.

  76. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    It is about having to lance a toxic boil, to allow the hurt and the anger to drain, at least to a point.

    Thank you, Inaji. Thank you. This. Thank you.

    And the damn boil keeps refilling, but a little less each time. It’ll never be gone, but . . .

  77. says

    Ogvorbis:

    And the damn boil keeps refilling, but a little less each time. It’ll never be gone, but . . .

    Yes. Very much yes.

  78. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    When there’s time later and if you are willing, there’s something I’d love to discuss on this very topic and “false” memories. Later.

  79. zenlike says

    I already saw Socially Extinct‘s linky before it was mentioned here, and it is indeed a vile den of evil MRA/rape apologia. This idiot is not merely clueless, but an uneducatable piece of shit.

    The most vile thing to me that almost made me throw my fist trough my monitor? Saying this:

    I will give Dylan this…she has perfected the “woe is me look” to perfection.

    And then showing a photo of her being, well, happy. Because every woman who looks happy couldn’t possibly have been the victim of abuse, ammiright?

    He trusts an inherently cagey gender too much. He lusts and sells his soul to the female devil and ultimately, they predictably turn against him when the money outlasts the testosterone. Especially the neurotic Yenta groupies who delight in milking his lifeblood.

    A vile disgusting women-hating piece of shit. And then still trying to claim that he is totes not a rape apologist.

  80. zenlike says

    Ugh, I can’t stop scratching the scab. I don’t know if more vile dreck by Socially Extinct is needed, but I’m going to post it here for future reference, in case the idiot still determines to stage a comeback.

    for vile assholery, women-hate and rape.

    My sex with Sarah Silverman would be one of ridicule, a demeaning blend of sexual slavery and brutal submission of her stupid twat personality to enslavement which is her calling, after all, no matter how “successful” she presumes to expect us to care she is.

    Yet, an open mind must be compelled to then ask if these sensible, strong women are simply fighting the nature of their gender? Perhaps the attractive young girls, those who are socially empowered to display their genuine female nature in all its revolting shades of utilitarianism, are showing us what the real soul of woman consists of? Pehaps the independent, careerist no-nonsense mature women who seem contra-indications of the whimsical, puerile slut, are not authentic in nature. In other words, their soul, in its most elemental form, is puerile but reality, cold hard reality, dictates that they must steer in another direction to survive because in human society, puerile behavior is reserved for those females who can muster it for the sake of achieving self-serving ends. And those who would attempt puerility without the vessel with which to wield it will dwindle and die, spent, because they relied on their nature but lacked the foundation to subsist off it.

    If dyke-hag Rachel Maddow were to demean Newt Gingrich’s manhood in a flagrantly classless manner, she would not lose her job. Not because she’s liberal, but because Newt Gingrich is male. In fact, she would probably gain respectability in today’s mass social culture. The Modernist Social Puritans are selective about their victims.

    Women, especially those of lower social classes, tend to treat undesirable men like crap for no other reason than that they represent the distasteful male they would never have sex with.

    And I’m not even started on the racist stuff. And the homophobic shit.Are you truly surprised that this pos is also a racist and homophobe?

    And he is a self-confessed hardcore libertarian. Also comes a shock. Shock I say!

  81. says

    Yes, ‘Socially Extinct’ is walking about with two fistfuls of ugly, no doubt. However, this thread is not about them. It’s supposed to be about Dylan Farrow.

  82. ChasCPeterson says

    this thread is not about them. It’s supposed to be about Dylan Farrow.

    *double-checks title & OP*
    is it?

  83. says

    Chas:

    is it?

    Yes. It’s about what happened to Ms. Farrow. Why don’t you give your usual shtick a rest? Just for a while.

  84. zenlike says

    Sorry Inaji, yes it is.

    Even tough the title of the original post, and the post itself, don’t mention her, it should be about her. Too often the victims themselves are forgotten or not mentioned. It should be about them, first and foremost.

  85. Stacy says

    @nutella #84

    One thing about the people insisting that all this stems from a bitter ex exploiting a custody dispute, they seem to have skipped looking at the timeline. There was no custody dispute at all (that is, WA had no interest in custody of any of the children and left it all to MF) until AFTER the abuse was reported. So the person mixing the abuse allegations with a custody dispute is WA and only WA

    YES. In addition to which, Allen was in counseling for inappropriate behavior around Dylan two years before the break up. Even the psychologist who testified on Allen’s behalf acknowledged that she’d seen disturbing behavior there.

  86. houndentenor says

    I have read quite a bit of the back and forth from both the Dylan/Mia camp and the Woody camp. I can’t know who to believe. Not only was I not there but both camps have made claims that may or may not have stood up under cross-examination in court. This should have gone to trial. I do not know what the outcome was. But then, there are people still defending Roman Polanski even though he was found guilty and no one disputes the facts in the case. I not to believe a victim but I have also known people to make claims and use their children to get back at their ex. That is a real possibility. It’s also possible that everything happened exactly as Dylan claimed. What I don’t like is this being “tried” in the media. It should be happening in a courtroom with expert witnesses and the ability for each side to examine and cross-examine all claims and supposed evidence. Another round of public attacks doesn’t lead us to the truth.

  87. says

    @houndentenor
    I know you think you’re being all reasonable, but what you’re actually doing is telling victims to shut up.

  88. carlie says

    but I have also known people to make claims and use their children to get back at their ex.

    According to the sources, things didn’t get acrimonious until after the accusation was made.

  89. doubtthat says

    @90 Inaji

    That was a very depressing but very true and important point.

    I think your point is bolstered by the fact that Dylan is not suing or filing charges, nor did she try to do so within the statute of limitations. There is this strange urge to bring criminal burdens of proof into these sorts of discussions. Woody Allen is not in jail, nor will he ever be for the terrible things he did, but that doesn’t mean rational people can’t evaluate the case and arrive at very obvious conclusions.

    Given the high profile nature of the case and the astonishingly destructive investigation that had already occurred (six months, multiple interrogations of Dylan…that’s insane and incredibly traumatic for any child), declining to prosecute likely was best for Dylan, to the extent that anyone could know with any certainty.

  90. anteprepro says

    I can’t know who to believe. Not only was I not there…

    FINALLY Ken Ham decides to weigh in on this.

    This should have gone to trial. I do not know what the outcome was. …I have also known people to make claims and use their children to get back at their ex. That is a real possibility.

    *Facepalm*

    Read the damn article instead of being the thousandth fucking mouthbreather who decides to barge into the room, shriek for attention, only to shrug their shoulders and chastise everyone else for not following suit.

    What I don’t like is this being “tried” in the media….Another round of public attacks doesn’t lead us to the truth.

    The world’s tiniest violin plays for you. Until our fucking legal system actually starts handling rape and child abuse with more fairness, actually defend people from this shit, and actually punish the people who have actually done this shit, then all we have is public outrage. Stifling that public outrage in the Holy Name of “Just Settle in Court” will mean that we will continue to inaccurately view our current system as functional, continue to inaccurately see the world as just, continue to blame victims and excuse victimizers, and continue to be placid and appeased while horrible injustice still occurs under our ignorant, apathetic noses. Tremble in fear and shed crocodile tears over “witch hunts” if that is the kind of person you are, but public outrage can be a route to positive change. And it’s pretty much the only one available, unless we magically happen to get politicians and judges who start caring while the public at large continues to barely give a shit.

  91. says

    houndentenor:

    This should have gone to trial.

    This will fix things up for you: read the thread and the linked article.

    The prosecutor declined to prosecute at the time to spare Dylan Farrow further trauma. It has been stated that the prosecutor felt there was sufficient evidence to prosecute. You learn these little things by fucking reading and informing yourself.

  92. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    carlie,

    Thanks for that link in #104.

    It deconstructs very well some claims that vaguely bothered me about Allen’s relationship with Mia’s children (or his children, or those children).

  93. ChasCPeterson says

    …and the festival of confirmation bias continues unabated.

    According to the sources, things didn’t get acrimonious until after the accusation was made.

    Oh, please. You’re conveniently leaving out these parts (source):

    JANUARY 1992:
    Visiting Allen’s apartment, Farrow discovers a set of nude, explicit photos Allen has taken of her 21-year-old adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn (her father is Farrow’s ex-husband, Andre Previn). The discovery precipitates their split.
    ———
    FEBRUARY 1992:
    Farrow gives Allen a Valentine with a photograph of her and some of her children; a steak knife is stuck into Farrow’s heart, covered with a photo of Soon-Yi, and meat skewers are stuck in the chests of the children. (The card will be displayed on CBS’ 60 Minutes.)
    ———
    AUGUST 1992:
    Amidst lengthy and bitter custody negotiations, Allen visits Farrow’s Connecticut home Aug. 4. There, it will be alleged, Allen takes Dylan to an attic-like space and molests her….

    yeah, things were already pretty acrimonious.

    The prosecutor declined to prosecute at the time to spare Dylan Farrow further trauma. It has been stated that the prosecutor felt there was sufficient evidence to prosecute.

    …both according to the prosecutor and neither supported by any publicly available evidence other than the statements of said prosecutor. Who, btw, was himself perhaps not unbiased (source):

    Less widely disseminated was a news item that appeared in the New York Times five months later (Feb. 24, 1994), which reported that a disciplinary panel found the actions of County Prosecutor Frank Maco (the “probable cause” guy) were cause for “grave concern” and may have prejudiced the case. It winds up that Maco sent his “probable cause” statement to the Surrogate’s Court judge in Manhattan who was still deciding on Allen’s adoption status of Dylan and Moses, which Mia was trying to annul. The panel wrote, “In most circumstances, [Maco’s comments] would have violated the prosecutor’s obligation to the accused. [His actions were] inappropriate, unsolicited, and potentially prejudicial.” The article states that the agency could have voted sanctions against Maco ranging from censure to disbarment.

    huh.

    (Oh, am I being “hyper-skeptical”? OK. I think longtime pharyngulistas will at least have to admit that I come by it honestly, since I’ve never hidden the fact that I don’t believe anything anybody asserts, including Allen, Farrow, you, Marjonovic, PZ, or my mom.)

    My only point: I don’t know the truth of the allegations, nor of Allen’s defenses, and neither do you. Confirmation bias…think about it as you link to yet another blogpost that you already agree with.

    Fortunately, The Onion is on the case:
    New blog post to settle everything
    Allen notpologizes

  94. says

    Chas, in your rational and Skeptical opinion, do you think your actions as typified by what you’ve done here in this thread are helpful to the cause of creating a culture and environment where victims of rape can speak freely with the expectation that they will be supported? I.e., dismantling rape culture?

    Is this a question you even ask yourself? If not, maybe you should start. Or not, if you think it’s more important to be Skeptical.

  95. says

    Chas:

    I’ve never hidden the fact that I don’t believe anything anybody asserts, including Allen, Farrow, you, Marjonovic, PZ, or my mom.

    I don’t care what you do or don’t believe, especially as this thread isn’t about you. I do care about your insistence on dumping useless noise into threads like these.

  96. Gregory Greenwood says

    Chas @ 112;

    I’ve never hidden the fact that I don’t believe anything anybody asserts, including Allen, Farrow, you, Marjonovic, PZ, or my mom.

    I put it to you that this is not actually the neutral statement you think it to be; in a society whose patrirachal power structures are such that there is a clear standing presumption that women compulsively lie with regard to allegations of rape and sexual assault, stating that you don’t believe anyone about anything, and that there is no way to know for sure in any case because it all happened so long ago, effectively functions to support rapists and rape apologists since this is not a level playing field we are discussing here – the existing social power dynamics already favour them over their victims.

    Privileging the appearance of ‘pure’ skeptical thought over addressing a toxic state of affairs with regard to socity’s attitude toward women and toward rape is not some rarefied intellectual high ground. At best it is expressing callous apathy about the suffering of rape victims, both in respect of the physical attack itself and the subsequent trauma of trying to live in a society that blames the victim for their rape and reflexively treats them as if they lie with their every breath, and at worst amounts to throwing one’s lot in with the rape culture on the basis that the standard you walk past is the standard you support.

    Ask yourself Chas, what is more important to you? Trying to support rape victims and thus doing your part, however small it may be, in starting to dismantle rape culture? Or polishing your own halo of an impracticably high standard of impeccable skepticism about everything, and damn the conseqences?

    Has it occurred to you that an issue like this may be bigger than you and whether or not you get that warm glow from believeing yourself to be right?

  97. says

    Can this finally be the day we stop pretending that Chas is anything less than a reflexive rape apologist?

    I mean, he’s spent how much of this thread thinking that ignoring reality and literally quoting the words of a liar poorly trying to defend his web of lies in order to pretend his denialism is somehow skepticism and how many other rape threads and threads dealing with minority life experiences defending the indefensible in the name of being “objective”.

    I was long past tired with the shtick before, but knowing that he was here to see the massive thread when so many survivors of child molestation and that he sees no issue with pulling this tired Ken Ham/ Bill Donahue bullshit is just deliberately cruel for no other purpose than he finds more in common with those who sexually abuse children than those who have been abused.

    And that tells you all you need to know about both his “skepticism” and his supposed morals.

    And I’m tired of watching him repeatedly hurt so many just so he can continue to pump up his ego with this passive-aggressive, inaccurate, and outright vile bullshit.

    Like with all the others, I reiterate, look at yourself. Look at your life choices. Look at what you reflexively defend and then crawl in a fucking hole with that realization for the rest of your days, because we sure as hell are tired of dodging your endless bullshit on each and every one of these threads.

  98. says

    And yeah, more than a little tired of “skeptics” pretending that being “skeptical” of reality somehow makes one more skeptical, instead of proof that they are the least skeptical and nothing more than a standard level denialist.

    Especially when every common denialist pulls the same shtick of trying to sell their reflexive dismissal of evidence in favor of believing what they wanted to believe at the start. Take evolutionist denialists arguing weird bizarre hooks about “were we there” and dismissing all evidence as somehow not real evidence compared to non-historical science or whatever. They also praise themselves about how they’re “just asking questions” and trying to hold themselves to a more objective standard than those evil biased scientists and their global conspiracy.

    And it’s the same shit with all the rape denialists. Okay, yeah, sure, all the evidence paints him as a rapist and there’s very little reason to date the veracity of the survivor’s narrative and society protects rapists, but um… I’m just being objective. Were you there? Clearly she’s lying like women are want to do and that’s just as possible as the more likely and well-supported reality.

    It’s the same denialist bullshit tactic and I’m tired of it being given weight as if refusal to accept facts had anything to do with skepticism or being a genuine studier of reality.

  99. Nick Gotts says

    I’ve never hidden the fact that I don’t believe anything anybody asserts, including Allen, Farrow, you, Marjonovic, PZ, or my mom. – ChasCPeterson@113

    An obvious lie, since it would be quite impossible to function socially while doubting everything anyone asserts, and it is clear that you are able so to function.

  100. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    Chas:

    My only point: I don’t know the truth of the allegations, nor of Allen’s defenses, and neither do you.

    You are correct. But there are things that we do know: prosecutors refuse to bring charges to ‘protect children’ from the horror of the legal system; accusations of abuse are dismissed because of the public reputation of the rapist; that police decline to investigate because of the reputation of the survivor, or what the survivor was wearing, or drinking; that in virtually ever case in which either the accuser or the accused is given the benefit of the doubt, almost every single fucking time it is given to the man who has been accused, never the victim; that the deck is stacked at every level — personal (survivors already know that they are at fault because we have been taught that we are), family (if you keep accusing your father, the family will be in the poor house), friends (why did you go with him? what were you wearing?), police (but if he abused you for years, why are you suddenly accusing him now?), prosecutor (we can’t charge him with child sexual abuse, just think what that poor little girl would have to go through), and every one in between is already giving the accuser the benefit of doubt and wondering why the one making the accusation is doing it now, or telling tales, or whatever that lets us keep blaming the victim. You see this as an example of fairness; I see it as yet another example of the privilege enjoyed at every level of the American legal and social system. If I had told you that I was being raped, would you have siad, “I don’t know the truth of the allegations,” and sent me on my way? Or Inaji? Or any of the other almost 200 survivors who hang out here?

    Please stop.

  101. says

    Or any of the other almost 200 survivors who hang out here?

    Please stop.

    I never realized being raped, abused, bullied, molested, and otherwise made to feel like utter shit, were such precursors to atheism until I participated in this thread!.

  102. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    were such precursors to atheism until I participated in this thread!.

    You haven’t participated. You have pontificated. If you participated, there is a chance for you admit you are wrong and learn. Your choice cricket. Make up your mind…

  103. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Chas has been showing his hand as a MRA sympathizer for ages. His belief in evolutionary psychology, his sympathy for the misogynists being maltreated, his constant attempts to show that the those sympathetic to accusers of rape are wrong for their support. Chas, do everyone a favor and stay off any gender/rape thread for a while.

  104. jagwired says

    A quote by ChasCPeterson a couple days ago in the Todd Friel thread:

    Because I care more about data than feelings.

    Well, aren’t you a precious little Vulcan? Here are a couple blog posts that might help you understand what you’re doing wrong:
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2014/02/guest-post-by-bruce-everett-the-good-juror-pose/
    &
    http://groundedparents.com/2014/02/03/an-open-letter-those-who-feel-the-need-to-defend-woody-allen-to-their-feminist-friends/

    Socially Extinct,

    Those might be of help to you too, but I think you’re too far gone at this point. You might want to fuck off instead, just to be on the safe side.

  105. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    Socially Extinct:

    You’re really grasping desperately, aren’t you? You should hang out with sonofrojblake — another cherry picking lying asshole.

  106. Jackie, all dressed in black says

    Socially Extinct,
    Sexual abuse is common. It effects people in all sorts of demographics. There is nothing shameful about having been abused. There is something deeply shameful about defending abusers while trying desperately to throw your smarmy disdain at their victims.
    Now you know.
    Please accept that fact as your parting gift.

  107. says

    Socially Extinct @122

    Well, I mean, duh.

    You’re a myopic little white supremacist, child molester defending, rapist defending shitbird. Of course you never thought about the huge swath of people around you who share your lack of faith in Gods who actually have real shit that’s happened to them.

    I suppose to someone like you, who needs to invent fictional conspiracy theories and deny every aspect of society just to deal with the fact that you aren’t special, it must be shocking in its entirety to realize that the world and the atheist movement has so many who have actually suffered for real and what it truly means to be oppressed and done wrong by the systems we find ourselves enmeshed in.

    I can hope that awareness might one day make you a person whose effect on those around you is only neutral instead of making everything and everyone worse.

    But I doubt it.

    In the meantime, please feel free to fuck off to your little special MRA hole and fully enjoy the company your stellar personality has secured for you.

  108. Gregory Greenwood says

    Socially Extinct @ 122;

    I never realized being raped, abused, bullied, molested, and otherwise made to feel like utter shit, were such precursors to atheism until I participated in this thread!.

    Just when I thought you couldn’t sink any lower…

    It might surprise you to learn that rape is a widespread plague on society (and part of the reason it is so widepread is due to the cover provided by rape apologists like yourself; you might want to think about that, and what it says about you as a person). As a result, you can find rape survivors in every walk of life. Survivors can be young or old, women or men, of any ethnic background, and yes – survivors can be found among both theists and atheists.

    While the gross hypocrisy and cruelty displayed by organised religions toward rape survivors may contribute toward some people recognising how toxic and harmful religion is within society and thus becoming atheists, you are living proof that detestable, unethical, and deeply misogynistic rape apologia can easily be found within certain corners of the atheist community as well.

    Congratulations on demonstrating once again that atheists are indeed people, and that as a result some of them – like you – are arseholes.

  109. Anri says

    Socially Extinct @ 122:

    I never realized being raped, abused, bullied, molested, and otherwise made to feel like utter shit, were such precursors to atheism until I participated in this thread!.

    Y’see, I was actually beginning to doubt if Socially Extinct was a decent person what with all of the rape apology. But with this post, I’m convinced they’re really kind at heart. Sure showed me.

    Note: the above post may contain trace amounts of sarcasm.

  110. Nick Gotts says

    Socially Extinct @ 122,

    One reason you’ll find a lot of atheists here who have been “raped, abused, bullied, molested, and otherwise made to feel like utter shit” is (judging by what quite a number of them have said), that it is a place they can be confident shitbags like you, when they turn up, will be called out and treated with the contempt they deserve.

  111. nich says

    So…Socially Extinct can ignore the smoke coming from Woody Allen’s fire, but is totally willing to write a lengthy post about Patsy Cline being black because:

    Patsy had it all, man. Great curvaceous full-figured womanliness. Full cheeks, full nose, she had sexy meat and she had color. I think she was hotter than hell because of this full lexicon of classic black female physical traits against the parchment of porcelain white woman’s skin.

    Full nose? Sexy meat? Porcelain white woman’s skin? But he’s not racist because he thinks it’s hot, man!

    Creepy.