I’m dyin’ here, people. It’s like people trust me or something.
So I’ve been given this rather…explosive…information. It’s a direct report of unethical behavior by a big name in the skeptical community (yeah, like that hasn’t been happening a lot lately), and it’s straight from the victim’s mouth. And it’s bad. Really bad.
She’s torn up about it. It’s been a few years, so no law agency is going to do anything about it now; she reported it to an organization at the time, and it was dismissed. Swept under the rug. Ignored. I can imagine her sense of futility. She’s also afraid that the person who assaulted her before could try to hurt her again.
But at the same time, she doesn’t want this to happen to anyone else, so she’d like to get the word out there. So she hands the information to me. Oh, thanks.
Now I’ve been sitting here trying to resolve my dilemma — to reveal it or not — and goddamn it, what’s dominating my head isn’t the consequences, but the question of what is the right thing to do. Do I stand up for the one who has no recourse, no way out, no other option to help others, or do I shelter the powerful big name guy from an accusation I can’t personally vouch for, except to say that I know the author, and that she’s not trying to acquire notoriety (she wants her name kept out of it)?
I’ve got to do what I’ve got to do, I can do no other. I will again emphasize, though, that I have no personal, direct evidence that the event occurred as described; all I can say is that the author is known to me, and she has also been vouched for by one other person I trust. The author is not threatening her putative assailant with any action, but is solely concerned that other women be aware of his behavior. The only reason she has given me this information is that she has no other way to act.
With that, I cast this grenade away from me…
At a conference, Mr. Shermer coerced me into a position where I could not consent, and then had sex with me. I can’t give more details than that, as it would reveal my identity, and I am very scared that he will come after me in some way. But I wanted to share this story in case it helps anyone else ward off a similar situation from happening. I reached out to one organization that was involved in the event at which I was raped, and they refused to take my concerns seriously. Ever since, I’ve heard stories about him doing things (5 different people have directly told me they did the same to them) and wanted to just say something and warn people, and I didn’t know how. I hope this protects someone.
Boom.
Further corroboration: a witness has come forward. This person has asked to remain anonymous too, but I will say they’re someone who doesn’t particularly like me — so no accusations of fannishness, OK?
The anonymous woman who wrote to you is known to me, and in fact I was in her presence immediately after said incident (she was extremely distraught), and when she told the management of the conference (some time later).
Women are still writing into me with their personal stories. This one isn’t so awful, but it’s mainly illustrative of his tactics…there’s nothing here that would form the basis of any kind of serious complaint, but most importantly, I think, it tells you exactly what kind of behavior to watch out for with him.
Michael Shermer was the guest of honor at an atheist event I attended in Fall 2006; I was on the Board of the group who hosted it. It’s a very short story: I got my book signed, then at the post-speech party, Shermer chatted with me at great length while refilling my wine glass repeatedly. I lost count of how many drinks I had. He was flirting with me and I am non-confrontational and unwilling to be rude, so I just laughed it off. He made sure my wine glass stayed full.
And that’s the entirety of my story: Michael Shermer helped get me drunker than I normally get, and was a bit flirty. I can’t recall the details because I was intoxicated. I don’t remember how I left, but I am told that a friend took me away from the situation and home from the party. Note, I’d never gotten drunk at any atheist event before; I was humiliated by having gotten so drunk and even more ashamed that my friends had to cart me off before anything happened to me.
But I had a bad taste in my mouth about Shermer’s flirtatiousness, because I’m married, and I thought he was kind of a pig. I didn’t even keep his signed book, I didn’t want it near me.
Over the years as rumors have flown about atheist women warning each other about a lecherous author/speaker, I thought of all the authors and speakers I had met during my time as an atheist activist, and I guessed that Shermer was the one being warned against.
Now there are tweets and blogs about his sexually inappropriate behavior as well as his fondness for getting chicks drunk, so I feel quite less alone. I don’t think he realizes he is doing anything wrong. Men who behave inappropriately sexually never think they are doing anything wrong.
I have mixed feelings about your grenade-dropping. I have heard arguments both for and against what you did. Whether or not I agree with it, I just want to say that the accusations against Shermer match up with my personal experience with him, insofar as he seemed hellbent on helping me get drunk, and was very flirty with me. Take it for what you will. I believe the accusers.
Whenever someone trots out the old “that would never hold up in court” trope, I’m reminded of something a district attorney once told me: the law isn’t about what’s right; the law is about who’s in charge.
kevinsolway@997:
1. Do you actually think women claiming to have experienced the existence of God are lying or do you think they may simply be mistaken? You do understand the difference, don’t you?
2. Could you please quote someone claiming that women don’t lie and don’t ever have reason to lie about anything at all?
As I’ve already argued, there’s a possibility that either PZ or the woman who relayed the account is lying. Whether you believe that or not is your prerogative. I think there’s good reason to believe that neither is lying — PZ has staked his reputation on it.
The problem I have with the “mutual intoxication” angle is that this is (allegedly) not a one-time incident. Right? That points to calculation, coercion, intentionally plying women with alcohol.
I had an issue with that “More Will Be Named” Tumblr, but I can’t help but note that Shermer was named there too, and in multiple submissions. At the time I thought it might just be that he was in bad odor with internet feminists. Now, well… I’m not making any concrete assumptions. I’m just a bystander. But from where I’m standing, it doesn’t look great.
I think a lot of this boils down to the old attitude that sex is something that must be gotten from women (rather than a free exchange), and that men “deserve” sex, and that it is the duty of women to give it to them. The difference between rape and sex is that a rapist had no right to access to the victim in question.
daniellavine@957:
Oh, zark off, kevinsolway. The dark rock you were hiding under is lonely.
Thank you Caine!
@ 997
that’s not how it works. we know that rape exists. we know that a person’s experience of rape is an important aspect.
it has not been shown that any such reasoning works for a god.
fuck you. try to find the holes in your own logic before you post please.
because rape is totally as extraordinary and unevidenced as a God.
rsparks@1005:
Please re-read the OP. It states the intention quite clearly and it is not “character assassination.” After all, PZ has precious little to gain and a lot to lose from engaging in “character assassination” of a skeptic heavyweight like Michael Shermer.
Ad hom noted and dismissed.
I agree that the right thing to do is to say “no.” To all the people advising me of that, I get it, and again the only person I’ve been with is my wife and neither one of us is ever drunk, so I don’t need guidance on what to do.
I’m merely suggesting that there’s a difference between “not doing the right thing” and “rape.” Imagine, for example, some lonely virgin college guy who’s who gets hit on by his hot female friend at a party while she’s drunk, and she initiates sex… he’s not going to believe his luck, would find it extremely difficult to resist. Only the most sociopathic misandrist would suggest that the guy in that hypothetical situation deserves to be legally convicted of rape, with the associated prison sentence and lifetime stigma of a sex offender… yet that’s exactly what many here are arguing. The guy should do the gentlemanly thing and decline the offer, but doing otherwise doesn’t make him a rapist!
women don’t lie about god, they are *mistaken* about the identity of the feeling. that’s not how it works with rape. you can’t be “mistaken” that you were raped if you experienced it.
kevinsolway:
I see your idea of an argument has not improved. You’re still an idiot. Also, don’t try to do syllogisms anymore, you aren’t equipped for it.
Pteryxx, your use of snark-fu in #1009 was much better then what I had in mind.
Caine:
I’m reasonably sure that Klatu was referring to Dawkins’ history of being molested as a child. That’s what Klatu was objecting to being appropriated, not Dawkins’ claims of hell as child abuse.
I don’t think the comparison by screechymonkey was inappropriate. Nobody asked for evidence of Dawkins’ experiences the way they’re asking for evidence from Shermer’s victims.
That’s the other thing.
The difference between “rape” and “sex” is not “In sex, no one is saying ‘no.'”
The difference between “rape” and “sex” is “In sex, everyone is saying ‘yes.'”
Don’t have enthusiastic consent? Rape.
O hey, it’s kevinsolway! He thinks Otto Weininger’s “judgement of women… is excellently true”>.
Said judgement includes: (quoted from Wikipedia)
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Weininger
Rsparks:
once more with the lynching. I asked in the Stollznow thread and I will ask here: show me the evidence of anyone here breaking into the homes of black men, dragging them through the streets, beating them up and killing them?
We are believing a rape victim, not enacting harm upon Shermer you cretin.
comparing this to a god claim is truly pathetic. just by the numbers we know that rape similar to this happens all the time, and false accusations don’t happen like this very much.
you have the probabilities all reversed. especially considering rape is real.
This discussion is moving so quickly that I just wanted to jump in and support PZ and give my take:
Q: Why would he post this? A: He is bringing to light what he sees as a credible accusation by a party that he trusts who for private reasons cannot or will not come foreword. Q: What is risked if this is unfounded? A: Shermer gets some undeserved shade thrown on him on some dudes blog. Someone posts a cat video. Life goes on. Q: What if this is true? A: More traumatized parties may come foreword and bolster the claims of the original source, or choose to pursue action of their own. Who knows what might happen? PZ has a forum and he trying to use it to help make a difference here, despite the potential risk to his career as it relates to skepticism and probably a few friendships. *whew*
kevinsolway @997
Did that make sense to you in your head while you were typing it? Because if so, it didn’t translate well.
Dudes, we can not lynch Michael Shermer. Anthony K already talked to the Judge of the Public Opinion Court to set him free.
…I think this is the fastest thread ever.
“EQUAL TO
ROBO COP
EQUAL TO
TOTAL RECALL
BLOODIEST
MOVIE EVER”
– Hot Shots; plain is green and bold red in the original
Jane Doe: I believe you and support you.
PZ: Thanks for posting this.
Caine, Tony & many other Hordelings: Hats off to you. Always the same hypothetical cases, arguments about definitions and “let’s hear the details so we can say just how it’s the victim’s fault” – and you still manage to fight the good fight, and not let the rape-apologists’ arguments stand. Thanks for that.
Tony!:
You have to prop your strawman up with something. The use of misappropriated historical atrocities is a time-honored internet prop.
setec @1011 :
(TW for rape narrative)
And that’s the fairytale that acquaintance rapists want everyone in their social circle to believe. Because, as self-reported by repeat, predatory rapists, they prefer to rape within their social circles and they prefer to soften their target up with alcohol. And they use the narrative you just repeated to pre-emptively destroy their victim’s credibility.
Covered by Lisak’s research cited here (and by the way, the college students who self-reported raping averaged 5.8 rapes each.)
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/03/25/predator-theory/
Alas, poor Kevin Solway. His god argument convinced me that he doesn’t exist, so I disappeared him, too.>
@rsparks
Let’s see. The victim here has gone through official channels which have failed her. She has told PZ this secret, and with her permission he has gone public.
The thing that most people here have done has been to take the accusation seriously. Because the consequences of not doing that are hurtful to the victim.
Because what you are doing is what much of society does–dismiss the victim. Give the attacker the benefit of the doubt. Imagine that somehow the authorities will magically make all this right, when experience shows that they fail to do so on a consistent basis.
Sure, PZ was in a moral bind here. No easy way out. I feel that naming is better than keeping quiet. Because keeping quiet is the norm, and keeping quiet simply allows the predator to keep on hunting.
Tony:
I do believe that lynching is the new witch hunt.
Delft:
Thank you for the support. It helps more than you’ll ever know.
Is someone of color dead y/n? If n, there was almost certainly not a lynching.
The hits keep on coming. I’m going to have to seriously reconsider my willingness to play religion dozens with other atheists in the future.
Oh gee misogynist extraordinaire KevinSolway is here to regalr us with tales of stupidity. Dude, women getting raped is a common occurence. Women being dismissed is a common occurrence. Women going to the police and being dismissed is a common occurrence. Rapists not being charged, let alone convicted is a common occurrence.
There is nothing extraordinary about rape claims.
There is something extraordinary about God claims.
Do keep up.
Sctatch that.
Get lost.
Cynically, someone noticed that in a witch hunt, the victim was usually a woman.
PZ:
Hahahahaha. Alas, poor Kevin, I doubt he saw that potential outcome.
Shouldn’t it be, ‘ when someone hands you a hands grenade and you pull the pin’?
I simply don’t like the idea being promoted by some in this thread that a drunk woman bears no responsibility for her actions
For HER actions, yes, for the actions of a rapist, no!
and that a man is not only a jerk but a rapist (which I was raised to think of as one of the worst crimes imaginable) for simply having sex with a drunk woman without getting a notarized statement of consent with two weeks advance notice.
Hyperbole which does not serve your argument. No consent=rape. Intoxication=inability to consent. It really is that.fucking.simple
And again, I’m not saying the victim in this case wasn’t raped, just that it would be good for PZ to clarify whether the accusation includes the broadly accepted elements of rape (unwilling intoxication, unconsciousness, or ignored verbal or physical attempts to resist) or the more controversial “she was drunk so her consent doesn’t count” definition being bandied about here without clear legal justification
1. You don’t deserve any clarification if you believe your “broadly accepted elements” are the sine qua non for rape.
2. There is nothing controversial about “she was drunk so her consent doesn’t count” among non-rapists (and their apologists) Again, intoxication=inability to consent.
3. Your harping on the drunk or not and by her own hand or not IS blaming the victim. Try substituting the phrase “wore skimpy clothes” for “drunk” so you can see what an unmitigated horse’s ass you are being. Repeatedly. Despite many attempts to educate you out of your ignorance. So are you irretrievably stupid? Or a rape apologist feeding the rape culture with your blather?
Rutee:
In cynicism, I agree.
How long do you suppose it will be before they figure out that the majority of lynching victims were not privileged white guys?
Seconding Delft, the regulars here are awesome. Wish I could stick around to bat away the feeble arguments of the haters but you guys quite obviously have it covered. All the best.
Jane Doe: Thanks for doing what you did. I’ve heard way too many stories about predators who are “policed” only by people passing around warnings about them to people they know with no one in the community getting loud about it. This can never protect everyone but reaching out to someone you trust and who has a megaphone really can.
PZ: Yeah, you’re only doing what’s decent but look around and see how exceptional that makes you nonetheless. Thanks for getting loud about this.
Remember how all sorts of skeptics and atheists demanded he provide evidence? Remember how they all speculated that he was making it up as a convenient way of defending against criticism of his “some forms of religion are child abuse” argument?
It’s not the same thing- Dawkins didn’t name names, unless I’m much mistaken.
…Wow. So, Weininger had a smaller sex drive than his wife, dove headfirst into inductive reasoning, and got a whole fucking philosophy out of it.
*headdesk*
TSIB.
+ 1
What is the organization she informed of this? Did they investigate?
If this is true, it needs to be brought out but this post only names the person accused and alleges he’s done similar things a number of times. Nothing is going to happen except another Rebecca Watson incident, with “skeptic” boys flaming women and feminists in general for years (as can be seen on YouTube within recent weeks), unless several women identify themselves and provide evidence to support their allegations, including contemporary reporting of it to other people at the very least. I’m interested to see if “skepticism” can get it right in ways they didn’t get sexual harassment right back then.
cfieldb:
Neither did Rebecca Watson.
Nor, more recently, did Ashley Paramore; nor did Ashley Miller.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2012/06/06/arent-you-making-it-up-why-women-dont-report-harassment/
cfieldb:
You’re missing the point. I hope you aren’t doing that deliberately. If the woman who e-mailed PZ didn’t provide a name, there would have been hundreds of slightly modified bitchez be lyin’ posts, insisting that she had zero credibility unless she provided a name.
“Personally, I think I would have first taken it up with Shermer before coming out with this.”
“Yeah? And what do you think he would have said if he were guilty?”
Probably the same things as if he were innocent. Therein lies the problem.
Cards on the table. I am an atheist. My politics are liberal, progressive, and secularist, and not just a little of these. I’m exactly the sort of far-left intellectual type that conservatives love to hate.
I think sexism is a massive problem for this country, despite what any number of conservatives and/or appeasers would like to think. And the “men’s rights” movement is little more than a rationalization for sexism dressed up in its own inverted victimhood language of reverse discrimination.
More particularly, harassment and rape are appallingly tolerated, even encouraged, by our unwillingness to root out cultural norms that relegate women to second-class status. These norms go way behind the psychological hang-ups of a few bad apples: they are parts of the institutional structures of virtually every facet of our society from businesses and churches to pretty much the entire legal system. The Steubenville case was handled ridiculously, as if the perpetrators were the victims. And anyone who thinks rape in the military isn’t a serious problem, and a seriously mishandled problem at that, needs to watch “The Invisible War” and then either change his mind or shut the fuck up.
I have known two rape survivors in my life, but given what I know about the statistics for the crime and for its reporting, along with the psychological trauma involved and how hard it is to speak about it even in private, I’m certain that I’ve actually known for more than just the two.
And I would certainly be shocked (though happily, I suppose, but it ain’t gonna happen) if sexist opinions, sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual assault were simply non-existent among atheists and skeptics and humanists. We are, after all, human. None of us are perfect, and some of us are simply dicks. This is true of any group. I take this not as a defeatist attitude but rather as a call to clean things up, in every group of which I am a member.
That said, I am vexed by this post.
If Shermer did what the post claims, then he should be in jail. But how can we evaluate whether he did it or not if no one files a formal legal complaint? Should there be such a complaint, we must demand thorough investigation and hold the authorities’ feet to the fire. It is all too easy for these crimes to get swept under the rug (see Steubenville). The system, after all, really is biased, and the only way to prevent those biases from ruling the day is for everyone who gives a damn to force its biases aside. (And in a more general sense, we should also be calling for better legislation and enforcement actions to prevent those biases in the future.)
But until such a charge is made, what is it really appropriate to do, publicly speaking? Because based on the information provided, it seems to me that there is simply no way for me or anyone making comments here to ascertain the truth of the matter. As I said, if Shermer did it, then he should be in jail — but what if he didn’t?
And what bothers me here is the lack of even an attempt at justification here. If any creationist claimed that the Bible were true because it’s what his grandfather raised him to believe, we’d reject that, no matter how honest good ol’ grandad seemed — and rightly so! Trust can be misplaced, and even the trustworthy can be mistaken. What reasons have been given for us to believe this? Merely that PZ is trustworthy, and he in turn trusts his source? Not good enough for making such a charge.
I don’t think this sort of post does any service to women or does anything constructive to solve the all-too real problems of sexual harassment and assault in America today. We should not just “assume” that what people say is true, ever. That doesn’t make our society more critical or more truth-based. It just substitutes the credulity we don’t like with a a credulity that we do. Instead, we should demand that, when public charges are made, the relevant authorities pursue the truth vigorously and then act upon it, fuck their institutional biases against women. That will help.
But this post? As it stands? Well, what is an evidence-demanding skeptic supposed to do?
Vexed, indeed.
Predictably, on schedule, Al Stefanelli now has a furiously outraged post up about how awful PZ is. *Yawn*.
Anthony McCarthy@1041:
This was addressed in the OP:
1. They hushed it up instead of investigating.
2. The woman wishes to remain anonymous and mentioning the org would probably out her.
It might also prevent someone from getting raped. Which was the entire point of disclosing it in the first place — another point mentioned in the OP.
Anthony McCarthy:
Try reading the godsdamned post.
naturalphilosopher@1044:
The purpose of the OP is stated in the OP. It is not to get justice for the woman whose account is relayed in the OP so your argument and demands for evidence are irrelevant.
@1044:
Every question you asked has been addressed in the comments. Go back to comment#1 and start reading.
I’ve been lurking at FTB since its inception and very rarely comment. I didn’t want to get involved in this discussion – still don’t, really – but I have to throw in my two bits of support.
Thank you, PZ, for posting about this and exposing yourself to abuse. I’d like to think I could have done the same were I in your shoes, but I honestly doubt it.
And thank you, anonymous, for coming forward. I believe you.
It’s utterly appalling to me that the same tired old rape-apologism is coming out in the comments here, though I can’t say I’m very surprised by that. I admire everybody’s willingness to expose them for the utter rubbish that they are, and the sheer expenditure of energy that must go into doing so (I’m getting exhausted just reading this thread). Keep fighting the good fight.
Please, finish the story. Spell it out for us. Does it go something like this? “… and then the next day, she is embarrassed about having had sex with him. But she doesn’t just slip quietly out of his room and back to hers and pretend it never happened. ‘Me, sleep with him? No, don’t be silly. I passed out on his couch — nothing happened.’ No, no, you see, she’s so embarrassed about this that she runs to tell some complete strangers at the police station that she had sex with this guy, sit through intrusive and often hostile questioning, and subject herself to the usual harassment, rumor-mongering, and character assassination that rape victims get, because that’s not embarrassing at all.”
mcbender@1050:
Good for you. This kind of support is important. I too lurked–for years–until Ophelia Benson recently posted in frustration at her harassers and the relative quiet from people who otherwise say that they support her that (and I’m paraphrasing here) “silence doesn’t help”.
natural philosopher:
You don’t, eh? I’d like to know just what you know about it, on a firsthand basis. Every woman I know, including myself, has a network going, where she warns other women about Doctor X, Prof X, Lawyer X, Salesman X, and so on. Most of us know exactly what going through channels will do. Myself, I have way more experience with that than I ever wanted.
You know, for all of you who just can’t cope with believing a person who was raped and are oh so desperate for the justice system to step up and start batting them out of the park, I have a suggestion. Go to your nearest rape crisis center and volunteer. Go through all the training. Put some time in. Once you’ve put some time in, become an advocate. An advocate is a person who accompanies victims to the hospital and to law enforcement interviews. I did it for 7 years before I burnt out, extra crispy. So, there you have it. Get out there and do the work. You might learn something.
naturalphilosopher@1044- The claim that Shermer is a rapist is not an extraordinary claim like the claims of the Bible. It is a terrible insult to rape victims to compare the two in terms of how easily they should be believed.
Thank you to Jane Doe.
Thank you PZ.
Caine, Fleur du Mal, I did read the post it said, “I reached out to one organization that was involved in the event at which I was raped, and they refused to take my concerns seriously.”
1.The organization isn’t identified and if they brushed a rape under the rug, they deserve to be named. 2. It says they refused to take the charges seriously, it doesn’t say if they did so with or without an investigation. I do know how to read, I’m surprised you missed those far from unimportant details.
Rape is a serious thing, it needs to be dealt with seriously and seriously means bringing criminal charges. If he’s a serial rapist, he needs to be stopped. If he’s not guilty, he deserves to be exonerated. I am the farthest thing from a fan of the man but this is a serious, crime he’s accused of. But this kind of thing isn’t going to do that. Trial by blog tread and eternal flame war is just wrong.
@Pteryxx- That’s true- I was thinking in terms of this thread specifically. I shouldn’t have done that.
Although part of it is that Dawkins shared his anecdote in a pro-atheist context (ie, in his opinion, religion is worse than child abuse). When Rebecca Watson discussed her issues with harassment, it was from within the A/S community. Ironically, skeptics don’t seem to take criticism very well.
It baffles me that it’s such a difficult concept for some people to seperate he idea of ‘were my actions as wrong as that of a rapist’ from ‘was this woman therefore raped’. It’s exactly because you canntot ascertain if the consent of a drunk woman aligns with her sober consent that you should never have sex with that person based solely on that worthless form of consent. It might very turn out that she does soberly consent and then hurray, you didn’t actually hurt anyone, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t just risk doing a lot of harm to someone (and if you keep that pattern of behavior up you’re bound to come across a person like that eventually). It’s up to the woman to decide if harm was done to her, but either way it’s wrong to assume that you were given real consent. If you know of yourself that you stop being able to tell that/stop caring if you were given real consent or not when you get drunk, then you really shouldn’t be getting drunk like that.
You know, in a culture where getting girls drunk is seen as an appropriate way to score with girls, when the reverse isn’t at all prevalent, I really have to question the double drunk scenario as anything but a diversion. Yes two people who get drunk can harm each other by doing stuff the other wouldn’t consent too. And they can both regret it and they’d both be wrong for doing it, but let’s not pretend for a second that this is an accurate way to describe these situations in a social context.
Mcbender, thank you. Very much.
naturalphilosopher,
Doing the socially and personally responsible thing of trusting the victims account is not the same thing as saying we know that Shermer raped anyone. We are trusting a rape victim’s account. That isn’t illogical or unfair (especially given statistics on the amount of false rape accusations). Not only is it completely reasonable to trust a rape victim, it helps other rape victims feel comfortable enough to tell there stories to those of us who care. Then we not only help victims, but can work to stop potential future rape cases. Rape causes the bonds of trust between human beings to shatter. By trusting rape victims account we can at the very least try to recover some of the lost trust.
So, I started from the beginning and read every single non-redacted comment.
1. Jane Doe: I believe you and I’m sorry you were victimized. I applaud you for coming forward and sharing your story.
2. I saw a lot of “what’s wrong with the atheism/skeptical movement” hand-wringing upthread. Answer: Nothing. We’re humans. Sexism, sexual harassment, and sexual assault are common. They cross all political and social boundaries. There’s nothing special or unique about the atheism/skeptical movement…
Except that we’re the ones trying to change things. We’re the ones willing to talk about it. We’re the ones who are trying to make a difference by not accepting “business as usual”. Look at the other arenas where there have been prominent cases of sexism, sexual harassment and sexual assault. What’s being done in those communities? Aside from possibly the Penn State football program, the answer is “not a damned thing”.
It’s my contention that women are safer in this community compared to others precisely because of this. Yes, the contrary voices are loud … though increasingly just pathetic. But the tide is turning…yes, it is. It’s like the gay marriage issue — change came really, really fast. Same here. Change is coming. It’s already in evidence. We’re not putting up with this bullshit anymore.
Doesn’t mean it’s perfect, not by a long shot. Doesn’t mean that this spate of “naming names” (which was bound to happen eventually and about damned time, IMHO) is going to instantly change things and there will be no more sexual predation in our community.
But it’ll be better.
And let me say this — anyone who is offering a “contrarian” voice is precisely the person that I would deliberately steer clear of in meat-space situations. Got that, Jim Ashby, et al? I don’t know you from Adam, but you stay away from me. I don’t want to know you. You disgust me. If I met you in person, I’d throw up on your shoes to let you know what I think of you.
3. And thanks for doing the right thing, PZ. I’m not 100% in lockstep with everything you say, but in the end, this was a case of you not only being the right guy for the job, but possibly the only one, given the circumstances.
This one might take longer. In Westerns, it’s almost always a white dude getting drawn up. Of course, Westerns are basically dead, so I’m not sure how much that affects things.
daniellavine, thanks for chopping off the sentence I wrote to avoid dealing with the point I made, what I said is:
Nothing is going to happen except another Rebecca Watson incident, with “skeptic” boys flaming women and feminists in general for years (as can be seen on YouTube within recent weeks), unless several women identify themselves and provide evidence to support their allegations, including contemporary reporting of it to other people at the very least. I’m interested to see if “skepticism” can get it right in ways they didn’t get sexual harassment right back then.
Or did you stop reading at the word incident?
Get outside of the extremist blogosphere bubble and I think you’ll find that most people don’t consider it “rape” if a woman initiates or enthusiastically agrees to sex while drunk.
If she’s passed out or barely conscious, it’s rape. If she tries to resist verbally or physically and he overcomes her, it’s rape. If he got her drunk against her will, it’s rape. If she willingly got drunk and then willingly participated in sex while drunk, it’s a shitty thing for him to take advantage of, but it’s not rape. The law agrees with me, and I just have a personal conviction — totally independent from any thoughts on rape — that people of both sexes are responsible for all the things they do while intoxicated, including driving, having sex, violence, etc.
I’m not saying the victim in this case was willing while she was drunk. That wasn’t specified, and if she says she was not, I’ll believe her. I’m just saying that the answer to this question does make a difference in whether Shermer should be judged as a regular jerk or a serious criminal, and it would be good if PZ would clarify this aspect of the accusation.
@Caine #920, @screechymonkey #944
I’m sorry for the late response. English is a second language to me.
I will try to be as accurate as I can.
Caine, you have misunderstood me. I never meant to equate your experience with Dawkins’. That’s my point, actually. They cannot be compared, on principle. Your experience is yours. Dawkins’ experience is his. For me to swoop in and claim either in an attempt to make some rhetorical point or whatever would be vile and dishonest, as well as impossible (I have none of your experiences). I would be re-appropriating your experience for something that isn’t yours. That’s what I mean. I would make a claim on your experience that isn’t mine to make. It’s only yours. It can only ever be your claim. This isnt’t about Dawkins’ personal (and admittedly fucked up) views. It’s about Dawkins being used. About anyone being used. As a thing.
More to the point: Using someone’s lived experience as a rhetorical or semantic device objectifies the person who owns them. I oppose that.
I don’t think you want to be used in such a way, do you? I don’t think anyone does. That includes Dawkins.
Using someone like that, objectifying them like that, that’s re-appropriation of someone’s experiece. That’s what I mean.
If this is still unclear, I’m sorry. I’m exhausted and drunk. I can try again later.
Threadrupting:
crumbcorevette,
A male friend of mine was raped while drunk, by the “nice gal” who offered to drive him home safely. This shit happens to men too and yes; it is rape.
Just because some people like to get smashed at a party, go home and screw, does not mean that a person’s inebriated state cannot be used to render them incapable of consent so that they may be raped. In fact, rapists often rely on it.
Stop being horrible, please.
May I applaud this?
Anthony McCarthy:
Anthony, the organization is specifically not named because Jane Doe feels that it runs the risk of outing her identity, which she is not comfortable with. Your/our desire to know which org this was does not trump her right to feel safe. Full Stop.
“I think you’ll find that most people don’t consider it “rape” if a woman initiates or enthusiastically agrees to sex while drunk.”
did you miss the part where i replied to this with:
-google it
-if the context has trust and familiarity it is more ok
-popular opinion does NOT change that this behavior increases the RISK quite a lot.
Anthony McCarthy:
It’s not up to you to make that decision.
I didn’t miss any details. You simply want to lawyer this into the ground with yet another exhausting round of “Hey, I know better than her, she should…”. Don’t do that. Just fucking don’t. This is now the third page of this thread. Right on top of the comment box is a “Previous 1 2 3”. Click on the ‘1’, start with post #1, and don’t write one more fucking word until you have read every single post. It’s the very least you can do for all the weary and close to seriously triggered* people in this thread.
*I would be one of those. Right now, I’m being very, very nice. I won’t be nice again.
@ 1063 setec
Get outside your own fucking head and realize that we are all very well aware that society at large thinks that way. THAT IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM!! Jesus fuck, stop being so obtuse.
Of course. The Global Accords Dictating the Fair Use of Women do dictate that to even discuss the matter, we must go before a court of law, wherein a Dudely Dude’s behavior may be judged according to the Accords – and part of those Accords are “Bitches Ain’t Shit” and “Bitches lie”, so she’d need a man supporting her testimony, or a man who’s property is being damaged.
Actually, even under the Accords, a man’s testimony is sufficient to make a charge.
You could look at the numerous other accusations against Shermer of other sexual wrongdoing coming out of the woodwork. You know, if you believed in evidence, or that women were people. But then again, we know what the accords say about bitches.
Stop it right there
Here you are perpetuating a couple of harmful – and incorrect – ideas. You are implicitly making the claim that men can’t control their urges. Most men can. You are also simultaneously engaging in slut shaming and virgin bashing. For not good reason.
Contrary to popular belief, prolonged involuntary celibacy does not turn a person into a rapist (because rape is what you are describing). Raping people, is what makes a person a rapist.
It is othering, hurtful and harmful to perpetuate this idea of older virgin men being some sort of ticking rape bomb. It is all down to the individual level of entitlement and how s/he sees other people.
I will ask you to kindly refrain from casting aspersions on an entire group of people whose only “crime” is to have a sexual status different from yours.
Unwanted virginity does not lead to rape. Rape apologetics, is a much more dangerous ally of that.
Involuntary celibate men above a certain age are already getting enough shit without also being tarnished as a mere countdown to a sex crime. Please leave them out of your online fantasies and increasingly tortured “whatifs?”
Oh, and to the rest of the thread: I apologize for Johan. Unfortunately, he IS representative of the general discourse about this in Sweden. The whole “Let them be raped, for I was snidely met when I politely made the perfectly valid point that all women are truth challenged ladies of ill repute” thing, is about how these discussions always go in Swedish as well. Hopefully, he is back at the VoF forum now, being comforted for his harsh ordeal where people held him accountable for his bullshit.
At this point, I would be a little worried about a defamation of character lawsuit.
I’ve been checking in on this thread all day and I haven’t even given my support for Jane Doe. (it took me a while to realise that that’s the generic name for an unidentified woman)
I also want to speak out my grattitude for the regulars who’ve been active in the thread all this time. I can’t imagine the energy it must take.
Setec @1063
The law agreeing with you just means the law is also an ass.
This is just ones of the excuses cooked up by defense attorneys to get their clients off, and prosecutors to avoid doing their jobs.
The fact that a rapist can get away with it does not make it less of a crime.
Pierremenard:
Thank you. Thank you so much. Have a whole internets full of cookies.
Of course you may. Thanks.
Have you paused to consider that maybe the reason this person came forward has nothing to do with whether you personally can evaluate Shermer’s guilt or innocence?
In fact, I think from her statement, that it’s pretty clear exactly why she came forward.
Stop making this about you.
Caine, I feel like I should say that you’re an amazing person and I admire your fortitude.
And I’m sorry that you need to call on it today like this.
*fistbump*
@Caine
Perhasp more to the point: You cannot make anyones experience someone else’s. Doing so is greedy and shitty. In other words, appropriative.
For pity’s sake. I did read the original post, and although I didn’t read all 1043 of the preceding comments, I read a lot of them.
So sure, it’s not a call for justice for the victim. Buuuuuut… It’s sure a call for people to stay the fuck away from Michael Shermer, yes?
I am not saying all this out of any agreement with Shermer, whose writings I frequently find shallow — and sometimes indeed sexist — and whose politics I find stupid. I am certainly not saying it out of any support for MR nonsense or out of a lack of concern for the problem of rape.
I am saying it because I am concerned with truth, and with the consequences of things that are said.
In PZ’s original post, he acknowledges that it’s hearsay, albeit with the caveat that he trusts the source. Very well, then. But it remains hearsay, and if we are actually concerned with getting at the truth of the matter, then legal questions aside, how do we determine the truth of acknowledged hearsay?
Further, this isn’t some general problem: a name has been named. This will have consequences for the person named. Won’t it? Isn’t that exactly what people are saying when they express hopes that his conference invitations and speaking fees take a hit? And if there are such consequences, does it matter that they originate from hearsay?
What are we, as people who claim that we are the ones concerned with the evidence — because let’s be dead serious: creationists have no such concern, nor do most of the schmucks who pass for “conservatives” these days — supposed to do with a claim that we are being asked to believe without any supporting evidence?
Look, as I said, if he really did this, then all bets are off. And if evidence is provided, I’ll change my tune. But presently, no such evidence has been provided. And if no evidence is every provided, it’s going to end up looking like nothing more than the character assassination that various other boards — MR boards, decidedly anti-PZ skeptics, and creationists — are already calling it.
“It’s not up to you to make that decision.”
Jesus, Caine, you really don’t get the idea of this do you. If you’d rather vent THAN STOP A SERIAL RAPIST, CARRY ON THE WAY YOU ARE.
I’ll catch the residual flame warring on this one at YouTube in a couple of years.
Jessica Lundbom:
:Applause: Outstanding post. Thank you.
As for Johan, no need for you to apologize. Johan’s idiocy is Johan’s problem.
Why are you so concerned over Shermer getting a slap on the wrist?
Other testimony is evidence. Unless, of course, that testimony came from women. Then we refer again tot he Accords.
Fuck yourself, seriously.
naturalphilosopher @ 1044:
Warn other women to stay away from him, that’s what. Which is exactly why Jane Doe shared this story with PZ, as stated in the OP. Whatever you call it (and, really, eff all the rules-lawyering, do we really want to go the way of Todd “legitimate rape” Akin?), his behavior was wrong, manipulative, and creepy as all get out, and women should know to give him a wide berth.
Thank you, PZ, for posting this.
Thank you, Jane Doe, for coming forward. I believe and support you.
Thanks to you here in the thread (Caine, mouthyb, daniellavine, and too many more to name) for fighting the good fight.
Longtime lurker and occasional poster wanting to thank and offer my support to PZ and the regulars for fighting this good fight. You might lose a Johan, but I believe you’ve got many others of us solidly on your side and drawing strength from your words.
Also, Jessica Lundborn, bwah-hah! “Let them be raped, for I was snidely met when I politely made the perfectly valid point that all women are truth challenged ladies of ill repute” — Lots of British guys are like this, too, in my experience.
What the fuck? I was simply laying out a case in which a guy could very understandably end up having consensual sex with a drunk woman, in which neither one of them is guilty of any wrongdoing, let alone rape. You’re the one suggesting the woman would be a slut for putting him in that situation (context: I’m talking about a hypothetical situation in which a drunk woman initiates sex with a male friend). That’s kind of sexist of you, isn’t it?
“Your/our desire to know which org this was does not trump her right to feel safe. Full Stop.”
This has nothing to do with a desire to know which organization she’s talking about, it’s about having facts in an accusation of a serious crime. If he’s guilty, he belongs in jail, if he’s not guilty, though I, personally, don’t like the guy, he shouldn’t have accusations made against him. There’s no way to judge that without the facts being known. Knowing who she reported it to is kind of important. I hope the next one goes to the police instead of a “skeptics” organizations. Though, even more than that, I hope there isn’t a next one.
@1082 naturalphilosopher
Yes, it will. Believing this account and being wrong will have consequences for Michael Shermer. And not believing this accusation and being wrong about that will have consequences for the additional women Michael Shermer rapes. The consequences of not believing and being wrong are worse than the consequences of believing and being wrong. Therefore, we believe the accuser until we have good reason not to. Which has been explained many times already in this comment thread.
naturalphilospher:
No, you aren’t. If you were, you’d realize the whole point of this is to prevent another woman from being raped or assaulted. That will be a consequence of this post.
It’s not ideal to you, but that’s the reality, here on the ground where women dwell. Don’t like it? Get off your ass and get involved, as I detailed above. I note you happily ignored that.
@1072 Jessica Lundbom:
Yes. Yes. Thank you.
I’ll weigh in on this one too, because I’ve actually been in that situation. I am an “involuntarily celibate” heterosexual man in my mid-twenties (and for the record I am a virgin).
A little over a year ago, perhaps slightly less, I went to a local pub after work and ended up having an extended conversation with a woman there. She had clearly had a few drinks before I arrived and continued to drink while we were talking; I could tell she was very drunk. In this state she decided she found me extremely attractive, and rather loudly attempted to convince me to go home with her (as well as making much more explicit statements about what she would like to do with me, which I will not repeat), and actually started feeling me up in plain sight of everyone who was there. I was made extremely uncomfortable by this – and more so when she continued to do so despite my protests – and even more so when the rest of the bar patrons attempted to shame me into raping her (of course, they denied that was what they were doing, but that’s what they were doing). I left and went home, after ensuring one of her friends would see that she did likewise, because I know what morality and consent are.
People do not become rapists because they are deprived of sex. People become rapists because they don’t give a fuck about consent.
@Setec:
U.S. federal law actually does define rape as engaging or even attempting to engage in a sexual act with someone who is
There is no clause stipulating that this does not apply if people put themselves into that state. If you have sex with someone who is too drunk to appraise the nature of the conduct or to decline or communicate unwillingness, you are raping that person regardless of whether they chose to drink.
That our court system does not uphold this law properly is not indication that it is not illegal.
But here’s the thing. I shouldn’t have to provide this at all. Defining morality based on the law, when it should be the converse, is almost as sickening as defining morality based on public opinion.
Naturalphilosopher@ 1044:
Was your response to your friends’ assaults to demand evidence?
Remember, this person is a friend of PZ’s. Someone he has known for years. We all make mistakes, but I’m choosing to trust PZ’s judgement on this. Maybe that’s a bad choice, but I don’t think so.
I actually am not a regular reader of this blog and almost never comment here, but I wanted to add to the voices of support for Jane Doe. PZ is taking a very big risk and I don’t think he’d do that without very good reason. I don’t want to malign Shermer’s reputation (his books laid the groundwork for my own atheism!), but the risk to him is still less than that of Jane Doe’s, and I don’t think I could live with myself knowing that I sided with a rapist in order to hold someone else to a standard I wouldn’t use with my own trusted friends.
To Jane Doe, if you are reading this, which I sincerely hope for your health and sanity that you are not, I believe you. Thank you. If you ever choose to share your identity, people will support you. I know that probably doesn’t make it less scary or risky for you, but you will not be alone and you will have help. Even from random internet strangers :)
To PZ, thank you too. You are about to get hacked, I’m betting.
No, Setec, you are laying out the case where you would let a rapist get away with it.
(1) Is the claim plausible? Yes. This is not, by any means, an extraordinary claim.
(2) Is the witness reliable? Uncertain. All we know is that PZ vouches for her character.
(3) Could the claim be malicious? It’s possible. However, why a person would choose now to make such a claim or such a vehicle for delivery is very odd. What would be the motive of Jane Doe?
On this basis, the evidence-demanding skeptic could reasonably decide not to accept the claim until further evidence is forthcoming. However, they would have no reason to dismiss it either, since dismissal of a plausible claim without evidence would be as wrong as accepting it without evidence.
What we can do is observe Shermer closely and see if any further incidents come to light.
Oops. Guess I missed the close tag. Sorry!
I forget, are we in a court of law, and are you, or anyone else, the finders of fact around here?
@Setec: And the fact that other people don’t consider that rape is what I and presumably most people here want changed. The boogyman idea of rape being this horrible thing that no person with empathy would do prevents us from identifying people who actually rape, lets people who actually rape feel like they’re not rapists and makes the accusation of rape seem like so much more improbable than it actually is. It’s no wonder that that is the standard definition in societies so influenced by rape culture.
Another person has stepped up to confirm the account — see the addendum to the opening post.
It’s truly amazing how clueless some people are, even after having had why this is an entirely inappropriate viewpoint to take on this issue presented to them directly and repeatedly.
here, again: IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU.
IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU.
IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU.
nobody gives a flying FUCK what you think SHOULD happen here.
get it yet?
Esteleth:
:takes a deep breath: Thank you, Esteleth. That should keep me going a bit longer.
Me too. I’m sorry that we all have to call on it every. single. godsdamned. time. a woman speaks out about being raped.
*fistbump* back. Always.
Viajera and jennyjfwlucy, thank you.
Rutee Katreya, rape is a felony, it’s a matter that belongs in a court. In the mean time, I’d like to know how the “skeptics” propose to determine the truth of the matter in the total absence of facts?
I’m not interested in getting into the venting-flaming-venting cycle that’s going on here. When it’s a question of a felony such as rape, that’s irresponsible and is only going to help the status quo to stay in place.
Y
It may have consequences it may not. I assure you that if this is somehow shown to be a false report then we do owe Mr. Shermer an apology. I am sure PZ and the rest of use will give him an apology if that is the case. It’s not as if we all take false rape accusations lightly. False rape accusations, as rare as they are, are used as a bludgeon by rape apologists and deniers to attempt to diminish all accounts of rape. False rape accusations don’t just hurt the person in question, but innumerable women (and men) who were raped.
At this point, however, we have no reason to apologize to Shermer. We are doing the right thing in trusting the victims account. I feel a little bad writing that previous paragraph just because it hypothetically might demonstrate a lack of trust in the victim. I assure her that it I do not lack any trust in her account. The hypothetical was just to demonstrate why it is illogical not to trust you.
We are trying to make things better the best way the our current cultural situation allows us. I will not, and I don’t think others here will either, err on the side of distrusting or being apathetic towards rape victims because statistically a small amount of persons will be falsely accused and somewhat damaged. We are trying to reduce the horrendous damages down to victims of rape and trying to end its pervasiveness.
For a rape victim to come out with their account takes tremendous bravery. That tremendous bravery should not be met with dismissiveness and/or apathy.
Setec: “1) drunk people are somewhat responsible for their actions”
You actually seem to want to make drunk people responsible for other peoples actions.
nobody is interested in what you have to say, because it is not appropriate.
we’re all correctly telling you to just fuck off at this point.
you’d be doing yourself a favor, frankly, since you really don’t understand what is going on here, even when people explain it to you using small words.
Goodness, look at that, more confirmation. Will it shut the fucking apologists up? I’ll bet not.
Anthony McCarthy @1055 and others
Women do not report harassment and rape because of attitudes like yours. And, yes, I mean your attitude specifically stops reporting. This is because you expect the victim to stand up to the consequences of a failure to substantiate the allegation which is very likely due to the nature of the sexual activity
This has been repeated many times and on all the pages of commentary to this post. A simple web search finds many examples amongst them this tumblr http://ididnotreportconfidential.tumblr.com/
now take your self important pontificating and learn some humility
If he’s guilty of rape he should be prosecuted. They should tell it to a prosecutor, he should be tried and, if convicted, imprisoned. Trial by blog comment isn’t enough.
And continuing to do so even after it’s been explained that this very narrative is exactly the kind of cover that repeat rapists use to get away with it.
It’s not a hypothetical at all. This is reality. This is how they do it.
It seems that Anthony McCarthy is an other one of those hyperskeptics who will not let the reality of how rape victims are treated while in court get in the way of proclaiming it should be a court action. And how dare women trying to warn other women about a potential rapists. They really should keep it all to themselves.
here’s a plan of action for you then:
Go become a district attorney, so you can prosecute rape cases as you see fit.
until then, everything you have said here is entirely irrelevant, and your pursuit is born of stubborn ignorance that is only making it very clear to everyone else that you are a git.
run along and go get that law degree now, little moron.
97% of reported rapists never see a day of jail time.
It’s not up to anyone but the victim to decide what’s “enough” in terms of justice/punishment.
playonwords, just what is my “attitude”? That if a man rapes someone he should be tried in court and men convicted of rape should be imprisoned? Well, sorry, that’s how you deal with serious crimes, I didn’t decide that, it was decided way back in the late middle-ages. If you’ve got a better idea, tell us what it is.
Well, in a better world wherein rape wasn’t governed by The Global Accords, I’d be inclined to agree. As it stands, I’m happy to leave the choice to the victim.
Multiple corroborating testimonies != facts? At all? Go back to bigfoot. I don’t give a shit about ‘skeptics’ that are this useless.
No, Caine is absolutely right. We who have heard this as hearsay can only decide whether we are going to believe and support the victim or not.
When it comes to the question of stopping an alleged serial rapist, what we can do is spread the word so that others may be forewarned. When it comes to naming the organization, only the victim(s) who have direct experience have the right to make that decision. We who were not directly involved are not entitled to take away their autonomy and force that choice upon them.
I wrote: “I don’t think this sort of post does any service to women or does anything constructive to solve the all-too real problems of sexual harassment and assault in America today.”
Caine responded: “You don’t, eh? I’d like to know just what you know about it, on a firsthand basis.”
Well, as I said, I do know two people who have been raped (and I assume that I know more than that, but I don’t know that I know them). And they aren’t mere acquaintances. One was a long-term girlfriend, and the fact that neither of us knew how to cope with it sank our relationship. The other was my aunt.
So while I have never had the experience myself, I do believe that I have fairly intimate knowledge of the problem, for a man, at least. I am not trying to belittle it.
I am not even suggesting that the woman is lying. Her account MAY be true. Which is why, when you say:
“You know, for all of you who just can’t cope with believing a person who was raped..”
I find this kind of comment condescending and insulting. I have no difficulty believing that people get raped. It’s depressingly frequent. And if any woman that I knew ever came to me saying that she had been raped, I would believe her.
“…and are oh so desperate for the justice system to step up and start batting them out of the park…”
Again, why are you putting words in my mouth? True, I would love to see justice done. But I think it is beyond demeaning to “push” women to go public. It’s horrifically difficult, especially given the biases of the system. It should be the woman’s choice and hers alone.
“…I have a suggestion. Go to your nearest rape crisis center and volunteer. Go through all the training. Put some time in. Once you’ve put some time in, become an advocate. An advocate is a person who accompanies victims to the hospital and to law enforcement interviews. I did it for 7 years before I burnt out, extra crispy. So, there you have it. Get out there and do the work. You might learn something.”
Again, I think you have completely misconstrued the point of my post. I have not been the sort of advocate you are asking me to be. But perhaps I should. I would certainly then know more victims than the two I already do.
On the other hand, I believe I do know considerably more than you’re suggesting I do, and that’s precisely the reason I say you’ve misconstrued my post.
A very specific charge is being made against a very particular individual. We are not being asked to believe that “someone” was raped. That general claim is a certainty, and vastly more should be done about it.
We are being asked to believe that Michael Shermer raped someone — perhaps even that he is a serial rapist. And yet, no evidence has been provided. So why are we to believe that? And what should be done about it?
Good for you, you did the right thing. I would have done the same — I’m just making a point about the English language and law that giving in to her advances would not make you a rapist. (If anything, as you described the situation, she assaulted you is liable for that, drunk or not.)
I was raised to think of rape and murder as the two most heinous crimes anyone can commit. They did, and still should, carry the same sort of stigma for the perpetrators. But if the definition of rape is so extremely watered-down that it includes having consensual sex with a voluntarily drunk person who eagerly initiates the sex, the word loses its power. A guy who accepts sex initiated by a drunk woman has not committed the same crime as someone like Ariel Castro from a legal or moral standpoint.
(Again, I’m not suggesting this was the case with Shermer and his victim, just arguing the definition.)
Because it bears repeating, the close of Jen’s now-redacted post.
Nobody wants rape allegations to be routinely addressed by bloggers going public. That’s the option we’re stuck with, specifically because the organizations that SHOULD be investigating claims and aiding victims – A/S orgs, police, and society at large – aren’t doing their fucking jobs. How else are we supposed to protect each other, much less hold the organizations accountable? That’s what whistleblowing is FOR.
For the third godsdamned fucking time:
MEET THE PREDATORS
PREDATOR REDUX
CLICK ON THE PRETTY BLUE WORDS AND READ.
Caine, if it isn’t immediately obvious, you’re cool – as are Tony, Daniella, and everyone else I sincerely don’t have the RAM to remember off the top of my head. I’m glad you’re doing this. I just don’t have the energy in my life right now, to manage this shit for a 24 hour period like I did before. I can’t take the sheer level of DUDEBRO right now. You can, and that’s awesome.
“Truth” abstracted from real life implications is as useless as any religion and is not deserving of concern.
And if you were really concerned with consequences that actually matter here, you would not have made the statement that you made.
Right, Anthony McCarthy. This was fucking set up to be a fucking court case.
Any other shit you wish to pull from your ass.
Ready to move on to calling this a lynching?
The victim made a complaint and nothing happened. How about that? This is a common result of reporting sexual assault, we find.
So now the name is public. And until new evidence or information appears we shall keep a careful eye on the alleged perpetrator.
The only other option would have been to not name him, and potentially let him continue his predation. This naming makes such a possibility much less likely. If he behaves in future then at the very least we can be sure that no more women will be harmed.
fuck me, but you assclowns are dense.
this is personal testimony, not a fucking court of law.
how many times must this simple point be drummed through yer thick skull?
you know what I don’t believe?
that you have any clue at all how your acquaintances that experienced rape actually feel.
your own testimony supports this conclusion:
so, if you simply choose not to listen to what people here are telling you, and why your pursuit is irrelevant and inappropriate, all we CAN do is tell you to fuck off.
seriously. It’s the only option you are leaving everyone here.
You guys really don’t get what I was saying. I was saying that if the situation I described actually happened (a guy being propositioned for sex by his drunk female friend), neither one of them would be guilty of any wrongdoing, let alone rape.
That is not the same as saying it’s okay for a guy to get away with claiming that’s what happened when it didn’t. Obviously that’s not okay. If the guy raped her and then says it was consensual, it was still rape. But if it actually was consensual in the moment, especially if it was initiated by her (not just according to the guy’s claims, but in actual fact) then it’s not rape, no matter who was drunk.
Amphiox, is there some kind of special license given to “skeptics” that allow them to chop off sentences to distort what people say? I thought that’s what you were always accusing creationists of doing.
What I said was”
Jesus, Caine, you really don’t get the idea of this do you. If you’d rather vent THAN STOP A SERIAL RAPIST, CARRY ON THE WAY YOU ARE.
Pardon me for mistaking this discussion as being about an attempt at CORRECTING A WRONG instead of the infinite joys of purposeless posing and venting.
Correct. This is not the right way to deal with the situation. That we are doing this is because all the other avenues of complaint or redress have failed miserably, and this is all that is left.
Y’know, you apologist men are excellent at ignoring this, so I’ll repeat it, loudly:
Don’t go getting the silly idea that men can’t work as crisis counselors or advocates, either. Also, gonna point out that men get raped too. They also need counselors and advocates. Put your fucking money where your endless mouths are – do the work.
Pierre wrote:
“Doing the socially and personally responsible thing of trusting the victims account is not the same thing as saying we know that Shermer raped anyone. We are trusting a rape victim’s account. That isn’t illogical or unfair (especially given statistics on the amount of false rape accusations). Not only is it completely reasonable to trust a rape victim, it helps other rape victims feel comfortable enough to tell there stories to those of us who care. Then we not only help victims, but can work to stop potential future rape cases. Rape causes the bonds of trust between human beings to shatter. By trusting rape victims account we can at the very least try to recover some of the lost trust.”
I AGREE WITH ALMOST EVERY WORD.
OF COURSE IT IS BOTH RESPONSIBLE AND REASONABLE TO TRUST A RAPE VICTIM’S ACCOUNT.
But while trusting a rape victim’s account is not saying that Shermer raped someone, saying that Shermer raped someone is, well, saying that Shermer raped someone.
PZ didn’t characterize his post as a grenade because he was saying we should trust rape victims, or because he has often pointed out — quite rightly — that most of our society, and certainly the legal system, does not trust them. The “explosive” character of the post comes from the fact that it specifically states that Michael Shermer — a real person — coerced at least one woman, possibly six women, into sex.
There’s a world of difference here.
It doesn’t matter that the skeptic boys are going to be pissy about this issue. The approach of atheist feminist’s is clearly working. All we have to do to see this is to notice the women who are now coming out about being sexually harassed. They, by trusting the victim, and giving them an environment of trust and concern have allowed people to come out about their horrendous experiences and has made things better (even if only a little bit…I’m not a victim so I don’t know how helpful its been to them).
I think their concern, and my concern, is to help people who have been harmed, not to somehow prove to the skeptic boys that we aren’t “Feminazis.”
Before I bow out for the day:
Thank you to Jane Doe for having the courage to come forward with this. I know it can’t be easy but hopefully it will lead to real positive change.
Thank you to PZ for being someone that victims of assault can trust to take them seriously.
Thank you to all the regulars, especially those of you who are survivors yourselves and sticking around despite being triggered by all this, for fighting the good fight and not letting the inevitable rape apologia stand unchallenged.
@1118 setec
I do not appreciate your appropriating what happened to me in furtherance of rape apologism. Please don’t do it.
Yes, I was sexually assaulted in the scenario I described. That doesn’t mean it would have been any less rape had I taken her up on her offer, as she was clearly too drunk to consent.
Rape-apologists love to bring up the hypothetical scenario in which two people are drunk and mutually sexually assault or rape each other, as if it’s some kind of counterexample. Well, that’s exactly what would have happened had I not decided to go home that night. It’s still rape.
If consent is in question (especially when alcohol is involved), YOU DO NOT HAVE SEX. This should not be difficult to understand, yet apparently it is for a lot of people.
The victim made a complaint and nothing happened.
leebrimmicombe-wood, I was unaware that a “skeptics” organization had the powers to bring a criminal prosecution.
You see, in many if not all jurisdictions a criminal accusation is required to be investigated by legal authorities and if they fail to do their job they can be held accountable. Unlike “skeptics” organizations which aren’t held to such stringent standards of conduct.
I’m not bothering with this anymore. I’ll wait to see if there is any prosecution but, given the attitude to the necessity of EVIDENCE among the “skeptics” here, I’m not holding my breath.
I may, though, write a blog post about this discussion.
Right, Anthony McCarthy. I have known of Caine for years and I know that alll she does is vent and has no interest at all in stopping serial rapists. Why, she has absolutely no practical experience at all in being an advocate.
100% PURE RAGING SNARK!
I think you mean, making this discussion all about what you think the victim ought to do.
Some of us have different priorities.
Since we’re all about engaging in hypotheticals, what happens if your mythical sober university student is approached by a drunk and underage girl? What if the drunk girl didn’t offer him sex but wildly tossed him the keys to the apartment and told him to take whatever he wanted out of it. So no problem with him walking off with all her stuff, right?
Tell me, at what point do you consider said mythical sober university student responsible for his own actions and knowing that he shouldn’t be doing something?
Thank you. But you all have been doing this a lot longer than I have. Your fortitude is awesome.
Anthony McCarthy? Isn’t this the guy who used to stink up the Mooney/Kirshenbaum Intersoction?
Right back at you, Rutee. *fistbump*
I’m on shit-for-brains dudebro overload right now. I feel like Simon looking at the statue of Jayne Cobb and saying “this is what insanity must be like.”
Goodbye Enemy Janine, vent away, it won’t get anyone anywhere but I’m sure you’ll feel good about it.
(if so, there’s little point in attempting meaningful interaction)
Anthony McCarthy, SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP. You have reading to do, Cupcake. I’m sure you’re avoiding it because you find it difficult, but give it a try, eh? Sit on your fingers, that might help you to focus on something other than your bloviating, fetidly pulsing ego.
I keep wondering how these idiots would respond if the issue involved were an entirely different one.
Say I have an acquaintance who I know (because I have seen it firsthand), is a professional car thief, and their MO is typically of the car-jacking variety. Let’s call him Jack.
I, who would for many reasons would wish to remain anonymous, tell someone who I know many in my local community listen to that Jack (who also just as obviously needs to be named), is indeed a professional car jacker, and that they might want to make this information public in order to warn others not to give this person a ride in their car…
Five bucks says that these idiots would entirely understand why that was valuable information to share, and not be here whinging that Jack was “tried without evidence”.
So what is different about it when the issue is someone who abuses their position of authority to sexually assault women?
What is their response to Megan’s Law, I wonder…
too much hypocritical bullshit.
As someone who used to be an involuntary celibate, I’ll just put in that I didn’t miss sex when I hadn’t had any yet (because you can’t really miss something you haven’t yet experienced). This is of course anecdotal and other people may have stronger yearnings. Doesn’t make it less immoral to have sex with someone without their consent.
You know, something about Setec’s posts has been pissing me off more and more this evening and I finally figured out why. It’s because I used to think like him. I just realised that, if given the right opportunity, I might have raped someone. I would like to believe that if I had been presented with the same situation as mcbender, I wouldn’t have given in either but I know I very well might have. I feel ashamed for that, as I feel I should. It’s thanks to you guys that I’ve become more educated from the moment elevatorgate started up until now, breaking down harmful priors over time. You’ve made sure I will never rape someone, something for which I’ll be forever grateful.
And fuck you to, Anthony McCarthy, you worthless waste of words.
If only you would come off you fucking high horse and listen to the experience of people who are rape victims and the difficulties that they have just trying to bring up charges. But that would be beneath you.
Remember when you used to whine about the meanness of Pharyngulites, McCarthy? Remember how useful that was? I hope your mom gave you a purple participation ribbon for it, because it sure didn’t have any effect on this place. Prolly made you feel smarty smart, though.
Since we’re talking about usefulness, and all that.
If I can make Anthony McCarthy’s life just a smidgen less pleasant, I’ll know that I’ve left the universe a better place than when I found it.
this has become entirely clear, and long before any name recognition.
There is so much I could write here about the people I’ve known and their experiences with rape/ rape drugs/alcohol as a rape drug. I could talk about my own experiences of harassment, stalking, etc. . But, I won’t because I know they’d be picked apart by the assholes who are pretending to be skeptics on this thread. I know it would be wielded like a weapon against me, just as the anonymous women who were daring enough to risk this onslought have had their experiences parodied and picked apart.
I tried telling some of those stories once online. I was accused of lying and the assholes trucked right along feeling very proud of having told another lying woman off, while I shook and wept from the pain of reliving and sharing those experiences.
I know why these women remain anonymous. They’re still brave and I’m so honored that they trusted any of us to do something positive with this information.
Also, you know what victim blaming shit I never want to see again?
I’m fucking sick and tired of people saying that admitting you have been victimized or feel unsafe = being weak. It takes courage you slimy, insincere, cowardly fuckerwits won’t ever know.
Setec, we get what you are saying, you are fucking wrong.
If a sober man is propositioned by a drunk woman, and he does not want to be a rapist, his decision is clear.
“Tell you what, let’s have you sleep it off, alone, and see how you feel about me in the morning.”
If this hypothetical person does fuck her, even with the (deceptive) appearance of consent, he is a rapist, his intent doesn’t matter, it being her drunken idea doesn’t matter, even her deciding to let it go in the morning doesn’t matter. He is a rapist. She was not capable of giving consent at the time.
This is equally true when the genders are reversed, and just as true if both people are of the same gender.
Fucking someone who is drunk is rape.
The grenade was a metaphor and not something to focus much attention on. He was clearly feeling conflicted and it was meant to symbolize (I think) the dangerousness of what he was in possession of. Yes, part of the explosiveness is that it is Michael Shermer. I am not saying I know Shermer raped anyone, nor am I going to go around saying Shermer raped someone to everyone. Do I trust the victim? Absolutely. Does that mean I think Shermer raped her? Yes it does. It’s not a knowledge claim, its a trust claim.
You said you were interested in truth. Well none of us here are in possession of it. The question is what do we do given what we have. What I am suggesting, and what others are suggesting, is that we trust the victim. That seems to be the most responsible and humane thing to do.
FBI or STFU fallacy, how nice (not) to see you again.
What does an organization or workplace have the power to do? Provide support on-the-scene for the victim and take their statements seriously. Provide records and witnesses to said statements if the victim wants to go on the record. Intervene to keep the aggressor and victim separate. Provide escorts and security. Help the victim contact law enforcement and/or rape crisis services. A convention organizer even has the power to revoke the aggressor’s admission to the event. Lots of petty troublemakers have been banned from all sorts of events for much less serious behavior than rape.
Janine:
Oh yes. Being raped, beaten and almost murdered? Yeah, that didn’t provide any experience or interest in stopping serial rapists. Being in the court system for two years? Yeah, that didn’t provide any experience or knowledge of the law side of things. Being an advocate for 7 years? Yeah, that didn’t provide me with any learning experience. Nope.
After all, I’m not an ego ridden, privileged dude who is, of course, absolutely one hundred percent right in every shit coated pearl that drops lightly from his keyboard. Everyone knows only those guys are ever correct.
Do I actually need a snark tag here?
No, but they had a duty to report to the authorities. If they did not do so it demonstrates the system failed.
Boom, this thread exploded and I finally caught up.
Thanks to Jane Doe for coming forward with your experience, and for the confirmation from friend of Jane Doe.
I believe you, and your actions will make it safer for all of us. I hope the ripples manage to turn into a mighty wave, that sweeps all the abusers out of the movement. Or at least out to sea.
Thanks PZ for doing the right thing. Tis an honor to be amoung your horde, oh greatly esteemed poopyhead.
Thanks horde and especially Caine and MouthyB.
*hugschocolateboozeherbalteasfluffybunnies*
Oh, and I noticed that PZ didn’t seem upset enough for some douchebag for this to be true.
At the same time, we’re also being told that being emotional about these things = being hysterical/crazy and thus, unbelievable.
This game is rigged. Heads the rapists win, tails the victims lose.
@439
What are your takes?????
I argue that power has no value and confers no benefits unless you abuse it or otherwise take advantage of it. Thus a rational being will not seek power; they might prefer to show leadership, argue or influence, philosophize or polemicize – get people to do what they want by convincing the people it’s in their own interest. In the context of the current conversation about sex, I’d argue that subjection to authority is by definition non-consensual because otherwise it’s not authority. Someone who uses power to get sex is doing it because they are too lazy, unwilling, or unable to get consent – consent meaning that you’ve convinced the other person that sex is in their interest.
I make that argument because I conclude from it that anyone who wants power intends – consciously or subconsciously – to abuse it. Therefore they are either my declared or undeclared enemy. But, either way, they’re my enemy.
I wrote: “We should not just ‘assume’ that what people say is true, ever.”
Leni wrote: “Was your response to your friends’ assaults to demand evidence?”
Nope. I believed both my girlfriend and my aunt.
But I also didn’t publish the name of my girlfriend’s attacker on a blog and say that he had raped someone.
As a long time lurker, all I can say is, mad props to Caine and all the other defenders here for fighting this and for teaching me how to be a decent human being.
To the Bitchez be lyin crew and the quibblers over definitions: fuck off.
Chas:
Oh gods, that’s why the name was familiar. Thank you, Chas.
*Unceremoniously dumps McCarthy in the killfile.*
I did for the sake of people who may not know that I am always on your side when it come to this topic. Without the snark tag, it does sound like I am being dismissive.
Actually taking advantage of ANY friend when their drunk in any way peroid makes you a shitty friend and a horrible person.
So yes, even if it was “borrowed their car without asking” it’s still wrongdoing.
would you have criticized your ex if she had published the name of her attacker?
of course not.
now fuck off.
Sharkjack:
I…
I don’t even have words. Thank you.
Oh. That McCarthy.
(How many of those intersection trolls ended up finding a home in the ‘pit?)
And I don’t appreciate you butchering the English language to call me a rape apologist, so I guess we’re even.
But people of both sexes have been getting drunk and going out and meeting people and having sex pretty much since the invention of liquor. (I never participated in this, so don’t say I’m trying to make excuses for myself.) What you’re complaining about as “rape culture,” when you define rape as any sort of drunk sex without prior sober consent, is basically just “hookup culture” in which one-night stands, often involving alcohol, are extremely common. Millions of people of both sexes go out looking for those experiences every night. They’re not all rapists. They’re not all criminals. It’s just a standard variation on human sexual behavior and there’s nothing really wrong with it.
Again, I’m not saying that’s what happened in the Sherman case, just arguing against the absurd notion that all drunk sex without prior sober consent is “rape,” a definition that is not and should not be widely accepted in society or our laws. Grown adults should be held responsible for what they do while drunk — if they hit someone with their car, it’s not the fault of the person who got hit for not getting out of the way of the drunk, and if they initiate sex with someone, that person sure as hell isn’t guilty of rape for accepting the offer.
What an absolutist attitude, that there is only one way to do things: ‘successful prosecution or it didn’t happen’. Sorry, but the world is a messier place than that.
Because the system does not work, people here are choosing to trust someone’s claim. They are not ignoring it, as you would do. They are not bullying a victim into doing something they’d rather not, as you would do. This is a different way. It’s not optimal. But the system is not delivering optimal solutions. So stop throwing a tantrum because it’s not your way.
Love and admire you, Caine and Ichthyic and Rutee and everyone else slogging through all of this.
Anthony and others: get it through your thick skulls: the woman in question knows how “he said she said” gets interpreted in courts most of the time. She knows how demeaning and awful it is going through the legal process. She is most interested in keeping other women safe, not trying to put Shermer through a legal process that sheer probability and all available past practice indicates would result in harming her more than him. What she has done here has met her goal; any woman who hears about this will now be more on guard around Shermer, and it will not be easy for him to take advantage of a woman.
I just had that exact thing happen in another, unrelated discussion, this very day. One douche decides that the victim appears too calm and therefore must be lying. When I argue against that, I’m told that I’m being overly emotional.
It’s as if they’ve got a script for it. How to be a douche – the practical handbook.
Setec, several people have asked you to stop. You’re not convincing anyone. You are being a fool.
Would you kindly be quiet or go away.
Anthony Mc Arthy you’re Unbefuckinglievable. The nerve you have to tell Caine what to do when it comes to rape. Theres perfectly good reasons why persecution isn’t the preferred option here, all of which have been given so many times in this thread that I’ve lost count. Stuff like Caine’s 1120 is a great example, but there are so many others that cover all permutations of why what you’re saying is really stupid. Please do us all a favor and start reading instead of posting.
Testimony is evidence, unless it’s by a woman.
Unceremoniously dumps McCarthy in the killfile.*
If I had a dollar for everyone who has claimed to do that but who almost immediately proved they hadn’t done it, I’d be able to buy a new laptop.
No, really, looking at this discussion, it’s not addressing an extremely serious accusation that Shermer committed a series of felonies, it’s vent-a-thon porn. I believed Rebecca Watson’s accusations against an unnamed jerk who was so clueless that he came onto her in an elevator at 4 in the morning, I believed that. But when it’s a FELONY that is being accused that ramps it up way past the point where mere plausibility is enough to come to that conclusion.
PZ, this is one of the more irresponsible things you’ve done. You should have taken it to a prosecutor or, at least, a competent investigative reporter who would do what you haven’t done. If Shermer is not guilty of rape, I hope he sues you. And I don’t like the guy at all.
[No dollar for you! I’m dumping you in my killfile. Bye! — pzm]
That attitude pisses me off like you wouldn’t believe. I’ve been doing emergency medical response for years and I’ve seen many people on the worst days of their lives. A dead child. Relative committed suicide. Family member killed. Being assaulted. Raped. And in every incident, unless I specifically know the people involved, you never know for sure how people, either the victim or the people around them, will react. Some people are highly emotional, some just shut down emotionally. Some act normally, crack a joke, smile, others fly into a rage if anyone around them does anything but look sad. Some are pissed off at me because I couldn’t safe a victim, some thank me for trying. So when I hear that “Well, they didn’t act like a person in situation X should act” it drive me up the wall because there’s no goddamn universal rule about how a person should respond in a given situation.
spoken like the excellent little trolly boy you are.
run along now, nobody gives a shit what you have to say any more.
That should read Anthony McCarthy, I even went though the process of previewing yet I didn’t catch that.
As a man, I would far rather face a false accusation of rape than have a woman raped because society was too skeptical or women too fearful. Sadly, the latter happens far more often than the former. This is unacceptable.
It is deplorable that such a heinous crime should so often go unreported, unprosecuted, and unpunished.
As I recall, one of the drivers of the current scandale about sexual harassment in the skeptic & atheist movements was that word leaked out that women were warning each other about individuals who showed up at these shindigs, leading some people to hope that the warnings could be offered to all instead of just those lucky enough to be friends of friends, which would be difficult to do without danger of accusations of slander and blacklisting, and others to complain that it was unfair to those warned about because they were denied a chance to rebut the accusations.
Arawhon, Carlie, thank you. I’m starting to cry now, a sure sign I’ll need to get out soon. So I’ll say now, thank you, thank you, thank you, to all those who are picking up the next shift of fighting the good fight, and my thanks to all of you who aren’t being named, but are right in the middle of it, doing the right thing. LykeX, Lee, Janine, Ichthyic, Anthony K, and many others, Imma lookin’ at you.
Thought you said goodbye already.
Are you having an effect?
Are you having an effect?
@1167 setec
I’m done. If you don’t get it by this point, you aren’t going to.
You seem to be engaging in a version of the naturalistic fallacy – people have been behaving in this way, therefore there must be nothing wrong with people behaving in this way! *facepalm* I don’t deny that that sort of behaviour happens – what I’m saying is that that is not okay and it needs to change!
Take care, Caine!
Naturalphilosopher:
Would you have if she couldn’t prosecute, but had asked you to because she knew he was still raping people?
I wrote: “That said, I am vexed by this post.”
Rutee Katreya wrote: “Of course. The Global Accords Dictating the Fair Use of Women do dictate that to even discuss the matter, we must go before a court of law, wherein a Dudely Dude’s behavior may be judged according to the Accords – and part of those Accords are “Bitches Ain’t Shit” and “Bitches lie”, so she’d need a man supporting her testimony, or a man who’s property is being damaged.”
I see. So you did not read, or did not care that I had written, that I believe the system is indeed biased against women who take their charges public.
-sigh-
This is really depressing. I believe that women get a totally raw deal, and it’s part of why I would not demand of anyone who had been raped that she must go to court. I wouldn’t even presume to suggest it, as it’s a fucking nightmare.
But if I suggest that maybe making charges in the court of public testimony requires evidence, then I’m suddenly some sort of sexist monster who should be characterized by “Bitches Ain’t Shit” and “Bitches Lie.” What a total fucking crock.
Rutee continued: “You could look at the numerous other accusations against Shermer of other sexual wrongdoing coming out of the woodwork.”
And if there are such charges coming out, great. I am happy to convinced. I see that PZ has evidently added some corroboration. That’s a step in the right direction, and I will check it out momentarily.
It’s a real shame that then you have to go back to the following:
Rutee concludes: “You know, if you believed in evidence, or that women were people. But then again, we know what the accords say about bitches.”
I don’t suppose anything I say can possibly convince you otherwise. I took issue with the lack of evidence in the OP, ergo I think women aren’t people.
Thank you, Caine. Not just for this time, but for all the other ones where I didn’t say it.
Keithm:
Drives me up a bloody wall too. I can’t even begin to tell you how often I’ve heard that shit from law enforcement. Had it applied to me, while I was in the hospital after my rape. “Well, she doesn’t appear to be very upset.” Ya know, that might of had something to do with me barely being alive, think of that one, detective? GAH.
The difference between this case and that one is that Rebecca Watson made the decision, on her own, to let her identity be known.
Not so in this case.
Caine, I rarely comment, but I read a lot here, and I just wanted to say thank you. For me, you’re one of the enlightening and illuminating contributors here. I appreciate your passion and your willingness to throw yourself into the fray. Take care of yourself.
..
you’re a disingenuous prick, and should shut the hell up now.
I think it’s pretty clear you are incapable of understanding the actual issue involved here, and thus having expressed yourself in such a way, have no need to be redundant with such a statement.
It’s like listening to a creationist try to tell us that there is nothing they could say that would change our minds about evolution.
This is seriously starting to bug me:
helenaconstantine #732
(My emphasis)
The whole point is that this wasn’t anonymous. We don’t know who it was, but the woman is well known to PZ. For the general public, she must remain unidentified, as is often the case in sensitive legal cases. But if she e-mailed PZ, then she is on the record, with her name attached, to the report.
At the time of the assault, she reported it to the appropriate authorities. Again, with her name attached.
Just because we here, at arms’ length, don’t have her name doesn’t mean her account is “anonymous hearsay”.
AnthonyK, I think I was too busy laughing at the pharyngulites to do anything else.
PZ, remember this the next time you gas on about the sanctity of evidence. You should have gone to a professional investigator who would look at that with these charges instead of your fan club who demonstrate that evidence is meaningless to them. You’ve cheapened the issue with this post and this thread.
Who appointed you arbiter of the evidence we must accept? Your demand is for evidence required to prove a deity, an extraordinary level. The requirements for this are far, far, lower than that, being ordinary.
These situations are not in the same ballpark, they are not even in the same fucking UNIVERSE!
Someone hit by a drunk driver is in a situation out of their control.
A sober person hit on by a horny drunk IS in control of their actions. This makes them de facto the responsible party.
Someone who is drunk is impeded from making responsible decisions, their ability to consent is just as impaired as their ability to drive.
Sober people have the full ability to say “no.” Choosing not to in this context is taking advantage of an inability to form informed consent. It is RAPE.
The only exception to this is when the drunk employs force.
Seconding LykeX. ‘Night, Caine.
Caine, Tony & many other Hordelings: Hats off to you.
Let me second that. Caine and SallyStrange, particular, have taught me a great deal and made me much more aware of rape culture and my privilege. I’m sure that for them it seems like endless head-butting against a wall but it does make a difference.
it won’t apply, since it isn’t relevant.
Likewise. Caine, thank you for everything you do here. This lurker (and I am sure many others as well) has learned a great amount from your posts.
Anthony: You’re officially on my list of people I would not piss on if they were on fire.
I assume by “this sort of behavior” you’re speaking of the hookup culture in which people commonly go out and get drunk and have sex with the people they met while one or both of them were drunk. I’m not a fan of that culture and have never participated in it, but I strongly believe that it is not inherently “rape,” and I think it’s extremely puritan and prudish (on a level that would make religious conservatives proud) to insist that the millions of people who participate in that lifestyle should stop and most of them are rapists.
People have control over whether or not to get drunk, and they have control over what they do when they’re drunk. That’s why we can get legal convictions and not insanity pleas for DUIs. People who consent to sex and willingly participate in it while drunk are responsible for choosing to engage in that behavior.
To the extent that people try to use their own drunkenness as an excuse for raping someone else, or try to use someone’s drunken state to facilitate truly non-consensual sex (in which the person actually tries to resist, or is barely conscious), I agree there’s no excuse and rape in those circumstances should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I’m simply saying it’s absurd to claim, as many here have, that consent is impossible while drunk and therefore all drunken sex is rape. People have consensual drunken without prior sober consent all the time, and while I don’t participate in that or even think it’s a good idea, I do acknowledge that it’s their choice to make as adults and they aren’t all rapists. For that, I’m branded a rape apologist. It’s strange.
naturalphilosopher:
In the OP the evidence provided was the testimony of a woman that PZ trusted enough to quote and put out this warning. Now you are specifically saying that “the testimony of a woman” is a lack of evidence.
Do you see how people are making that interpretation?
1) I made this point earlier, it seems to have gone unnoticed by some. PZ’s OP, true or false, right or wrong, misguided or not, is not an END, like a judgement in a court of law. It is a BEGINNING.
It is the start of the exposure of these claims surrounding Michael Shermer. PZ has been faced with a choice, he knows and trusts the woman making this accusation. He knows, trusts and apparently does not like the chap corroborating it. Does he publish the claim or not? PZ has in the past been a staunch critic of the cover ups of abuse in the Catholic Church, how would his cover up, his not publishing a claim he clearly believes, be any different? His own morals compel him to publish and be damned.
Personally, I’d be amazed if, in this day and age, this level of information remained. I expect people/organisations to be named, details to be forthcoming. Not necessarily from PZ. Like I said, this is, IMO, the start of something. It’s up to PZ to believe his correspondent, and he clearly does. And based on that he has taken an awesomely hard decision.
2) Is the accusation of the woman who emailed PZ true? I don’t KNOW if it is, but I BELIEVE it is. Yes, I used the B word. It’s possible that only two people can truly KNOW if this accusation is true. And you know what, I’ll lay good odds on one of them not confirming it is. Guilty or innocent. So why do I BELIEVE this accusation to be true? Because PZ Myers said so? Hardly. Because of the reasoning outlined way back when in my first post, This is not an extraordinary claim, it’s shocking commonplace, man gets woman drunk, rapes woman. Hardly earth shatteringly rare, more’s the fucking pity. Is it “truthy”, well, yes, but that’s not relevant. Cui bono? Not PZ I can guarantee you. Page hits? Please! I believe this accusation because I know about rape culture, rape statistics and the stats about false accusations. Rape is common, false rape accusations are rare. The likelihood, on pure stats alone, no other consideration, is that the woman who corresponded with PZ is telling him the truth. So on balance, where I have no other evidence than this woman’s testimony, is to believe her. How hard is that?
To think that this is all some weird beard conspiracy where PZ is making up rapes for shits and giggles beggars belief. This is awesomely uncommon an occurrence. Very, very few people risk libel suits and public destruction to make a trivially disposable claim. So Bayes and chums, what’s the null hypothesis? When a woman claims she has been raped is she more likely to be a liar than a victim? The stats are in. They’ve been in for a while and the overwhelming result is that she is much, much, MUCH more likely to be a victim. The problem (for believers) is that not enough victims come forward, not that there are hordes of vitriolic women out there just waiting to make a claim.
From the perspective of the uniformed outsider, me, the null hypothesis is that this woman was raped by Michael Shermer. From the perspective of the informed insider, PZ, the null hypothesis has sufficient evidence to corroborate it entirely. I’m not sure why some people are finding this difficult…
Louis
setec, you darn fool. I’ve BEEN raped during sex I initiated and, initially, consented to. You can’t even revise your argument when spoon-fed evidence.
Know when drunken hookups aren’t rape? When everyone involved is happy about it, never feels violated, and therefore never needs to start investigations or file charges. You can figure this out for lending money or borrowing your car, but access to someone else’s body requires lower standards? This isn’t just BS you’re spouting on a skeptic discussion, it’s fundamentally toxic and dangerous BS. The drunken-hookup myth lets rapists rape.
On the 1% or less chance that you’re actually arguing in good faith under all the BS, here’s what you need to see.
—-
(TW for descriptions of rape and not-rape)
—–
from Fugitivus – You know what consent looks like
Link to original comment
“nless several women identify themselves and provide evidence to support their allegations, including contemporary reporting of it to other people at the very least.
Who appointed you arbiter of the evidence we must accept? Your demand is for evidence required to prove a deity, an extraordinary level. The requirements for this are far, far, lower than that, being ordinary.”
Are you saying this is the amount of evidence you would require to believe in a deity? Nerd?
LykeX:
This reminds me of the first time I realized this about some people. It was fall of 1984. I attended a speech given by a man who survived Auschwitz as a teenaged Sonderkommando. In order to do the tasks that he did, you had to be tough. (And even in his sixties, he seemed very tough.) And it was forty years in the past.
Yet I overheard some of my fellow students expressing doubt about what he said because he did not break down and cry while he was lecturing. I could not get away from those students fast enough.
You are essentially telling the majority of victims of rape and sexual assault to shut the fuck up.
Thank you, Caine, for the advice in how to provide help. I think I will give it a try (though I worry that as an over-large, hirsute man that I will not be anywhere near reassuring to those I would help). I would also like to convey my admiration to all those who have fought through almost 1100 comments without becoming incarnations of bitter hatred directed towards the MRAs, JAQ-offs, and apologists. Also, to those who have. You have far-exceeded my own abilities. I only read through 1001-1098 and I had to walk away for a bit before responding.
I think 1096 has the right of the result of this. Or what would happen in a proper community with a few bad apples (I think the proper response would be an immediate investigation and a re-opening of the initial report, but my expectations have been lowered by reality). I predict that the fallout will be an increased vigilance of his behavior. Fewer women will accept drinks from him. He will have a harder time being alone with a woman. He will have a more difficult time “picking up” women. Or, perhaps I once again confuse the preferred outcome with the reality of “no change”. So, to those worried about Mr. Shermer’s public image, I would say, “Calm down. You have already proven that the majority will discard this in their considerations of him professionally. They will only acknowledge this incident if (or perhaps when) he strikes again (or maybe the time after that, or the one after that, or…)”
This is an irrelevant point, and up to the reader, not PZ or anybody else. Why are you insisting everybody uses YOUR ideas? I wouldn’t. You’re full of shit.
Fuckit, I am tired of engaging Setec, I just hope they never end up on a jury.
Anthony K, bcmystery, mcbender, Maureen, my thanks. And my love always to you, Maureen. You’re the best.
Also, Pteryxx, keep on rockin’ the education boat! No one does like it you can.
Let me be clear: Anthony McCarthy. Please don’t catch fire while I’m around. I won’t put out that fire, not even by pissing on you. Not even if I have a very, very full bladder, and I’m about to pee anyway.
Just so everyone’s sure of which Anthony I’m referring to.
Reporting is not for everybody. Anyone reporting a rape is scrutinized and blamed. Accusations of “he got me drunk” are likely to be dismissed by police as too hard to prosecute. They are then sometimes counted by others as unfounded accusations, since they didn’t go forward. Finally, recall that in Sarah Palin’s Alaska rape victims, not the police department nor the state, had to pay $1300 for the evidence collection kit. There are many deterrents, from the way people look at you to time, energy, and money. Do not second-guess people.
Typos are mine, it’s late. I am proud of being in uniform though. I think I meant uninformed.
Louis
@ Mr Mccarthy, successful prosecutions for rape are rare and, what is worse, tapes reported to prosecutors form only a tiny subset of all rapes that occur –
This is based on evidence from rapists themselves
Read the links below, do not persist in your self righteous bloviating.
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/
https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/predator-redux/
Women do not report all assaults and rapes because there is a price even if the predator is successfully contained. Read the link and stop your contentions based upon a fantasy of ideal world.
http://skepchick.org/2013/08/atheism-sexism-and-harassment-the-price-of-speaking-up/
What posts like this try to do is to give women a safe place to put their experiences to a wider audience, to give warning so that a potential abuser can be avoided and to provide a support network that for both the vulnerable and the victims.
None of this requires the intervention of a biased and cruel court system and it has little effect on the potential predators. These posts may restrict his access to a few women and might encourage a fleeting moment of self criticism but they are far from hurtful – even in the unlikely event that a potential predator is innocent
1200 comments?
catch-up is gonna take a while
I disagree completely with the people who are opposing this name-naming, but I can see how a principled, compassionate person would hold that position. Some on the flip side of this debate I would consider to be dead wrong, but OK people in my book.
On the other hand, a lot of rape apologists are showing their stripes here, and I think that’s a lovely opportunity for handing out some banishment. I humbly beseech the hammer man… Smite these evildoers!
Merlin:
YES! Thank you, thank you. As for being a large, hirsute man, don’t let it worry you. There’s a member of the commentariat here, goes by the nym Atheist Power Lifter. He’s a big, hirsute guy, self-describes as kind of rockin’ the big, bad biker look. At one point in his life, he was raped. He gives talks at schools now, and he gets through where a lot of people don’t.
Also, that sort of thing helps when you have to put yourself in front of a victim and face down a cop who is being a sexist asshole. That ain’t easy.
Caine:
I’mma bit late, but: *hugs* if you want them. I too owe you and a lot of other regulars a debt of gratitude for making me a better person. I’d already figured out the drunk thing years ago, but a lot of shit I did when I was younger would horrify (does horrify me) now.
And I’d still be a bit like that if it weren’t for you, and folks like you. But mostly, you.
Thanks Caine and Horde. Y’all know Caine and mouthyb are my rape-apologist-debunking heroes.
Fine, this is not so much a revision as a specification of detail I thought was implied: “If they initiate sex with someone, implying their initial consent, and then do not withdraw that consent, then the person isn’t guilty of rape for accepting the offer.” If you withdrew consent at some point, by telling the person to stop, or by passing out or something, then you have my fullest sympathy as a rape victim.
Ichthyic wrote: “this is personal testimony, not a fucking court of law.”
Very well. It is nonetheless the case that evidence matters in justifying the truth of what we say. A truth claim is on the table; it needs evidence. If all it’s got is hearsay, then that’s not very good evidence.
There is now a second claim being made to corroborate the first. This is an improvement. But I am still concerned about the hearsay nature of the claims, including the second.
Does that make me an ogre? This isn’t a case of someone coming to me directly and saying “I was raped.” It’s a report made by a blogger whom I do not personally know, initially citing an anonymous source that he admits is hearsay evidence, later supported by citing a second anonymous source. The two contexts are completely different, and I do not think that by withholding my credence in the second, I’ve committed a sin against women. Certainly, that is the last thing I would intend. But if I’m wrong please explain it to me.
Just do it without the following sorts of insulting personal attacks, which have no basis in fact:
Ichthyic wrote: “you know what I don’t believe?
“that you have any clue at all how your acquaintances that experienced rape actually feel.
“your own testimony supports this conclusion:
[me:] the fact that neither of us knew how to cope with it sank our relationship
“so, if you simply choose not to listen to what people here are telling you, and why your pursuit is irrelevant and inappropriate, all we CAN do is tell you to fuck off.”
All due respect, but that’s a giant leap. So, the only way that rape could ruin my relationship with a girlfriend is if I didn’t listen to her? Seriously? Talk about not understanding how rape affects people.
Try not jumping to conclusions about people just because you disagree with them.
NaturalPhilosopher:
Yet you are implying, whether you acknowledge it or not, the the woman’s word isn’t EVIDENCE. I claim it is solid evidence. That is your problem. You define what evidence you would take to be scientific and peer reviewed, and not empathetic and emotional as it is in this case. I feel sorry for you.
But people of both sexes have been getting drunk and going out and meeting people and having sex pretty much since the invention of liquor.
That’s irrelevant.
What is relevant is whether the sex (and the liquor consumption, I suppose) is consensual. At a certain point, a person is too fucked up (that’s the technical term for it) to give consent. You may ask, “at what point is that?” Well, one way to know what point it is – is to ask your partner. And if they’re too fucked up to respond or understand the question, then the answer is no. If they seem to be even close to that, then the answer is “no” (promoting “probably bad idea” to “be on the safe side; it’s a bad idea”) After all, asking for a rain check and a phone number is really not such an awful ordeal compared to hurting someone intentionally or unintentionally and having everyone involved suffer the fallout.
Now, all that on the table, consider that some people use alcohol as a deliberate strategy for lowering someone’s guard; i.e: getting them to have sex with them when they probably otherwise wouldn’t. And if that strategy gets them what they want, they may use it again and again. Whether they face criminal prosecution for that or not, it’s not unreasonable for people to tell their friends, “hey so-and-so is not a safe drinking companion. FYI.” In fact, “hey so-and-so is not a safe drinking companion” is cooler than motherfuckin’ peach slush, baby.
Jane Doe: I believe you, I support you, and I hope you are doing what ever you need to do to be safe and to be well.
PZ: Thank you for this post, and for taking this issue seriously.
Hyperskeptics: Maybe you have missed that this post isn’t really for you. It is not intended to secure any convictions in a court of law, nor to prove to you any claims that you would not believe without actually being there to witness the action.
This post is sharing potentially relevant information with other women, so they can minimize their contact with someone know to Jane Doe to be a bad actor. Other women can decide for themselves how to use that information. It is also sharing potentially relevant information about how much support targets of abuse can expect from conference organizers (hardly any). Potential conference-goers can decide for themselves how to use that information.
Members of the Horde explaining and calling out rape culture on this thread and others: you rock so hard.
Pierre wrote: “For a rape victim to come out with their account takes tremendous bravery. That tremendous bravery should not be met with dismissiveness and/or apathy.”
Agreed. Why is saying that we should investigate the claim — particularly when it is made in a public forum, and with the expectation that people will behave in light of it — “dismissive?”
As I’ve said already, if a woman came to me and said she’d been raped, I’d believe her. But if she asked me to name her rapist in a public forum, I’m not sure I’d do that without being able to back it up somehow. Different contexts entirely.
Fuck a duck, I garbled that a bit. TL;DR avoidance version:
Woman makes rape claim, null hypothesis is that she was raped. Why? Because rape is demonstrably common, false accusations of rape are demonstrably rare. Data is in.
Bringing no appreciation of the statistical data to such a claim is not objective, it is biased, it is ignoring existing data.
Where a sceptic should be placing his or her belief, his or her reasoned, provisional assent to the truth of a claim in lieu of further INDIVIDUAL data, is that the rape victim is statistically overwhelmingly likely to be telling the truth.
All of which is, I suppose, a long way of saying, rape is not bigfoot, believe women!
Louis
OK, I’m delurking for this. The idiots and apologists are teeming and tireless.
The courage and fortitude on display by those of you here calling them on their bullshit is amazing. Thank you all.
I, in my privilege, want to just roll my eyes at them and move on. But silence doesn’t help. OK.
Thank you anonymous survivor. I hope this helps you, and helps others the way you want it to. Dr. Myers, you have more integrity than most. You’re right; it’s a shame that that’s true. It’s still true. Thank you for shining a light on this.
Setec: if you don’t understand what you’re doing; I’m deeply sorry for you. Someday I hope you understand. In the meantime, if you truly meant the support you started out saying you felt: stop derailing into your precious hypotheticals and shut up. You’ve wasted enough effort from people who have more malicious idiots to argue with, and are not made of steel. If you’re actually trolling; bad cess to you. May you never suffer what you’re pissing on here.
Andrew McCarthy, I refuse to believe that you’re as stupid as you seem to prefer to appear. How sad to be you. I wish I had the sympathy to waste on assholes like you; I’d be a better person. Please fuck off. Based on your performance here, you’re an appalling example of humanity.
My gob is astonishingly smacked. I’ve read the entire thread.
Jane Doe, thank you for being brave and talking with PZ in an effort to get the truth out to the people who need to hear it.
PZ, thank you for throwing this grenade. It was courageous and the blast wave may be reverberating for a while.
Hordlings in the trenches, Tony, Caine, Esteleth, Pteryxx, Anthony K, Louis, Nerd, Ichthyic, Jackie, too many of you to name, you are all my heroes. I don’t have the skill to parse an argument and present it the way you talented people do, but damn, I admire you. You have helped me in ways you can’t imagine.
I would agree with this with regard to people feeling happy about it and unviolated during the act — that is, they should be enthusiastic participants. Regrets the next morning shouldn’t turn a night of consensual sex, however ill-advised, into rape.
As for your quote from Fugitivus, describing what consensual sex looks like, I agree. I don’t think you’re very far off from my position here. I’m not saying all drunken sex is consensual, obviously. Alcohol is a factor in countless rapes. I’m just arguing against the many people who have claimed the opposite absolute, the people who say sex with a drunk person who didn’t consent while sober is always rape. Several people above have made that argument, and they’re the ones I’m disagreeing with. It sounds like you would agree with my point here.
Apropos of nothing in particular.
It is a good thing that fear of getting caught does not even factor into my unwillingness to commit murder.
I also cannot set people on fire with only the power of my brain.
If neither of those things were true, PZ’s banhammer would likely have to be retired.
Nigel:
Damn. *serious, almost squeezed to death hugs*
Pteryxx, you too.
You are essentially telling the majority of victims of rape and sexual assault to shut the fuck up. Jafafa Hots
No, you are essentially proving that you can’t think. But I’m not interested in talking to you venters anymore. Rape is a felony, it is a crime, people who commit rape should be imprisoned, that takes a trial. You jerks don’t want to stop rapes, you want to vent to your mutual admiration. You’re just playing.
By publishing the accusation against a named person, PZ decided to use what should have been a notification to a prosecutor as an easy blog post guaranteed to get a lot of hits.
This is one of the most irresponsible blog posts I’ve ever read and the comments only prove how irresponsible it is. It could damage a case against a criminal or it could libel a someone innocent of an accusation. Any way you look at it, this is grossly irresponsible. It does any possible victims no good, it won’t serve any kind of justice.
Who gives a shit about the mental wankings of a rape apologitst? Maybe the Slymepit, but no rational and thinking people.
How very sincere and gracious you sound.
Because it needs to be said, and repeated.
Jane Doe, thank you for coming forward with this story. I am so sorry for all you had and have to endure.
PZ, thank you. Perhaps not for posting something you could not avoid posting. But for being the person and having built the community that made this post possible.
Thanks to all of the community here, who have taught me lots in the years I’ve read threads here. It seems to me this place is one of the cores that has made possible the current discussion and let’s hope cleanup in not only the atheist/skeptic but also in the wider geek communities.
[Apologies for posting without reading all the comments.]
It would be great if we lived in a world where serial rapists walked around with flashing red lights on their forehead. It would be great if we lived in a world where all rapists were found, convicted, and sent to jail. And needless to say, it would be more than great if we lived in a world without rapists.
Barring that, anything that will let women know which men to be wary of helps. And if the naming of Shermer leads conferences to start taking rape allegations more seriously, and perhaps even makes some would-be rapists begin to examine and modify the behavior, so much the better.
Thanks, anonymous, for having the courage to come forward. Thanks, PZ, for having the courage to do the right thing. And thanks to everyone in this thread for continuing the fight. Really, you’re making a difference.
Pete Newell @ 1228, dude, post more often.
Rutee Katreya wrote: “Other testimony is evidence. Unless, of course, that testimony came from women. Then we refer again tot he Accords.
“Fuck yourself, seriously.”
Great, again with the “naturalphilosopher hates women” bullshit.
I actually don’t believe that, whenever someone says that something happened, it happened the way they say it did. I don’t believe this even in the case of someone who is honest, because people make mistakes about eyewitness testimony all the time.
It’s one of the reasons why I reject arguments from experience when those arguments happen to be about, say, the existence of God.
It has nothing to do with the gender of the person making the claim. It has to do with the inherent weaknesses of testimony qua evidence.
In this particular case, it has to do with the hearsay character of the testimony as cited in the OP and the addendum. I don’t know these people — why should I trust them? Just because PZ — whose blog I like, but don’t always agree with — says they’re trustworthy?
I am open to persuasion on this score. Maybe Shermer is a serial harasser and rapist. But I’m not going to abandon my skeptical leanings just because — despite what you evidently believe — they fit my politics.
One might consider it worthwhile, but doesn’t this post expose FTB to a libel suit? Admittedly I grew up with the rather draconian English libel laws where the accused essentially has to prove his innocence, and I understand things are less stringent in the USA, but I’m not a lawyer and wouldn’t like to see FTB bankrupted by an alleged rapist.
*rude thread skip again*
Is anyone else detecting the thick putrid smell of classism in here? If this thread were a room, I’d open a window.
“When I call the consumable I am most certain that he shall come forthwith and put the perpetrator to immediate justice! Thus anyone with as lily white a conscience as mine (matches my complexion.) should be willing to do the same.” -Privileged Shitbag Esq.
Just another rare commenter checking in, thanks to the community for suffering through this mess that I have only skimmed in part. I think the argument for PZ reporting what he’s reported is compelling. I don’t know how you folks navigate through such constant streams of outrageous rhetoric.
That one just being the latest example I’ve seen while reading. Should have known crap like that would be the privileged male’s reduction of rape allegations. Disgusting.
Strange then how it was multiple anonymous (to start with) accusations via trusted sources that got Operation Yewtree off the ground.
Again, this is the START, not the end. This will lead to prosecutions (with sufficient evidence being available), not the other way around.
Louis
Caine and the rest of the horde, keep fighting the good fight for you really do make a difference.
Caine, how pleasant it must be to have a gasbag tell you that all you are doing is destroying court case and letting a rapist get away.
You are branded for being what you are since you wouldn’t shut the fuck up on face of real logic and facts. Deal with your tone and concern trolling elsewhere. Fuck off.
To recap, I basically started out saying maybe we should get slightly more details in order to figure out how many torches and pitchforks to bring. I give Shermer’s victim the benefit of the doubt on her story, while also acknowledging that the OP’s account of events left some doubt as to whether Shermer just sleazily took advantage of someone’s lowered drunken inhibitions or actually forced her to have sex with him. For daring to acknowledge that there’s a difference between the two (both of them being bad, but one significantly worse), I was repeatedly branded a “rape apologist” and even accused of wanting a “get out of rape free card” by Caine (who couldn’t be bothered to note that she was making the accusation based on someone else’s comment she misattributed to me).
All these ad hominem attacks sort of riled me up into defending my increasingly rhetorical/hypothetical points against the people who all but call me a rapist for simply questioning one small aspect of their witch-hunt. This part of the discussion has completely separated from the actual discussion of Shermer’s case, which may be a disservice, but after 1100+ comments I don’t think anyone’s really paying attention unless they’re here for an argument anyway.
Janine:
It’s a blast. In more ways than one. /sour sarcasm
To the rest of the Horde, thank you all so much. You all are going to make me puff up to a point I won’t fit through the door. Goodnight for now, it’s time for me to deflate (just a tad) and take a break. And possibly have a few beers. I’ll be back later on, to check the blood level on the floor. Fight on with those ferocious fangs.
Caine@1238 Can’t stomach the bullshit silently anymore. If knowing you have silent support helps, you have it.
Hell, you have it either way. Will try to be more vocal.
Gee, learn to read. I don’t take liars and bullshitters, namely godbots/creobots/IDiots word for anything other than lies. This is a different territory. Different rules apply. I accept the word of PZ’s anonymous source. As anybody with a brain being used would recognize.
Ichthyic wrote: “Say I have an acquaintance who I know (because I have seen it firsthand), is a professional car thief, and their MO is typically of the car-jacking variety. Let’s call him Jack. I, who would for many reasons would wish to remain anonymous, tell someone who I know many in my local community listen to that Jack (who also just as obviously needs to be named), is indeed a professional car jacker, and that they might want to make this information public in order to warn others not to give this person a ride in their car… Five bucks says that these idiots would entirely understand why that was valuable information to share, and not be here whinging that Jack was ‘tried without evidence’.”
But you wouldn’t take your evidence to the POLICE?!? You can do that anonymously, too, you know. And it might be even more effective than just having your friend make a public statement that someone knows Jack is a car thief.
“So what is different about it when the issue is someone who abuses their position of authority to sexually assault women?”
It’s not different. Suppose John doesn’t know Jack. If John hears a public statement that someone knows Jack is a car thief, is John justified in believing Jack is a car thief?
FFS.
True.
BZZT! NO! WRONG! YOU GET NO POINTS.
Most people go out with the idea that they might get a nice buzz going and maybe meet someone for consensual fun. A minority of people (rapists), via a keen understanding of the cultural tropes surrounding this practice, manipulate people they’ve selected into a position where they’re vulnerable to rape. The rapists also use said keen understanding of cultural tropes to pass off what they’ve done as equivalent to what everyone else is doing.
Fuck you. I was sexually assaulted by three different men on different occasions.
At the time as a young boy, there was nobody I could tell. My family was absent, adults were obviously not to be trusted.
That’s just one of many reasons a person might not tell.
I could type the names of two of the men right now. The third I didn’t know.
If I type their names, am I victimizing them? Because I didn’t uselessly tell someone when it happened, have I lost the right to say the names now? Do you honestly think anything could ever happen to them legally if I DO type the names now?
You’re telling me I cannot say what happened to me. You’re telling me the people that I have told that they can’t repeat what happened to me. And you’re telling every rape and abuse victim they cannot say what happened to them.
PZ should have contacted a prosecutor?
It’s not at all surprising that you don’t give even half a second’s concern for the woman involved who doesn’t want to be put through that and asked not to be named. Her wishes don’t count, it’s all on PZ.
You clearly have so little regard for the women involved that that oversight is not surprising.
But for you to expect us to think that you seriously believe PZ contacting a prosecutor would have ANY end result that would satisfy you? The only result – a criminal conviction? No, you’re not THAT dumb.
You’re just spreading a smokescreen/.
Oh really setec, you’re going to go there?
Y’know, I figured that would be your next apologia, and fortunately I considered it before naming myself as an example. You don’t know a damn thing about consent. You’re just concerned about protecting all those drunken hook-ups.
Have some hypotheticals. You lend someone your car. Did you explicitly say “don’t drag-race it into the ground” or do you expect the person to respect your property? You invite someone into your home. Do you explicitly say “Leave after dinner” or “invitation does not include sleeping over nor poking through my jewelry safe”? Or do you expect that the person will respect your boundaries and not simply help themselves when your back is turned?
—-
(TW because here’s where it gets serious)
—-
I consented to have sex. I did not need to explicitly say no, or pass out, for it not to be okay for my partner to anally rape me, cause me to bleed, or to be held down by my throat when I struggled to get away. I did not simply change my mind nor regret it later. That was not the sex I wanted to have. That wasn’t in the same universe as the sex I wanted to have.
And if you think only explicit withdrawal of consent makes rape not-rape, keep your sympathy to yourself. I don’t want it on those terms.
—
following up @1230:
Look at what you just said.
Who didn’t consent. Is always rape.
What’s the difference between rape and sex? C O N S E N T. Not consented-once, not consented-sorta, not looked-like-consent-but-was-drunk. Drunken hookups are risky, the same way (though seriously not in degree) that borrowing someone’s car without asking, or sleeping in their home without asking, are risky. Do you really think it’s all good because they’re drunk enough to give over the keys? Or does assumed consent only apply to body parts?
—
(*sings* C-O-N-S-E-N-T, I know what it means to me… sockittomesockittomesockittomesockittome)
Unevidenced assertion, like all yours, so they are *FLOOSH* dismissed with the appropriate sewage. Your OPINION is bullshit from start to finish. Hopefully, you will be finished soon. Be sure to wipe and wash your hands before leaving.
By even admitting that there isa the distinction between the people going out for consensual fun and the rapists, you’re agreeing with me. I’ve never denied that there are rapists who abuse this culture, who will take advantage of a drunk person’s state to force sex they don’t want upon them, and all those rapists can go to hell. I’m not and never have defended them. I’ve been very clearly stating this entire time the simple point that not everyone who participates in consensual drunken sex is a rapist. You seem to agree. Finally. Whew.
Naturalphilosopher, If the source of that knowledge is a known and trusted one, then yes, if only provisionally. After all, which is worst, not believing and giving him a lift and becoming a victim or playing safe and not giving him a lift.
We clearly need to update our Douchebag-to-English dictionary.
“You’re just venting”
TRANSLATION: “I am unwilling and/or unable (probably both) to respond to the many arguments and evidence refuting my points.”
Syn.: “You’re just being overemotional/hysterical”
Let’s play thought experiment, Anthony. There is a male rapist. You are allowed to do only one of two things: punish the rapist, or prevent him from raping again. Which do you choose? Which do you think will be better for society? Which do you think the next woman who would get raped would choose?
Now modify it again: the odds of him being punished should you choose the first option are low. The odds of preventing him from raping again, should you choose the second option, are high. Which do you choose?
Your point was irrelevant and demeaning to women, which is why it was rejected, as I reject it now. Who cares about your inane and selfish motives? Your word back rape apologists around the world, and for that you should apologize sincerely to the blog.
@ setec
This may be an academic matter to you, but as many commenters have made clear, it is an extremely triggering, personal, lived matter to them. A minimally respectful response to that reality would be to stop trying to argue “academic” points.
Pierre wrote: “Do I trust the victim? Absolutely. Does that mean I think Shermer raped her? Yes it does. It’s not a knowledge claim, its a trust claim.”
Give me a fucking break. “I think Shermer raped her” means “I think it is true that Shermer raped her.” We’re not just jacking off with semantics here. This is the sort of thing that PZ excoriates people for all the time — especially, and often deservedly, in my line of work. See his post about Gutting on Zeus.
Pierre again: “You said you were interested in truth. Well none of us here are in possession of it.”
Ah, so it’s to be cognitive relativism then. Hey, great news, everyone! Creationism isn’t true! Of course, neither then is evolution. Let’s just play a bunch of fucking word games about trusting this source or that.
Pierre: “The question is what do we do given what we have.”
Actually, my question is, what exactly do we have at all? If we take your position, what does it amount to? Believing that Shermer raped someone, but not believing that this is true? So if someone else believes — even after there’s a mountain of evidence sometime next week, say — that Shermer is a fucking saint, that’s also deserving of trust?
This is a dead end, Pierre. I shan’t follow you there.
this is what is known as a strawman.
again, your disingenuousness is showing.
would you have criticized your ex for publishing the name of her attacker?
it was a simple question I noticed you entirely avoided….
We get it. Some of you guys have raped a drunk woman, or your friends have and you don’t want to think less of them. Maybe, that’s not it. Maybe you just want to be able to rape drunk women, should the idea strike your fancy. You don’t want to feel bad about that. I know. Conscience is hard. You really want things to stay the way they are because you really like them this way. It’s working out great for you. You don’t want to fix what to you, ain’t broken. I totally get that.
Tough shit.
We’ll quibble with you buttnuggets here, for now. Still, no matter what extra special motivation your invented lonely virgin or important skeptic have for raping someone, it’s still wrong. Continuing down that road of questioning only shows you to be a complete and unrepentant asshole.
No matter how much you think women can’t be trusted to even know if they were raped, we will not shut them out. You are trying to circle wagons around someone who does not need your protection, at the expense of alot of people who do. Please stop.
we did give you a break. many.
there is no longer any reason to do so, because you’re a disingenuous idiot.
@ Anthony McCarthy
The purpose of the OP is stated very clearly. If you think a car should fly, the problem is not with the car.
Thanks very much to Jane Doe, to PZ, and the commenters backing them up.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING
Things that are things:
(1) Consensual sober sex.
(2) Consensual slightly-buzzed sex.
Once someone stops being slightly-buzzed/tipsy and becomes drunk, they are no longer capable of consent.
Which is to say that rapists manipulate this line, getting their targets drunker than the target wanted (via spiked drinks, drinks stronger than the target expected, etc), in order to assault them.
Louis…
I hope that people will confuse the two of us, because that comment at #1203 was wonderfully written.
PS. You can tell it’s not me because you don’t say “fuck” as much as I do ;)
So now we’re down to playing the Hunt for Legal Rape Loopholes game.
how do YOU go about vetting information?
something tells me even YOU have a process, when you can’t independently corroborate two opposing viewpoints.
again, you’re a disingenuous prick, and you don’t even want to admit it to yourself.
You know, the way the hyperskeptics just dig in their heels and demand evidence! Police! Report! Felony!… is just depressing. You people, where is your sense of empathy? Why are you putting yourselves and your demands before the victim?!
I await with interest to see what happens when the hyperskeptics (naturalphilosopher, I am looking at you) ask Shermer what happened. Obviously, you’re so concerned with evidence it seems reasonable to me that you’d, you know ask. Right? Unless you’re just hanging a convenient fig-leaf over your profound apathy…?
I’m sincerely sorry for what happens to you, and it’s clear you were raped. You said you didn’t consent to the type of sex, and then you obviously clearly withdrew consent by trying to get away. I hope your assailant did jail time, and I’m sorry you felt compelled to dredge up the details to argue against my point.
Don’t assume my motives. I’ve never had a drunken hookup in my life and never will. I’m just against the popular notion here of labeling every drunken hookup a rape in all cases including those in which both parties were enthusiastic participants throughout the act. Obviously your case was actual rape.
I agree with your definition of consent, “Not consented-once, not consented-sorta, not looked-like-consent-but-was-drunk.” My argument was specifically against the people who take it a step further and insist than enthusiastic-consent-throughout-the-act can be retroactively revoked or ignored because it was granted while drunk.
For everyone who keeps saying that rapes should be reported to the police and everything will be taken care of, please refrain from saying it again until you explain exactly how it was ok that a 41 year old man got off free in court after raping a 13 year old girl. And then, for bonus points, explain why anyone should trust the legal system with regard to rape given that the case in question isn’t an outlier.
And if your response is that the case in question happened in western Europe rather than the US, I’d like for you to go off in a corner with the people who keep claiming western Europe is above all of this petty rape stuff and it never happens there, and for you all to just argue with each other instead of anyone else.
Consent can be revoked at anytime fuckwit. Live with it. Elsewhere.
Nah. PZ being trustworthy or trusting his source hardly enters into it.
What enters into it is the fact that both PZ and his source have nothing to gain and a lot to lose from a false accusation; PZ may be a poopyhead, but he’s too smart for that.
And… you know… he said so in the OP.
I have to conclude that, in spite of the claim in your comment 1082, you have not read most of the OP, you have not even skimmed the comments, and you haven’t thought the problem through on your own either. Perhaps your reading comprehension is unusually poor, perhaps your memory is a colander – I’m trying to say you can be massively wrong without lying; but you are massively wrong.
And yet you fill entire screens.
*sigh*
And I’m saying that if it actually happened, he would by guilty of wrongdoing: of blithely assuming all is fine when in fact his friend is quite obviously drunk out of her wits. He’d be guilty of acting on his wishful thinking. He’d be guilty of criminal stupidity. The resulting sex would lack informed consent, and that would make it… r… rrrrrrrrrr…
…oh, comment 1151 has said it already. And so has 1163.
For the record, I know so few people in meatspace that I’m a 31-year-old bearded virgin. Although I lack acute withdrawal symptoms, I have a pretty good idea of what I’m missing out on; I’m involuntarily chaste. But all that is completely beside the point. Recognizing one’s wishful thinking as such is really not that hard.
What, are you saying that rape is a miracle on par with the existence of a disembodied mind that can move matter?
TSIB.
You are Lawful Stupid.
“So now we’re down to playing the Hunt for Legal Rape Loopholes game.”
i know, right?
it is very telling about the 101 level fail that is trying to muddy this all up.
setec
Wow setec, you are a nasty little person.
You were insulted which arent ad hominem attacks.
Scenario 1:
I did. they did fuck all about it, because I could provide no direct evidence he stole MY car, or anyone else’s for that matter. All I could tell them was I had seen Jack do this, and heard him talk about it on more than one occasion. I had no other choice than to go public with the info.
Scenario 2:
The cops interviewed Jack after I presented them with my testimony. They arrested him, and his lawyer (disclosure laws) got them to tell him what the source of their information was.
After being released on bail, Jack murdered me, since I was the only witness.
….
the world must work very differently in your head to the way it does in reality.
(TW for the last time)
Gee thanks setec, for validating in your own distantly removed comment-reading judgement that you agree WITH MY OWN ASSESSMENT THAT I WAS ACTUALLY RAPED. That really demonstrates your comprehension of a person’s right to determine their own consent. QED. *spits*
again with the court of law.
this wasn’t a charge. it was a warning.
any of that getting through, at all?
Am I seeing this right?
OP: I reported, but was ignored and given the brush-off.
Commenters: YOU SHOULD REPORT IT!!!
Nope, because whether or not more women get raped isn’t the point. That doesn’t even register with these people, that the point is to keep more women from being harmed, because the women don’t even count in their system. The only thing that matters to them is the scorecard for each individual man and how he ranks in society, and whether anything can be legally done to bring the high ones down a peg or two.
I had written: “But I also didn’t publish the name of my girlfriend’s attacker on a blog and say that he had raped someone.”
Leni then asked: “Would you have if she couldn’t prosecute, but had asked you to because she knew he was still raping people?”
Nope. And the reason is this. If I had made some sort of public charges about knowing that so-and-so was a rapist, but without evidence, then one of two things is going to happen.
1. I get sued for some form of defamation, libel, slander, etc.
1. A. I provide evidence in my defense, to the effect that he did in fact rape my girlfriend. This would drag my girlfriend into exactly the problem which, ex hypothesi, she doesn’t want to be.
1. B. I provide no evidence and lose my case. The rapist wins.
2. I don’t get sued. He simply moves on or waits for the reaction to die down. In which case there are no consequences anyway. If I’m not going to present my evidence, why should anyone believe me? So while I might feel better in the near term, outing him doesn’t actually change anything. I can sympathize with PZ feeling torn on this.
Ultimately, she didn’t want to go public, so I of course didn’t. I focused my efforts on helping her as best I could. Admittedly, my best wasn’t good enough back then (it was 20 years ago). I’d like to think I could handle it better now. But I also know not to underestimate how damaging this sort of trauma can truly be.
“outing him doesn’t actually change anything. I can sympathize with PZ feeling torn on this.”
the hell? so, just keep it a secret, no difference!
it’s not like he was asked to do this kindness! (well i think this was implied)
What the fuck?
You seemed to be describing your own case for the purpose of countering my point. I said I’m sorry about what happened to you and my point was always intended to apply to different situations than yours, and was not intended to diminish the type of thing that happened to you, when it happens to you or anyone else.
For that, you spit on me? Are you just determined to be hateful no matter what I say?
“I believe”/”I am inclined to think”/”I suspect that”/”I trust that”, etc. I don’t care the words used to convey the message. I have repeatedly said I don’t know if Shermer raped her. I am merely trusting the victims word because its the right thing to do. I am not assuming the victim is making up a story to get Shermer. That is not a knowledge claim. It simply isn’t. I trust the victim. That is all.
Pierre again: “You said you were interested in truth. Well none of us here are in possession of it.”
Ah, so it’s to be cognitive relativism then.
No it is not. I’m stately an epistemology fact. No one here posting actually knows exactly what happened. That doesn’t mean there is a truth of the matter.
Hey, great news, everyone! Creationism isn’t true! Of course, neither then is evolution. Let’s just play a bunch of fucking word games about trusting this source or that.
The equivocating with Creationism isn’t going to work on me. I really don’t care about that sort of thing. I am an atheist and have followed this blog when it wasn’t basically atheism 24/7 sans feminism. I only started giving a damn when feminism started getting more currency around here. Creationists don’t mean much to me. I don’t get butthurt by those comparisons. I don’t care about “New Atheism” or “Skepticism” or what have you.
Pierre: “The question is what do we do given what we have.”
Actually, my question is, what exactly do we have at all? If we take your position, what does it amount to? Believing that Shermer raped someone, but not believing that this is true? So if someone else believes — even after there’s a mountain of evidence sometime next week, say — that Shermer is a fucking saint, that’s also deserving of trust?
This is a dead end, Pierre. I shan’t follow you there.
We have the accounts of two different women. One who was the victim and one who was with the victim after the event. I am only suggest trusting the victim.
For all those who, despite their protestations, have not read and reckon they don’t need to read the whole thing I’ll put up again the link which SC very sensibly gave us almost 1,000 posts ago.
http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/15/15848051-prosecutor-leads-effort-to-test-long-abandoned-rape-kits-brings-justice-to-victims?lite
Fucking read it, will you. And you, Anthony McCarthy!
I need evidence.
Wow, I had no idea I was going to be proved so correct so quickly.
What is it about OTHER WOMEN WILL NOW KNOW TO STAY CLEAR OF HIM do you not understand? How is it possible that if he doesn’t get thrown in jail, you think the entire thing is over and there has been no change at all? How can you possibly be so callous as to disregard the very real result that he will have a much harder time getting another woman drunk and rape her as “no consequences” and “doesn’t change anything”?
Dogberry –
Well, anyone can sue for anything if they can convince a lawyer to file the papers … Shermer can certainly afford a lawyer.
But he doesn’t have a case. Shermer is a public figure. In US law, a public figure can’t win a libel case unless he can prove that the publisher acted with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that the published statements were false or with reckless disregard for the truth. Shermer cannot possibly prove that PZ acted with actual malice.
If the court doesn’t dismiss a libel suit out of hand, PZ doesn’t have to prove that what he wrote about Shermer is undeniably true, merely that it was reasonable to believe it to be true.
I am no friend to MRAs…most of their conduct and opinions I find disgusting.
I also believe victims should be believed and not silenced. I hate rape apologetics of any kind. I think having sex with someone who is drunk is non-consensual. And I think Shermer, if he is guilty, should be in prison.
All that said, this is not what is happening here. This is a public outing of someone who is, according to all legal statutes and precedents, innocent until proven guilty. And while that certainly is a problem if he is guilty and gotten away with it, is throwing away all the ground hard won over the centuries because of it is, at the very least, problematic.
One can respect the feelings of a victim and still acknowledge that yes, some guilty people will go free due to lack of evidence or what have you. It isn’t a conspiracy to silence victims, but a fact of our modern legal code, which is infinitely preferable to the alternative.
Again, on the record as NOT defending any sort of MRA position, but if you cannot see the problems that come with publicly shaming someone over hearsay when there is apparently not ennough evidence to prosecute, then perhaps you need to re-examine the bigger picture regarding the rights of the accused. And yes, the accused does have rights, even when they have been accused of a crime as heinous as rape, child abuse, or what have you.
Hopefully I got the quote thing right this time. I added ************************s encase it does not. I don’t want to re-post the same thing 3 times.
***************************************************
“I believe”/”I am inclined to think”/”I suspect that”/”I trust that”, etc. I don’t care the words used to convey the message. I have repeatedly said I don’t know if Shermer raped her. I am merely trusting the victims word because its the right thing to do. I am not assuming the victim is making up a story to get Shermer. That is not a knowledge claim. It simply isn’t. I trust the victim. That is all.
****************************************************
No it is not. I’m stately an epistemology fact. No one here posting actually knows exactly what happened. That doesn’t mean there is a truth of the matter.
*************************************
Hey, great news, everyone! Creationism isn’t true! Of course, neither then is evolution. Let’s just play a bunch of fucking word games about trusting this source or that.
The equivocating with Creationism isn’t going to work on me. I really don’t care about that sort of thing. I am an atheist and have followed this blog when it wasn’t basically atheism 24/7 sans feminism. I only started giving a damn when feminism started getting more currency around here. Creationists don’t mean much to me. I don’t get butthurt by those comparisons. I don’t care about “New Atheism” or “Skepticism” or what have you.
****************************************
Pierre: “The question is what do we do given what we have.”
Actually, my question is, what exactly do we have at all? If we take your position, what does it amount to? Believing that Shermer raped someone, but not believing that this is true? So if someone else believes — even after there’s a mountain of evidence sometime next week, say — that Shermer is a fucking saint, that’s also deserving of trust?
This is a dead end, Pierre. I shan’t follow you there.
*********************************************
We have the accounts of two different women. One who was the victim and one who was with the victim after the event. I am only suggest trusting the victim.
Since your inane point was irrelevant, you can deal with being refuted elsewhere. Meanwhile, think about how you have poisoned us with your rape apologies against everything you say….And shut the fuck up.
You know when you get that sense of de ja fuck my idiocy? A party I was at, late into said party everyone was in the same room, a married friend was a little drunk, another married friend was hitting on her, I could sense discomfort on her part, but didn’t act on it. I should have, and could have, and knowing what I know now, I most definitely should have ! … I know what I feel will never be the same as ‘ANON’, but PZ has done more for the helpless victims than I did … That makes me feel guilty.
I hope I don’t make the same mistake again, I not only believe ‘ANON’, I respect her choice.
Well I almost got that quote thing right…and almost got the asterisk separation right….damn.
Maybe all caps will help.
THE POINT IS NOT TO SEND SHERMER TO JAIL.
THE POINT IS TO KEEP HIM FROM RAPING OTHER WOMEN.
THIS CAN BE DONE BY WARNING OTHER WOMEN TO STAY AWAY FROM HIM.
THIS RESULT WOULD BE A POSITIVE ONE.
@1293 bobchaos23
“This is a public outing of someone who is, according to all legal statutes and precedents, innocent until proven guilty. ”
what part of “the legal system is broken and we don’t know what else to do” do you not understand?
we aren’t arresting this person, we are refusing to hide this!
I’m not even sure it’s that significant!
I think it is indeed related to the scorecard they keep in their own head, but it’s just a scorecard… it doesn’t even have meaning beyond “winning an argument on the internet”, and since there is no penalty for being repeatedly wrong, somehow they think repeating the same argument ad nauseum will inevitably find someone who agrees with it, thus justifying it as a “win” in their own minds.
it’s sad, really.
Imagine a creationist on a youtube channel, repeating flood geology nonsense ad nauseum. They don’t care that a thousand people had responded to them, letting them know exactly why their idea is rubbish. All they care about is repeating it until that 1001 person comes along and agrees with them.
Since there is a very low probability that these clowns, especially being male, need to worry about being raped by Shermer at next years TAM, they can sit back and “analyze” warnings about him as if they have zero impact on them, because of course, they don’t have any impact on them.
but, being male, they CAN imagine themselves being impacted by an allegation of rape, so they feel justified in coming here to bitch and moan about something that actually doesn’t concern them.
they just don’t want to admit they are actually massaging their own brains with male privilege, while they pretend to sit back and “fairly” judge the value of releasing information like this.
It’s beyond galling.
“Therefore, we believe the accuser until we have good reason not to.” (couldn’t figure out how to properly use the quote thing, sorry)
I am no friend to MRAs…most of their conduct and opinions I find disgusting.
I also believe victims should be believed and not silenced. I hate rape apologetics of any kind. I think having sex with someone who is drunk is non-consensual. And I think Shermer, if he is guilty, should be in prison.
All that said, this is not what is happening here. This is a public outing of someone who is, according to all legal statutes and precedents, innocent until proven guilty. And while that certainly is a problem if he is guilty and gotten away with it, is throwing away all the ground hard won over the centuries because of it is, at the very least, problematic.
One can respect the feelings of a victim and still acknowledge that yes, some guilty people will go free due to lack of evidence or what have you. It isn’t a conspiracy to silence victims, but a fact of our modern legal code, which is infinitely preferable to the alternative.
Again, on the record as NOT defending any sort of MRA position, but if you cannot see the problems that come with publicly shaming someone over hearsay when there is apparently not ennough evidence to prosecute, then perhaps you need to re-examine the bigger picture regarding the rights of the accused. And yes, the accused does have rights, even when they have been accused of a crime as heinous as rape, child abuse, or what have you.
if these feinds want the policy to be “keep it a secret until the police finally do something” well too bad, read the OP. that was attempted. it didn’t work
read the OP
read the OP
read the OP
Icthyic wrote: “you’re a disingenuous prick, and should shut the hell up now.”
Gee, that is a really great argument. Totally doesn’t reinforce the point I made when I said that “I don’t suppose anything I say can possibly convince you otherwise.”
You have my word, from here on out, I will indeed shut the hell up — at least with respect to anything and everything that you say. Because you have no interest in discussion, just berating me on a thoroughly ad hominem and — as if to prove my point about some people’s ironic complete lack of skepticism regarding the OP — thoroughly evidence-free basis.
and that’s why she’s your ex.
and you still don’t get it, which is why you will have a long list of exes in your life.
here’s hoping you learn to change before you get old and gray, if you’re not already.
the really great arguments were entirely misrepresented, ignored, and spat on by you.
what’s left?
fuck off.
NERD: STOP IT NOW.
What do you mean SOME will go free? MOST rapists go free.
But we don’t want to undermine a system that is so flawed that it actually usually does the OPPOSITE of help, right?
No conspiracy to silence victims, huh.
So shut up, you victims. There is no conspiracy to silence you. DROP IT.
That fiction only exists in the courts. This isn’t the courts, incase you are so stupid to miss that fact. Who the fuck cares about the legal system if it isn’t involved in any fashion with this blog. This just is prima facie evidence you are a rape apologist trying to obfuscate the discussion with irrelevancies…
next up:
“I must have touched a nerve!”
ROLFMAO
you are a complete fuckwit.
Sure, Shermer can sue PZ for libel.
If he can have a court of law declare that the allegations are false.
Anyone assuming this is a trial should wait to be called to testify.
If you feel like you can speak when you want, then you know this isn’t a trial, so stop pretending you believe it is – it’s embarrassing.
For anyone asking for more evidence, it might be helpful to phrase your question a bit more honestly, thus:
“In order for me to believe these women, they’re going to have to (insert evidential demands)!”
If that sounds just a bit shitty to you, please consider your shit-o-meter might not be registering a false positive.
Thank you.
“what part of “the legal system is broken and we don’t know what else to do” do you not understand?”
One could just as easily ask “What part of “innocent until proven guilty” do you not understand?
I mean, if you don’t think that concept is important, then fine.
I am NOT saying people shouldn’t believe her, comfort her, help her.
I am saying that outing him on a blog when there is no evidence is problematic. if you don’t see how it’s problematic, then you are a bit of a lost cause.
bobchaos23@1293:
Please cite whatever legal authority you claim means that no one can express a view about a matter prior to criminal conviction.
bobchaos23:
You have not been called to testify.
If you think this is a trial, that means you should not speak.
If you know it’s not, stop acting like you think it is.
“what part of “the legal system is broken and we don’t know what else to do” do you not understand?”
One could just as easily ask “What part of “innocent until proven guilty” do you not understand?
I mean, if you don’t think that concept is important, then fine.
I am NOT saying people shouldn’t believe her, comfort her, help her.
I am saying that outing him on a blog when there is no evidence is problematic. if you don’t see how it’s problematic, then you are a bit of a lost cause.
Two people have come out personally to PZ, even if it is anonymous to the rest of us. It is one thing to trust the posts of completely anonymous persons on the internet, it is quite another to be indifferent to people who have come out personally to someone.
So you’re agreeing with one of the things PZ said in that very post.
OK, can we move on now that you got your special personal blog post reiteration?
That is only when one is being tried is a court of law. Nowhere else. Any fool knows that….
There is the same evidence that would be present in a court of law. HER WORDS. Why are you being so dense not to see that, unless you don’t believe any woman’s word on anything….
@1312 bobchaos23
“””One could just as easily ask “What part of “innocent until proven guilty” do you not understand?”””
you are going to have to connect the dots between that idea and not posting this info in the midst of the other accusations. we don’t have the power to put the person in prison. and other avenues have failed.
“That fiction only exists in the courts. This isn’t the courts, incase you are so stupid to miss that fact. Who the fuck cares about the legal system if it isn’t involved in any fashion with this blog. This just is prima facie evidence you are a rape apologist trying to obfuscate the discussion with irrelevancies…”
I am a rape apologist….um, right. Glad to know you were able to figure that out just for pointing out a valid concern with how this is being handled.
And yes, people can say whatever they want online, no consequences. Good to know.
I had written: “I don’t suppose anything I say can possibly convince you otherwise. I took issue with the lack of evidence in the OP, ergo I think women aren’t people.”
Galactic Fork replied: “In the OP the evidence provided was the testimony of a woman that PZ trusted enough to quote and put out this warning. Now you are specifically saying that “the testimony of a woman” is a lack of evidence.
“Do you see how people are making that interpretation?”
No, I don’t. It wasn’t a woman who came to me. It was a blog post citing an anonymous source. I don’t that source, and I don’t even know PZ. I don’t “trust him.” I believe that the things he says in his other posts are true — much of the time, anyway — because he makes good arguments for them, and even provides evidence. It has nothing to do with him.
And that’s why, on those occasions where he hasn’t made a good argument or provided sufficient evidence, in my estimation, I am inclined to disagree with him. This is exactly such a time, for the specific reason that it’s an anoymous source that even PZ himself described as hearsay initially.
If some tidal wave of allegations about Shermer comes out, I’ll change my tune. I’m not going to fight the emergence of a pattern, if a pattern there be.
brianpansky@1318:
Well, we did have him secured away in Internet Prison, but Anthony K had the Warden of Public Opinion release him.
true,Nerd of redhead, in a court of law, the same words and accusations would probably be published publicly.
way to red herring all the way, bobchaos23
bobchaos23,
If you had troubled to click on the link at 1289 (and also at 432) you would just possibly have realised that part of the problem with getting rapists locked up is that those charged with doing that sometimes don’t even try.
That’s in addition to the element of chance you get with any jury trial, indeed any trial which depends upon witness evidence.
This isn’t a court of law. Pretending it is is stupid on your part. So, why did you do that? Think about that before your next non-sequitur post.
“you are going to have to connect the dots between that idea and not posting this info in the midst of the other accusations. we don’t have the power to put the person in prison. and other avenues have failed.”
So anytime the legal system gives a result you don’t approve of all bets are off?
…aaaaand that answers that. Setec, you’re trolling this thread. Fuck off. You’re not worth engaging; you’re not interested in being convinced, and you’re not worth anyone’s energy here.
“naturalphilosopher” – nice handle – nobody’s arguing with you. They’re telling you to fuck off. Any old time now.
bobchaossomenumberwhatever. If you follow the phrase “I don’t agree with {whatever bunch of assholes} with the word but, you’re either saying something poorly, or you’re lying. Either way. Please stop.Think some more and listen some more, and try again when you’re able to better express yourself. Or just piss off. Either way.
I’m sure there’ll be another bunch of contentious prick along in a minute. You guys take a break.
A second source has come out. Read the revised OP.
Naturalphilosopher –
What the fuck does it even mean to say you’d “believe her” if you refuse to do anything about it without “back up”? What the fuck are you worth, then?
You can’t go to the police on her behalf; they won’t even open an investigation on your say-so (unless you were an actual witness, and then, maybe). You can’t force her to go to the police; that’s immoral to force upon a rape victim, especially knowing what you know about the damage victims experience during the investigations/trials.
What the fuck, do you think holding her hand and murmuring “now now it’s okay I believe you” is the sum of your moral duty? What about your duty to all the other woman that rapist is going to succeed in assaulting because you were too chickenshit to do anything real with the name you were provided by the victim you know?
You’re immoral. Where you have the knowledge and the position to make a difference, and you refuse, you’re a cowardly little shit.
Fuck you and your self-justifying “I believe her” nonsense.
Show me where the legal system is involved in posts at this blog….or shut the fuck up.
“I’m not going to fight the emergence of a pattern, if a pattern there be.”
ya, i’m sure the pattern feel warmly welcomed to bear themselves NOT ANONYMOUSLY for the likes of what we are seeing here.
the OP now cites a second source. it is still anonymous and PZ delivered.
Fancy.
Yes, we know that. We know that when a woman you don’t know claims to have been raped and you don’t personally have evidence that convinces you (which clearly means a conviction) then you are not inclined to believe her.
“This isn’t a court of law. Pretending it is is stupid on your part. So, why did you do that? Think about that before your next non-sequitur post.”
I am not saying it IS a court of law. I am saying that outing someone as a rapist so that everyone in the world shuns him because he cannot be proven in court to have done it is PROBLEMATIC. PZ is free to do it, obviously, I am just criticizing the strategy of doing so.
But fine, anytime the courts do something we dont like we can just form a mob and beat the shit out of the accused in the middle of the street, no problems there because its NOT A COURT OF LAW so all bets are off.
And why is that? Show the damage to MS, or shut the fuck up as a rape apologist….
I’ve really tried to delve into this conversation, but I just can’t do it. It’s way, way too triggering for me, particularly the whole thread of discussion with setec who seems to be the living embodiment of every self-blaming thought I’ve ever had after a friend purposefully and maliciously pushed spiked drinks on me until I was blacking out and somehow I was just asking for it and coming onto him. Thanks, dude. /sarcasm
Less sarcastically: Thank you, Jane Doe, for telling your story and warning others. Thank you, PZ, for providing her the anonymous platform in which to do so safely. Thank you to everyone here fighting the good fight and pushing back against rape culture. People like you are doing so much more good than you can see directly.
I wish I could help right now, but I just don’t have it in me tonight. Thank you.
Some ways I can tell this is not a court of law:
PZ isn’t wearing a powdered wig.
I didn’t go through a metal detector to get here.
No one was sworn in.
There’s no sign of a “Court TV” camera crew.
IT’S A BLOG!
Those of you looking for legal standards of evidence have taken a wrong turn! Please wait outside for the shuttles that will take you to a court of law!
Apologies, hotshoe, Nerd of Redhead. You have more patience than I do.
Another lynching bullshit from a bullshitter. Nobody has suggested anything be done physically to MS. If he loses some speaking engagements and magazine renewals, big fucking shit.
Pete Newell:
I’d just like to add my vote. If it is co-incident with your desire to participate, please continue to participate.
“bobchaossomenumberwhatever. If you follow the phrase “I don’t agree with {whatever bunch of assholes} with the word but, you’re either saying something poorly, or you’re lying. Either way. Please stop.Think some more and listen some more, and try again when you’re able to better express yourself. Or just piss off. Either way.
I’m sure there’ll be another bunch of contentious prick along in a minute. You guys take a break.”
Riiigggghhhht. Because pointing out the fact that this kind of strategy (you know, the whole “we didn’t like a legal ruling so we are just going to do whatever we like to the person WE KNOW is guilty”) has flaws means that I am lying about hating most MRA scum.
Whatever. Guess the people who say it’s pointless to actually try talking to any of you FTB people is pointless were right, even if they are wrong about so much else.
Enjoy your witchhunt, which is all this is, even if the witch in this case is real.
what was PZ saying “nerd: stop it now”? i must have missed something?
Fucking hell. It seems like many of the objectors to PZ’s decision t o post this are conflating knowledge with belief. Which coming from a purported atheist/skeptical community is just sad.
Once again, my skeptical thought process on this:
1 Sexual assault and rape happen, and happen often. Claims of such are not extraordinary
2 Lack of action on the part of organisations when such claims are made is a demonstrated phenomenon.
3 Dire repercussions to victims who speak out is a demonstrated phenomenon.
4 Men in a position of power abusing that power in the service of obtaining sex, and in the service of covering up wrong doing is a demonstrated phenomenon.
5 People with power, prestige and money can survive a false accusation better than those without it.
6 Shermer has all those things.
7 If the allegation is true then other people are at risk.
Of course none that of means that I know that the claim made in the OP is true. But it does mean that choosing to believe this woman is the right thing to do, and I would go so far as to say that it is the rational thing to do. It certainly is the compassionate thing to do.
And where the fuck has these people’s ability to adapt their thinking in light of new evidence gone? Should credible facts come to light regarding this incident I will change my beliefs based on those facts, in either way. But right now the most likely, most compassionate, and least harm position to take is that the accusation is true.
I’ll also point out that if the people in the Catholic Church who were in PZ’s position had done has he did, it might not be the evil, immoral institution that it is today.
other much?
The Mellow Monkey, my apologies for the collateral damage. Please take care.
You aren’t presenting a cogent argument. Merely script#12 from the Slymepit. Think about that.
“Enjoy your witchhunt, which is all this is, even if the witch in this case is real.”
what fucking witch hunt? why is secrecy demanded? why does your logic fail? whyyyyyy
“it’s pointless to actually try talking to any of you FTB people”
you seem to be the wall we are talking to.
bobchaos23:
But there’s no evidence only if you completely dismiss her story. Is that how you’re going to play this? That rape victims are only believed if they can prove … what, exactly?
As soon as you start dismissing the story of the person who was raped, you provide social and legal cover for the rapist. And that’s what you’re doing: dismissing the story of the person who was raped, as soon as you claim it is “no evidence.” (And the story of the person who is raped is evidence, even in a court of law.)
I get that you are “just making a point” (JUMPing off?). But you still are trivializing the report of the person who was raped.
And that makes you a rape apologist.
Well, to avoid publicly impugning someone’s reputation, yet still warn as many potential victims as possible when formal avenues have failed, women *could* instead warn each other privately and informally. That went over SO WELL, right?
“And why is that? Show the damage to MS, or shut the fuck up as a rape apologist….”
Good to know that having people think you are a rapist and not hire you for speaking engagements, book deals, whatever does not count as “damage”.
Also, you may want to dial it back a bit and not accuse someone who clearly isn’t a rape apologist of being one just because they criticized something. Kinda takes the teeth out of your bite when using the term “apologist” properly. I didn’t question the validity of her rape accusation, I questioned the strategy of publicly outing him for it.
Duh.
“women *could* instead warn each other privately and informally. That went over SO WELL, right?”
exactly, we’ve been over all of this. but they are stuck on repeat.
bobchaos23:
So, the fact you weren’t here to talk, but to lecture, didn’t contribute to your inability to make headway, right?
*pops head back in*
MM:
Fuck. I was hoping and hoping you wouldn’t come back into this thread and see all ugly apologia by setec. I knew what it would do to you. I’m sorry, so sorry. I hope you’ll be alright, take care of your self. *hugs*
FossilFishy, it turns out an old friend was pointed to this thread from elsewhere, and let me know that they concurred with your initial post in this thread, so I thank you for that wonderfully clear, concise post.
Something PZ had warned me about earlier. I understand his warning and why.
bobchaos23:
Actually, you did. As soon as you claimed there was no evidence, you quested the validity of her accusation.
If you think legal = blog required evidence, or that women tell porkies about being raped, then you are a rape apologist. Welcome to reality, just not your version of it.
Anthony McCarthy, present and past:
“…given the attitude to the necessity of EVIDENCE among the “skeptics” here, I’m not holding my breath.”
“You have any evidence that Tom Johnson has lied about what he said, present it or accept that you can’t refute it.”
What do you want to bet that the people who are jumping up and down about the wrongness of a victim naming her rapist and that information being shared are the same people who regard “Schrodinger’s Rapist” as a horribly unfair tarring of ALL men without sufficient evidence?
So, we’re not allowed to help others be safe by naming predators.
And we’re not allowed to keep ourselves safe by exercising caution (because we recognize that predators don’t come with flashing neon signs identifying them as such).
It’s almost like these deep thinkers are committed to the view that, in order not to go beyond the bounds of evidence (and to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings by recognizing their at least hypothetical capacity to harm others), people just need to suck it up and live with being raped or assaulted.
That seems like a pretty rotten piece of ground to be staking out.
Delurking long enough to say that I love the Horde. Thank you Caine, Icthyic, Anthony K, Rutree, and everyone else that I’m too pissed off to remember right now. You are all awesome, just absolutely awesome.
And thank you, PZ, for posting this, and dealing with all the shit that has and will continue to follow.
My heart goes out to you, Jane Doe. You are a hero for sharing this. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Mellow Monkey:
More *hugs*, if you want them. I got nothing else. I tried writing more, but it all just came off as if I were a privileged asshole, even being aware of the bits and pieces that add up to a fuckload of pain.
So, just the offer of *hugs*, if you want them.
I’m going to break my extremely young policy of self-imposed non-responsiveness Ichthyic for a couple moments, because I believe it’s important.
I had written: “So, the only way that rape could ruin my relationship with a girlfriend is if I didn’t listen to her? Seriously?”
Ichthyic responds: “this is what is known as a strawman. again, your disingenuousness is showing.”
So I went back and read the post that had occasioned my alleged straw man. And it turns out that I had misread your claim. You said that I “refused to listen” — to people here. In my haste to get through these endless comments I misread it as “refused to listen” — to her.
It wasn’t disingenuous. It was an error. And I am quite happy to own up to being wrong when I am.
So my question is this. Why are you assuming that my posts here are indicative of “disingenuousness?” Truth be known, I think that you’re committing a fallacy known as “poisoning the well,” and it’s why I decided never to respond. In the interest of cleaning up said well — perhaps — I offer the above admission of my error.
But I stand by my initial points, to the effect that skepticism regarding a blog post — even about rape — is justifiable.
Ichthyic: “would you have criticized your ex for publishing the name of her attacker?”
Nope. Her choice how to handle the situation. But if she had asked me to come forward and report that “someone says this guy is a rapist,” I would have balked, for a number of reasons outlined in an earlier post.
Please note also that I have not said one word about Karen Stollznow’s decision to come forward about Ben Radford, right here on PZ’s blog. There’s a reason for that.
Ichthyic: “it was a simple question I noticed you entirely avoided….”
I didn’t notice that it had been asked. Had it?
Only if they have 4 male witnesses, of course.
…no legal ruling involved anywhere in this thread…
…nothing done or advocated except as a strawman by assholes…
No, the structure and contents of your statements means you are either poorly expressed, or, as is often the case in internet arguments, taking a position you don’t actually hold so that you can undermine it. Personally, I think you’re sincere but misguided, and not thinking or expressing yourself particularly well, but I gave you two options, The one you chose to argue with is interesting.
…registered here an hour ago, never posted before this thread, but carry on. Also, try listening as well as talking sometime, I’ve heard it spoken of highly……
Flounce.
Didn’t expect the “read and listen” part to get any traction either. Wish I was worse at parsing this sort of thing.
That’s about as much effort as your contribution to the thread is worth. Are we done? I’d really like for us to be done.
“But there’s no evidence only if you completely dismiss her story. Is that how you’re going to play this? That rape victims are only believed if they can prove … what, exactly?
As soon as you start dismissing the story of the person who was raped, you provide social and legal cover for the rapist. And that’s what you’re doing: dismissing the story of the person who was raped, as soon as you claim it is “no evidence.” (And the story of the person who is raped is evidence, even in a court of law.)
I get that you are “just making a point” (JUMPing off?). But you still are trivializing the report of the person who was raped.
And that makes you a rape apologist.”
Ok. If you say so.
Just wondering…if someone I know accuses someone else we both know of beating them up and mugging them, I believe them and tell them to go to the cops, they do so and the legal system does not think there is enough evidence to convict or charge them, and I STILL BELIEVE THEM and then they go onto their blog or facebook or what have you and accuse them of the crime, are all those people obliged to believe them? Or even if they do believe them, to act on it in some way? Or does this logic only apply to rape?
Rape is obviously a serious crime, and I am NOT saying that anyone should get away with it. But internet vigilantism does not make actual victims more likely to speak out or do anything else that might actually be useful in solving the problem of rape in this society. All you are doing is giving actual MRAs ammunition. Sorry of you don’t like that fact, but if calling me an “apologist” makes you feel better, have at it.
bobchaos:
Oh yes, you questioned the validity of her rape accusation. You’ve been trying to tapdance all around that from your first post, however, you aren’t fooling anyone (except yourself, perhaps). You dismissed the woman’s account, which, if we were in a court, would indeed be considered evidence.
All of your posts can be condensed down to this:
“Now, don’t go mistaking me for a rape apologist, BUT…you know, a man’s word is everything, think of the awful, horrible things this might do. Really, the proper thing is to provide a mountain range of evidence, then it must go through the cops, then the court system, because man, awful things. As for the woman’s accusation (not testimony or anything), well, that’s just bitches be lyin’. Happens all the time.
Stop fucking digging already. We have already heard this idiocy ad nauseum.
And yes, I just registered now, because that’s what people who had no intention of commenting do when they finally decide to comment.
Don’t worry, learned my lesson. Have fun calling me a rape apologist when I hate MRAs about as much as you probably do.
bobchaos23:
So if no legal recourse is possible, and the information shouldn’t be put in the public domain without this, and the risk of the perpetrator repeating his previous activities is high, what do you think should be done to support past victims and how would you advise trying to prevent future ones? For all the handwringing in this thread about the poor poor accused, I haven’t seen a decent attempt at answering these questions? Other than, as docfreeride has noted:
I’m a long term lurker, and have the utmost respect for the Horde who engage in threads like this. I’m so sorry I haven’t done anything to help to share the load. You folks have given me the most amazing education, supported me through some rough times (without even being aware of it) and overall give me a tiny shred of hope for humanity…!
“But internet vigilantism does not make actual victims more likely to speak out or do anything else that might actually be useful in solving the problem of rape in this society.”
that’s a nice start to a coherent idea. now tell us why we should be convinced of that statement.
…you missed that business with the football team in Ohio, didn’t you? Begins with S.
http://jezebel.com/5969076/we-wouldnt-know-about-the-steubenville-rape-case-if-it-wasnt-for-the-blogger-who-complicated-things
fuck me, but you are not only dense, but blind, since you answered it in the very post you said you didn’t notice it in….
wow.
you can be safely ignored.
SC:
I love you.
Hypotheticals are folks who have lost the real argument, and are vainly attempting to score points due to ego…
Show conclusive evidence anybody here is ganging together to do physical violence to MS, or acknowledge your statement is hyperbole and meaningless. That is reality.
Nerd wrote, of me: “Yet you are implying, whether you acknowledge it or not, the the woman’s word isn’t EVIDENCE. I claim it is solid evidence. That is your problem. You define what evidence you would take to be scientific and peer reviewed, and not empathetic and emotional as it is in this case. I feel sorry for you.”
I am not implying any such thing. I am implying that PZ’s blog post was not good enough evidence, as I saw it. Especially since he himself referred to it as hearsay.
I have received no information from any woman about Michael Shermer’s conduct. There is literally no such evidence for me to dismiss.
And for what it’s worth, even where’s PZ’s post is concerned, I haven’t dismissed a thing. It might be true. But I think it should taken with a grain of salt. So did PZ himself, as his evident discomfort indicated.
I again fail to see why any of this makes me an anti-feminist, woman-hating monster, which is what a number of posters seem to think I am, but which would be news to pretty much anyone who has ever actually known me or even so much as sat down with me to talk American gender politics for twenty minutes.
I seriously doubt you are capable of learning anything in this situation.
I base that on evidence that you yourself have presented here, and not the testimony of others.
now why would that be, I wonder…
Bobchoas@1365 so sorry for skipping the pronoun. *I* just registered here an hour ago.
If that makes me one of “you FTB people”, wow, that was quick.
Thought everybody here was good to enjoy our witch hunt? You talk a lot for a guy that gave up on talking.
Oh right. It was a flounce. Congratulations on the follow-through.
No it wasn’t heresay. It was direct from the victim. You should understand that, but appear incapable of that nuance.
There are two women at the moment. But, if you don’t take PZ’s word they are reliable and trustworthy, you don’t have any evidence. This isn’t science. But using your criteria, you don’t believe the existence of the Higg’s boson, since you got it second hand from physicists….
bobchaos23:
You aren’t obliged to believe. Just don’t claim you do, and simultaneously claim there is no evidence. It’s one or the other, not both.
The problem with rape is much deeper than a simple mugging of one what male from another. Rape victims are systematically denigrated, ignored, and treated as problems rather than victims. This isn’t even up for debate. It’s documented. So your hypothetical situation is a strawman, not even equivalent to what’s happened here.
You dismissed the claims of the purported victim. That’s your right. I’m just pointing out, that’s the common situation for victims of rape. From conference organizers to police to judges, the victims of rape are overwhelmingly ignored and humiliated by our justice system.
This isn’t up for debate. It’s well-documented.
So in that respect, you are perpetuating a culture of victim-blaming, and shielding the rapist.
The current system discourages rape victims from speaking out. This kind of “internet vigilantism” (which I disagree is the case here) sure as fuck can’t be worse than the current situation. It might help change cultural norms, which feed the enforcement and justice systems — but more importantly, feed the attitudes of those who think it’s OK to rape in the first place.
And no. We’re not giving the MRAs ammunition. That’s what you do when you also don’t accept the story of the rape victim. That’s what happens when you also attempt to silence those who would speak out against rape in a public forum, just because you think the justice system would better serve our goals.
It’s not that I don’t like that fact. It’s that it’s not a fact at all. It’s something you feel better believing, because … well, I have no idea why.
All I know is, solving the problem of rape in society does not start by ignoring the story of the rape victim.
Which is exactly what you’ve done.
Here’s the thing about hearsay:
If Random Lady On The Street walked up to PZ and said, “Michael Shermer raped me,” PZ would doubtless be concerned. But he doesn’t know her, he doesn’t know her reputation, doesn’t know anything except that she walked up to him and said four words.
He probably would not make a blog post about it.
However, that is not what happened her. A woman, that PZ knows and trusts to be generally reliable and honest, confided in him that she had been raped. She told him when, where, and how.
That is not equivalent to the first example featuring a stranger.
I’d just mention in response to piegasm at #1090:
Uh, when Christians pull that one out, we call it Pascal’s Wager. It’s the wrong reasoning when applied here too, and gives rape apologists all the ammo they need to further discredit accusers.
I find Jane Doe credible because her account is getting multiple corroborations, and PZ’s acknowledgment that he knows her personally and can vouch for her character and truthfulness.
Nerd@1376 You’ve nailed it: “Were you there?”
I *knew* this bullshit sounded familiar.
Sure you have. It’s right there, in the OP. Everyone who has read it has received information from a woman about Shermer’s conduct. There’s also a confirmation from a witness. Right there, in black and white.
Oh, no one has personally e-mailed you with the details of their encounters with Shermer? Poor baby. Best run off and nurse those doubts to keep up that shallow hyperskepticism of yours.
This post and the reasons behind it are how, and why, anonymous reporting should be done.
This information needs to be out there. Not in a nebulous manner with no context and the very real possibility for abuse, but where someone who is afraid tells someone they trust who can keep their name out of it while telling their story.
The person victimised here has been incredibly brave in speaking up. If they’re reading I hope they ignore the jerkbuckets in the thread and focus on the following:
You have been incredibly brave. You’ve risked much to tell your story and get it out there. You’ve risked having to relive it all over again. You’ve risked being identified when you don’t want to be. You’ve risked abuse and public humiliation which you do not deserve. That takes an incredible amount of courage.
But even more importantly than that…
You’ve saved someone. Somewhere, someday he would have done this again (…because you are no doubt not his only victim). Even if he can’t go to jail as a convicted rapist (which he should, for a very long time… but we’re so far from a perfect world it hurts) you have saved someone from having to go through being victimised by this sack of crap.
You’ve done something so brave and so good and just… Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank, you, thank you…
And thank you, PZ. It’s risky for you, too, to publish this. I know how ugly these abusive rapist assholes get when their slime is exposed to the light.
…but if these shitstains get to continue festering in the dark their list of victims will only grow.
I hope he can never again leave his house without someone shouting “Rapist!” at him. I hope he never has the opportunity to be alone with a woman again. I hope that he loses every chance he might ever have to be in a position of power over anyone. I hope he’s shunned and shamed and hat every person he knows turns away from him.
That is the least of what this fucking disgusting excuse for a man deserves.
bobchaos23:
naturalphilosopher:
I called myself a feminist for 15 years, didn’t stop me having the most fucked up views about rape and sexual assault. I was a complete chill girl, just ‘one of the boys’… took me years to finally acknowledge my own rapes and assaults, because you see not calling them what they were was my last attempt at holding onto some sort of power over my own experiences. You think you’re good guys. You probably are, in a day-to-day sense, not telling women to get in the kitchen and raping and pillaging all over the place… But you got some shit to learn about rape and sexual assault. That’s nothing to be ashamed of, if you’re willing to actually do some learning. The 2 ‘meet the predators’ posts at yesmeansyes linked to earlier in this thread are a good place to start. Or just read this thread in it’s entirety.
NigelTheBold @ 1377 – or pretty much what you said!
Um, isn’t Pascal’s Wager about believing in a benevolent deity with infinite happy life in heaven as the consequence that infinitely outweighs any possible objection? I hardly think that compares when rape, rape apologia, and most importantly rapists going unreported are common and realistic factors.
bobchaos23 –
You’re either dishonest or stupid or both.
Keep on defending the “right” of accused rapists to have their names kept out of public discussion, and we’ll start to figure you have a reason to worry, personally, about being named in public.
(1) Have you ever been in a situation where you tried, but for various reasons did not succeed, in having sexual intercourse with an adult by using or threatening to use physical force (twisting their arm, holding them down, etc.) if they did not cooperate?
(2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they were too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances (e.g., removing their clothes)?
(3) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with an adult when they didn’t want to because you used or threatened to use physical force (twisting their arm; holding them down, etc.) if they didn’t cooperate?
(4) Have you ever had oral sex with an adult when they didn’t want to because you used or threatened to use physical force (twisting their arm; holding them down, etc.) if they didn’t cooperate?
Dogberry wondered: “One might consider it worthwhile, but doesn’t this post expose FTB to a libel suit? Admittedly I grew up with the rather draconian English libel laws where the accused essentially has to prove his innocence, and I understand things are less stringent in the USA, but I’m not a lawyer and wouldn’t like to see FTB bankrupted by an alleged rapist.”
I had the same concern. In the US, I believe that you have to prove that the person’s negative characterization of you caused material damage to your life. So if Joe spreads a false rumor that “Mike sleeps with sheep,” but nothing really happens, then no biggie, even if a number of people believe it — but if Mike’s business goes under because people won’t work for, let alone buy from, someone who practices bestiality, well, then Joe is going to have something to answer for.
The bar is higher for public figures to prove damages, since courts have generally held that public figures should expect to see their names dragged through the mud. That high bar would apply to Shermer.
Still, it’s a worry — and although a lot of people think me sexist for my posts here, that worry is part of why I’m bothering to write. Consider.
Suppose — just suppose — that the claim turns out to be false, for whatever reason. (And I want to emphasize, I have no reason to suspect some conspiracy or fabrication on PZ’s part. But even honest, well-intentioned people can be wrong.)
Or suppose that Shermer is charged with rape sooner or later, but acquitted. (This could happen even if the claim is true. As I’ve already noted — despite my alleged sexism — there are plenty of biases against women in our legal system, especially when they charge a man with rape.)
Now suppose that, as some people on this very board have commented, they hope he loses speaking engagements and income over this.
Would there be a case? I don’t know. As I said, the bar is high. But if the claim turns out to be wrong or just “not enough” for a conviction, and if he seems to take an economic hit from it, well… The case could be made.
A legitimate cause for worry.
Martin Wagner:
I really wish people would stop being such asses in comparing a god belief with rape and sexual assualt. Stop it.
No, it is not, and no it does not. The default position should be believing someone who states they were raped or assaulted, until there is reason to disbelieve them. Honestly, you haven’t really read much of this thread or gleaned much in the way of education, have you?
Wow, due process much, PZ?
If your witness turns out to be falsifying (Just FYI, that’s for investigatory efforts and the courts to sort out, not you – so you can dump the savior complex) then guess what – you are accountable for libel.
Did that even cross your mind before you vomited this out on your blog?
Certainly a reminder that secular rationalists seem to be quite logically bankrupt when leaving their particular niche.
Naturalphilosopher:
I just want to say before I respond that I don’t think you are an evil rape apologist.
While I don’t think you’re concerns are unwarranted, I think they are (in this case) misguided. Lawful stupid, maybe even (that link was hilarious, btw).
Outing people like this makes me really, really uncomfortable. It’s scary and risky for all kinds of reasons, and has serious repercussions for both accusers and accused. It’s fucking scary shit and I really do empathize with your fears.
You know what else is scary shit? Getting raped by someone you respect and trust and then getting shitcanned because you didn’t go to police for totally understandable reasons. And then finding out that all kinds of people (not victims like PZ, I mean) knew about it but didn’t say anything because adhering to social norms is more important than safety.
Not if it’s true. PZ has a very good reason to think it’s true, just as you did when your girlfriend told you. I understand there are issues of proving it, but in this case there probably won’t be a trial, ever. I think we’d all like to see justice, but that probably won’t happen and rarel does. As someone mentioned above about Operation Yewtree, this is sometimes the only recourse.
And are you this skeptical of claims against the Catholic church?
PZ did this so the woman could remain anonymous. If your girlfriend had asked you to do that for her, to protect her anonymity and with the intent of warning others, and you said no because you were worried about lawsuits? Would you really do that?
Well, carlie answered this part, which is pretty much the same as the next part, but also so do his potential victims that hear and heed the warning. So can (possibly) the previous victims who hear and maybe come forward too, even if it’s not a Law and Order SVU episode. Also, so do the conference runners who heed the warning and prioritize safety of attendees over starpower.
It’s a shitty situation and humans have been known to fuck up even perfect ones. I’m not interested in using a past fuck-up to bludgeon you. I hope you learned from it, but I’m having a hard time seeing evidence of that right now.
But what if she had wanted to go public but was afraid, legitimately, of the backlash? What if you know this person was continuing to hurt people? What if you knew people who would be his future victims?
How could you not tell them?
docfreeride
Knowing your profession makes me place great value on your opinion on this. Thank you. And may I just say that in general and specific: you rock.
caine
Thank you for that. I know just how much I don’t know on these issues so that reassurance was very welcome. And may I also say that in general and specific: you rock too.
So we’re back to “people just need to suck it up and live with being raped or assaulted” (docfreeride) again are we, because if the police don’t take you seriously, or the prosecution decides there’s not a case to take to court, or if the judge thinks you’re a 13 year old sexual predator and directs the jury to acquit, or the whole ordeal has left you too traumatised to even think about reporting it to the police in the first place, and the person who raped you has shown every likelihood of doing the same thing to someone else… then you need to just suck it up and keep your mouth shut because dog forbid you cost the guy some fucking speaking engagements?!
David Marjanovic wrote: “I have to conclude that, in spite of the claim in your comment 1082, you have not read most of the OP, you have not even skimmed the comments, and you haven’t thought the problem through on your own either. Perhaps your reading comprehension is unusually poor, perhaps your memory is a colander – I’m trying to say you can be massively wrong without lying; but you are massively wrong.”
-sigh- So much for even trying to have a rational discussion.
I did read the OP, and a vast number of the comments. You don’t want to accept my claim? Bully for you. That’s a good skeptic. Don’t know what purpose it serves for you here, since you abdicate all claim to reasonability the moment you decide that it’s okay to declare my reading or memory abilities suspect. Ad hominem garbage unworthy of furher response.
I will happily admit that I did not read the remainder of YOUR comment, though!
Cheers.
Jeffrey Robinson:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHHH! Listen dear, just spare us and fuck off, okay? Jesus Christ, is there a fuckwitted asshole parade today?
In case you missed it, your post was #1,388. Try going to the first page and READING. SHUT UP AND READ. OR, SHUT UP AND GO AWAY.
Jesus blistering fuck this thread moves fast. I’ve finally gotten to the current end, and totally lost most of what I wanted to say at various points, leaving me to reiterate my previous support for Jane Doe, Caine, Tony, Rutee, Pteryxx, and all the rest in here fighting the good fight. For those of the ever-rotating cast of assholes on current shift fighting the other side, I encourage you to pick one of the uninhabited but technically inhabitable area I mentioned to the first shift, and join them there. You know who you are.
I go on to add, as countless others have, that probability indicates that a given allegation of rape is highly likely to be true, and thus the default response should be belief, barring specific evidence to the contrary (e.g. the alleged attacker was on video elsewhere at the time;). There are reasons this may not be a correct standard for a court of law, but as many people have pointed out, we are not one, and for those who care about reducing the incidence of rape (ideally to zero), it is better that someone might occasionally get a bad reputation they do not deserve than that serial rapists should continue to get away with being serial rapists.
Jeffrey Robinson:
Holy Jesus Christ in a Chorus Line, but this is getting ridiculous. Doesn’t anyone know what’s required for libel? HINT: writing an intentional untruth, with an intent to harm. That’s a minimum. Both of which are damned hard to prove under the best of circumstances. This is not even close to a valid case of libel. Any attempt to prosecute this would result in a SLAP counter-prosecution.
Yeah, IANAL, Bob Lawblah. But this is common knowledge, and an easy first-level summary.
Granted, you didn’t call it slander. So you’ve got that going for you.
caine@1387 My bad for similar offense. Point taken.
I just wanted to say: I once had my laptop stolen, and once I had my car broken into. I reported the former to the police, but not the latter. Is there anyone among those who refuses to believe this woman’s story that want to be hyper-skeptical of my claims? If not, why not?
Leni:
I swear, I think a whole lot of people really think that’s how law enforcement and the justice system works. Boy, do I ever have bad news…
Dalillama:
It’s quite easy to never, ever get a reputation as a rapist. Don’t rape.
Shermer’s reputation as a Great White Dudely Hero is being put to question by PZ and the Horde. Then follows the inevitable whining from the fellow dudebros.
Please note those who are advocating that the rape victims testimony shouldn’t be accepted unless they front up to the rapists are the people I totally abhor. They know not or care not the damage that they do to the victims of rape.
Go the Horde. I dream of having a mutual paw shaking with some of you one day.
You’re a ridiculous liar. That bears no resemblance to what’s actually happening here.
Jayzus, you dumb bunny, there hasn’t even been a legal ruling in any Shermer rape case. so we can’t in any logically possible world be doing the “whole we didn’t like the “legal ruling” thing you stupidly claim.
And even if Shermer had been investigated, charged, tried, and found not guilty, publishing a blog post claiming that he was, after all, still a rapist, would NOT constitute doing “whatever we like to the person WE KNOW is guilty”
Shut the fuck up if you can’t start telling the truth.
You need to provide actual evidence that you hate MRA scum. I don’t know you and I don’t know anyone who will vouch for you. Why should I believe anything you say?
I wrote, with regard to the hypothetical of me publicly outing the rapist of a loved one: “outing him doesn’t actually change anything. I can sympathize with PZ feeling torn on this.”
brianpansky wrote: “the hell? so, just keep it a secret, no difference!”
Ever hear of the fallacy of false dilemma?
Pete Newell:
Thank you. Unlike Martin, you were not using the comparison to silence victims or state that default believing them was a skeptical no-no.
Martin Wagner, it sounds the same except for one very important distinction, ignore the warning and you could be a victim of rape, an actual ‘thing’, ignore Pascal’s wager and you might be putting yourself in danger from the possible existence of a type of god similar to the Biblical one. However, if the Biblical God actually exists and is as claimed, it would know that I was not sincere so Pascal’s wager is useless to me anyway.
I hope Shermer sues you into the poor house.
The culture of always believing a sincere seeming claimant of victim status does not give you license to post what you have.
I know a guy that was accused of abusing his daughter by his wife after the divorce proceedings weren’t going as she planned.
It still got around that he was an abuser, despite a criminal prosecution leading to his daughter breaking down and admitting that her mother told her to lie and what to say.
Would you like this guy’s name PZ so that you can blog about him and warn others?
nigelthebold @1377:
Yeah, I think that’s what a lot of the douchebag contingent doesn’t understand.
It’s fine if you don’t find the evidence so far persuasive. Really, it is, provided that you’re not dragging out the usual misogynistic tropes (women lie, if it really happened she would have gone to the cops, etc. etc.) to justify it.
It really doesn’t bother me if any individual reader of PZ’s post isn’t persuaded — your individual opinion just isn’t that important. (Nor is mine, for that matter.)
It’s up to each of us to do with this information what we will. We each have to decide not only how persuasive we find it, but also what our personal “burden of proof” is for the various decisions we might make. With the information presently available to you, would you:
1) Allow yourself to be alone with Michael Shermer (if you’re a woman)?
2) Warn any women you know who are likely to encounter him?
3) Buy Shermer’s books?
4) Attend conferences where he’s speaking?
Note that for some of those, the burden may be less than what would apply in a court of law. If I was only 49% convinced that someone was a rapist, that wouldn’t be enough to convict if I were a criminal juror, or to find liability if I were a juror in a civil case. But I sure as hell wouldn’t let a friend be led off by Mr. 49% without making sure she knows the facts and is making an informed and competent decision.
so now people are just concerned for PZ being sued or whatever? that makes it BAD for him to bravely do?
what?
hasn’t this all been responded to?
Nope, presupoositional mental wankers are incapable of learning. Are you? Then shut the fuck up and listen to the women.
Just a small note, since I can’t keep up on the new comments. I totally agree with PZ’s actions.
A great deal of the argument here involves the perfect being the enemy of the good.
If it was rape the perpetrator belongs in jail. If we can’t have that then we should do nothing.
This is just so wrong…but I hear variations on it all of the time.
alexbrookes, your posts have been great and I’m so glad to hear your voice. I’m sorrier than I can say that you too are part of the legion who has been assaulted. Welcome to the Horde.
“I reached out to one organization that was involved in the event at which I was raped, and they refused to take my concerns seriously”
First mistake right there, instead of heading straight to a hospital or to the police, and thus could of collected evidence of Shermer’s deed you wasted time by going to the people who don’t have any legal authority to do anything about it. Now all we have is hearsay.
Shermer could sue the women and PZ for libel, and since PZ dust up with Thunderf00t his own character has been called into question which could lead to PZ being skeward in the court of public opinion, regardless of what the context of his actions and words are. This is all ignoring all of the negative press that will be generated against the Skeptic Community.
screechymonkey:
Well said.
“Uh, when Christians pull that one out, we call it Pascal’s Wager. It’s the wrong reasoning when applied here too, and gives rape apologists all the ammo they need to further discredit accusers.
I find Jane Doe credible because her account is getting multiple corroborations, and PZ’s acknowledgment that he knows her personally and can vouch for her character and truthfulness.”
Martin, based upon one person’s accusation, would you write something public like PZ has done here? I hope not.
As I stated before, PZ is acting as the judge, jury, and executioner in the court of public opinion, and I seriously hope he gets sued over this.
If that happens, then PZ will either be forced to reveal his sources or he will go down.
We disagree, you and I. You’re entitled to your opinion of course. Also? It would be interesting to see a culture resembling that which you describe. Several vague terms in that description would have to be more clearly defined, of course.
Excellent use of a terrible analogy. You’re entitled to your poor logic, but you make yourself look aggressively stupid. It is possible that we disagree on that too, I suppose.
gregranzoni:
Oh? Do tell us about your experience with being raped, and be sure to give us all the details about how wonderful it all went at the hospital and the with the law.
What? Can’t do that? Then fuck off, you arrogant slimeball.
Martin Wagner
To believe this claim to be true rather than false because of the possible consequences of that belief is different from Pascal’s Wager in one fundamental way: Actual harm can occur from choosing to not believe it.
Sexual assault exists, rape exists, sadly, horrifically there is ample evidence for them. There is no such evidence for hell. A compassionate, socially conscious person seeks to minimise harm wherever possible, and in this case that minimisation comes from accepting the claim as true.
Also, the argument from final consequences fallacy only applies to knowledge claims. I do not claim to know the accusation is true because of the possible consequences. I assert that believing the claim until further evidence either way is presented because of the possible outcomes of that belief is rational and more to the point, moral.
SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT WHAT SHE “SHOULD HAVE DONE.”
Seriously, stop it.
gregranzoni@1410 “The negative press that will be generated against the Skeptic Community.”?!?
Seriously? Get the fuck out.
Something about this smells… all too convenient sounding accusations. ‘Trusted’, ‘upstanding’ people have either been mistaken or outright lied concerning incidents ranging from rape, child molestation, devil worship, etc., and have been proven wrong/exposed. LIS,….something about this smells.
Not for libel, he couldn’t. Also, if he attempted it, he would have to show that he did not assault any woman, ever. There’s been a lot of quiet emanating from that corner.
“First mistake right there, instead of heading straight to a hospital or to the police”
no, the first problem was someone was a rapist. the second problem was the people she went to didn’t help.
you should have read the thread
you should have read the thread
go read:
http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/15/15848051-prosecutor-leads-effort-to-test-long-abandoned-rape-kits-brings-justice-to-victims?lite
I wrote: “I have received no information from any woman about Michael Shermer’s conduct”
Ichthyic replied: “now why would that be, I wonder…”
Because, to the best of my knowledge, none of the women I know have ever been in the same room with Michael Shermer. My lack of information from them on this score is therefore hardly a mystery.
But I do appreciate the faux-perplexed insinuation that I would dismiss any such information that did come from women I actually encounter because they are women and I, after all, am clearly a sexist pig.
(Looking forward to the “Darwin-knew-eyes-couldn’t-evolve” quote-mining of that last bit. Have at it, y’all.)
Martin, I’m a big fan of TAE and you in general, but I have to disagree with you here
I’d point you to FossilFishy’s post about whether we should believe rape accusations. Rape is not at all an uncommon or unevidenced occurrence. The harm of not believing in a god cannot be proved. The harm of not believing a rape victim is very much a common problem for rape victims. It might not be a philosophically sound position, but in terms of human compassion, it its totally defensible.
To Caine, Nerd, FossilFishy, Pete Newell, Pterryx, Jaffa, and all the others fighting the good fight I give you tons of Jedi Hugs.
To Jane Doe, you are incredibly brave and I appreciate you coming forward. Extra Jedi Hugs for you.
to PZ, King of the Poopyheads: Thank you for posting this. I’m not sure I would have had the courage to do so if I were in your position.
stevecarlos
Why? Is the reputation of your dudebro bravehero more important to you than helping prevent the rape and mental anguish being inflicted on even more women? We know where your priorities now lie, you fucking brave hero you.
gregranzoni:
On what grounds? Libel’s awfully damned hard to prove. And since PZ posted this believing its contents, it would be impossible to prove, as well as being untrue.
If you’re going to amateur-laywer, at least know what the fuck you’re talking about, mmmkay?
(I think the freethought anti-sexists out there are going off the deep end, metaphorically.seeing ‘Communists’ everywhere.)
brianpansky@1406:
Yep, that’s about it. They’re concerned, you see. Very concerned. Only have his best interests at heart.
I would like to hereby apologize for and retract all previous statements made here today.
When someone is accused of a crime, any crime, they should not have an opportunity to defend themselves, nor should their accuser have to provide any evidence aside from a verbal statement. This can of course be delivered either in person, or through a proxy.
At this point, it becomes clear the accused is guilty (because really, who doesn’t say they are innocent?), and they are taken out and shot.
It’s the only way to ensure that no victims ever go wronged by the legal system, and that those who are found to be guilty/accused never do it again. I know that now.
Again, my sincerest apologies.
Thanks Caine. You are a hell of an inspiration :)
This sort of shit is so personal for me at the moment (possible TW)
It has come to light recently that my 12 year old cousin was seriously assaulted by a 14 year old boy at her school. It took her 6 months to tell her parents because she ‘didn’t want them to be disappointed’ in her. She has to go to school with him, he’s telling other kids that’s she’s a total slut, and she’s got random girls messaging her on Facebook to tell her they don’t believe her side of the story. The grandmother of one of these girls (who works at the school in the canteen) even stopped my cousin in the corridor to tell her she’d heard my cousin was self-harming (she’s not) and if she were she’s only got herself to blame. The one positive is the police have actually been amazing in this instance, and it looks like the case will go to court.
During all this, the one thing other adults in the family have been saying is ‘what made a 14 year old boy think this behaviour was ok?’ Fucking rape culture, how does it work?!
Apologies, got a bit off topic there, it’s nearly 3am and this thread has been fairly epic. Thank you Horde, thank you Jane Doe in the OP, thank you PZ. I fucking love this place!
Caine
Quite. But since so many of the JAQoffs are so fucking concerned about the reputations of big namesjust in case there’s some kind of wiggle room, I figured I’d try once again to put things into perspective for them. Also, this doesn’t just cover Shermer; there are several other big names that have been mentioned as people to avoid due to sexual harrassment, but who have not been named as rapists. Given what is known about how sexual predators tend to behave, it is not at all unlikely that one or more of them may also be a rapist already, or move on to that in the future if they haven’t yet. It is better that they get a reputation as creepers and people to be avoided than that people should bend over backwards to be ‘fair’ to them, giving them more opportunity to prey on those who could have been warned but weren’t.
neuralobserver:
That’s not surprising, given the amount of assholes in this thread. You joining in isn’t helping. Here’s a thought: GO TO PAGE ONE OF THIS THREAD, SHUT UP AND READ. Or just go away. We’re already drowning in assholes here.
Are any of you “take it to the police or it didn’t happen!” people clear on what you are suggesting as an alternative to coming forward with this information?
*trigger warning*
So, Shermer should get to rape in secret if he is successful in escaping justice in a system and culture set up in his favor? A system and culture known to not only frequently fail, but to also cause further suffering to the victims?
I’m not talking about hurt feelings. I’m talking about girls who kill themselves over the abuse and harassment they receive for daring to try to bring their rapists to justice.
You’ve seen evidence of the cover ups of sexual harassment. You’ve heard the experiences of many women. You’ve been given links to facts that contradict so much of the bullshit you are shoveling. But you aren’t reading and you aren’t thinking.
I take it that your standards are the same for all the rapists who never see the inside of a prison, or even a court room.
I guess all those children who fail to get convictions better stop slandering their rapists too. Gosh, it’s a pity that rape is traumatizing and the system is broken. Still, to be fair to the accused; pics or it didn’t happen, kiddies. That priest should be able to teach at the next parish without his reputation sullied.
If the courts fail to find you guilty, you must be innocent.
Just like George Zimmerman.
I mean, you are the same people who think he’s innocent, right?
You sound a bit like them.
I’m betting a certain amount of crossover exists on social justice issues. Please, correct me if I’m wrong.
Let’s think about doing this your way:
Should I take my teenage daughter with me to The Awesomest Meeting so the whole family can get to know Mr. Big Name Skeptic? I mean, I was so excited when I first found his magazine. I’d love to meet him in person. So would my kids. I shouldn’t know and my daughter shouldn’t know what Mr. Shermer is at this point, notorious for in the tiny world of female a/s activists. We should plunck down our money like I once wanted to and take off to a place we think is safe. After all, they never have trouble with harassment, their representatives have said so. Wouldn’t that be perfectly just? People we trust could talk about women’s only value being their “pussies” and hide rape and sexual assault while they cash our check. Right? That’s the Skeptic Way!
That’s justice in your opinion?
That’s what you want?
That’s what you are arguing that people should ensure happens.
That’s what silence means.
Fuck Mr. Big Name Skeptic. He is not owed my time or trust.
If you still don’t get it, try it this way: If a dog bites kids in the neighborhood and it isn’t reported to Animal control (because people have called before and nobody did anything and the kid who owned the dog kicked the kid who told). Kids in the neighborhood are still allowed to tell each other to stay away from that dog.
That’s all that’s happening here. That’s free speech that needs to be protected.
Go fuck yourself, bobchaos.
Do you think you’re clever? Original?
You are not.
Go away.
stevecarlos
The court of public opinion is the opinions of the public; a rather massive group of people, many of whom do not agree with one another. That you and many others stand here to argue with PZ disproves your claim.
Seriously, if you’re gonna accuse others of fucking up or acting irresponsible, use analogies that makes sense and are congruent with your current actions.
neuralobserver is very concerned
Caine,
I’d like to add my, “You’re awesome”, too.
You are.
@bobchaos23,
You’re wasting you time with these politically correct, leftist, fascists. It’s not good enough to wait for an investigation or evidence before pummeling (or not) Shermer. This is an opportunity to beat the drum of rape culture. It’s not good enough to wait for Shermer’s side of the story. The female accuser is always right and her side of the story is the only one needed. Political correctitude demands that you always support the woman because men are all animals. Didn’t you know? We’re all rapists in our hearts.
Heaven forbid anybody should raise questions or challenge the story. Besides, any question or challenge will be met with the lamest of excuses if no legitimate ones are available. It might seem obvious to you that a woman who was raped would report the crime to police . . . but no . . . that’s a waste of time according to these cynical PZ fans. The police don’t care about female victims of rape. Didn’t you know that? Everybody else does.
And what about Shermer? What IF he’s innocent? Even if he’s vindicated, he’ll still be tainted by the mere allegation of rape. Rape, child molestation . . . the mere accusation is all it takes to ruin a reputation. And that’s a good thing because, obviously, PZ has it in for Shermer. And we’re all PZ fans here.
PZ’s an educated man. He knew, before he posted this irresponsible post, what damage it would do whether or not Shermer is guilty. Nowhere in his post does he question why the mystery woman didn’t go to the police. Nowhere does he question why she waited all this time if she’s so interested in preventing Shermer from raping somebody else.
Asking any questions at all makes you an apologist for rape. Claims of an interest in justice and the rule of law are utter nonsense. Of course. Anybody can see that. PZ has chosen the best course. Publicly accusing Shermer after all this time — when all the evidence is long gone — is far preferable to reporting him immediately after the alleged crime (when Shermer was still around and evidence was still fresh).
But if you go to other forums on the Internet, ones not owned by PZ, you’ll find a much more diverse point of view. I’ve found 2 sites that are 100% for waiting for an investigation. No character assassinations. And there’s lots of anti-PZ sentiment out there too.
So don’t waste you time with these fascist idiots. You can’t take them seriously.
I wanted to participate in this thread.
I can’t though. I can’t fucking deal with the chucklefucks saying all the same things I’ve heard said directly to me time and again.
I can’t deal with the fact that if they had been there when I was in court and facing my accuser they would have no doubt been cheering on my rapists lawyer as he badgered me relentlessly into looking at the man who assaulted me because “If you can’t even look at him how can we tell whether or not you’re lying?” … They would have no doubt given that slimeball with a fucking law degree a standing ovation when he made the claim that because I was not shaking with fear and crying my eyes out I couldn’t have possibly been raped because I didn’t “act like we all know a victim SHOULD act”.
So essentially, to everyone in this thread being an unapologetic, asshole, fuckwitted, heartless, stupid fucking fuck:
FUCK YOU.
To everyone else:
Thanks for sticking it to these guys as much as you have.
I’m out of here.
Still talking bob. We’ve been over this.
Piegasm had written: “The consequences of not believing and being wrong are worse than the consequences of believing and being wrong. Therefore, we believe the accuser until we have good reason not to.”
Martin Wagner replied: “Uh, when Christians pull that one out, we call it Pascal’s Wager. It’s the wrong reasoning when applied here too, and gives rape apologists all the ammo they need to further discredit accusers.”
EXACTLY.
Oh christ, and in the time it took me to type my last message, here come gregranzoni, stevecarlos and neuralobserver to skeptishit all over the place…
“When someone is accused of a crime, any crime, they should not have an opportunity to defend themselves”
tell me how the hell that makes sense.
how is there no opportunity?
also you are missing all the points about why this was done publicly, not privately. try harder.
alexbrookes:
Jesus. My heart goes out to her. I’m glad she has a solid support network in place and wildly happy the police have been fighting the good fight in this case. I hope you get a good result in court. Tentacles crossed for you all.
oops, screwed the block quotes, should end after ?!?
I know of a woman that was falsely accused of the same thing. Your point?
I also cut down the dead body a self-asphyxiated friend after he was arrested for downloading child porn. It sucked and I still have nightmares about and won’t go in the area of my house in which it occurred. It doesn’t make me an expert on people who are accused, rightly or wrongly, of awful shit though.
Dammit, you’re not putting that on me. Every time I’ve spelled out my position I’ve clearly stated that I agree with everyone else on here that if your drinks are spiked, or you were drunk to the point of blacking out, then of course consent isn’t possible and resulting sex is rape that should be prosecuted. I never said one word to the contrary.
All I’ve said, from the very beginning, is that if someone willingly gets drunk and then willingly (therefore, consciously) has sex while drunk, and they remain willing throughout the act (as opposed to blacking out or changing their mind and saying no), then they haven’t been raped. As you described it, you neither got drunk willingly nor had sex willingly while drunk, so I don’t see why you’re ripping on me as though I’m encouraging self-blaming guilt. You obviously aren’t to blame for what happened to you — you know it, I know it, nobody should pretend I ever said or implied otherwise.
alexbrookes:
:snort: Oh, I’m stealing that one.
I honestly don’t know why I’m posting in this thread again. It is over 1400 posts long and the signal-to-noise ratio is too low for any real conversation.
However, I just wanted to remind everyone that if you are yelling about how PZ is teh libel, you probably, at a bare minimum, should read the Wikipedia article on New York Times v. Sullivam before you embarrass yourself any further.
I should also point out that I can’t spell “Sullivan”.
So, do you call yourself natural philosopher because you cherry-pick what you read, make no fucking sense and are tone deaf to your own passive aggression?
How do you feel about conversational implicature?
sete
2 questions: do you know what “informed consent” means and do you know that intoxication invalidates it?
setec, I believe you’re posting in good faith, but seriously: you have no idea how cruel you are being right now.
Please stop posting.
[meta]
stevecarlos:
Executioner, eh?
—
bobchaos23:
You imagine Shermer is bound and gagged in some dungeon somewhere?
Oh, you imagine Shermer has been taken out and shot, not just kept incommunicado.
(You’re just as wrong)
Sarcasm is not your forte, is it?
Jackie:
So are you. *fangs bared fistbump*
Praxis, please, take care of yourself. I’ll be thinking of you.
setec,
Yeah, it is. You’ve been informed of that and asked to stop.
So, stop.
bobchaos23:
Oh, for fuck’s sake. Really? You can’t really defend a single rebuttal using logic, so you resort to this sophomoric screed?
First: this isn’t a court of law. This has been stated several times throughout the thread. So give it a fucking rest with the lawyering already, okay?
Second, the purpose of the OP was to bring to light the predatory nature of a member of the skeptic community, so that other women might avoid that situation. Got it? It’s not to imprison him. While some folks have stated they will not attend meetings in which Shermer is an active member, there has been no call to boycott or otherwise financially, legally, or socially punish him. Got it?
The entire purpose was to warn other women. The simple fact is, Shermer’s name had to be mentioned to effectively provide that warning.
With me so far? Or are you gonna continue to misunderstand what’s going on here?
Finally: you can’t simultaneously believe someone, and ignore the content of what they said. Those are two mutually exclusive positions. You might believe the person telling the story is mistaken, but that’s making too damned many assumptions about perception, knowledge, and many other philosophical pieces of life. At least, without external evidence.
I believe I told you several posts ago to feel free to ignore the story of the victim. But as soon as you do, you can’t claim you believe her. You’re trying to have it both ways, which is what gives you this cognitive-dissonance-induced hangover you’re fighting.
Just please. Stop misrepresenting both what the OP is trying to do, and the actual discussion that’s going on here.
If you want to participate, how about you address the earlier posts point-by-point, in a rational way, rather than going off on an angry, almost-incoherent rant?
“””@bobchaos23,
You’re wasting you time with these politically correct, leftist, fascists.”””
yes, please leave.
go.
eigenperson
That’s ok; I can’t spell ‘setec’.
The accusations of libel make me laugh.
Pete Newell @ 1450:
I know I said above that we’re not in a court of law, but let the record reflect that not all philosophers (by profession or avocation) are rule-lawyering assholes, nor fans of playing Devil’s advocate with people’s lived experience.
(I know that Horde regulars know this. But some of the folks playing at being epistemologists in this thread are part of the reason why philosophers get a bad name, and I do wish they’d cut that shit out and go read Colin McGinn’s blog or something.)
setec! You have already severely triggered at least one person in this thread. You have repeated yourself to the point of inducing nausea in casual onlookers. Stop it right fucking now, else I’ll send an alert to PZ. Enough is enough. Find something else to discuss or take it to Thunderdome.
Interesting how many “true skeptics” have shown up here to toss out the “if she didn’t call the cops, it didn’t happen” line (often with snarky comments about how “oh yeah, cops just don’t care about rape”), and yet, none of them seem to ever address the studies that have been linked in this thread showing how most rapes aren’t reported, most reports don’t result in charges, and the documented reasons why cops are too reluctant to believe rape complaints.
It’s almost like their skepticism is selective. Like they only trumpet the power of EVIDENCE! and SCIENCE! when it supports them. When it doesn’t, then it’s to be ignored in favor of unsupported “folk wisdom” about how “real” rape victims behave.
jimashby:
Just to be clear, what does it mean to be “politically correct?” Last I saw, rape culture was well-established within politics (“legitimate rape” indeed). Also, can you please define “fascist?” That’s one that’s bandied about with a great frequency, but never seems appropriate in context.
Leftist, I’d definitely cop to.
So, you’re completely against warning women away from a potential rapist?
And that’s the fucking thing setec – why is this the hill you’re willing to die on? Why is this so important to you? Can’t you see that this fucking quibbling over drunkenness, and grey areas, and can drunk people rape each other, and how drunk is too drunk is a complete non sequitur? It doesn’t add anything to the discussion. Worse, it’s actually tremendously triggering to those of us who were raped when drunk, and weren’t believed because of this wonderful fairy tale of the drunken hook up and the silly feather-brained woman who just regretted the sex in the morning.
[meta]
jimashby:
You should look up ‘oxymoron’ sometime.
You should look up ‘hypocrite’ sometime.
Not just hypocrisy, but ironical hypocrisy.
jimashby, run off to Shermer’s blog and pat him on the shoulder, okay? Just go. No one cares where.
I do actually quite like:
though!
Except that Pascal’s Wager is an attempt at answering the absolute lack of evidence for the existence of a deity, whereas we actually do have substantial evidence for the existence of victims of rape who need support and understanding.
My head feels like it’s going to split open. Can another monitor eyeball the thread and send an alert if setec keeps his shtick going? Thanks.
I am well aware it isn’t court of law. As I have stated several times.
You have essentially stated that if courts of law do not yield the result you want, then doing anything you can to destroy the person they failed to punish is perfectly justified.
Thuse, logically, we needgood draconian courts which do not indulge such outmoded concepts as defendent rights….since anyone accused who gets off has it coming one way or another. How is this logically inconsistent? We NEED to get rid of defendent rights in order to have justic for victims, it’s all so clear now.
Thus why I apologised…as a branded apologist, it’s all I am good for.
RE: Pascals Wager
there are such things as real world threats. like bomb threats and sexual predators. that kind of information gets handled differently from pascals wager, which has about 11 003 things wrong with it.
docfreeride @ 1459 OK, I’ve shot myself in both feet now. My bad. Overgeneralizing from my youth. Not cool.
Natural philosopher, I apologize for picking on your handle rather than your manifest personal flaws.
a clearer example indicating the writer knows fuck all about everything I cannot imagine.
it’s like a giant neon sign, with loudspeakers, saying:
IGNORE ME!
[OT + meta]
naturalphilosopher:
Your philosophy is weak; Pascal’s wager is flawed because it relies on the supposition of an imaginary infinite gain overcoming any amount of real loss. The two are not comparable.
(The gain here is neither imaginary nor infinite any more than is the loss)
Shut the fuck up, setec. You’re done here — I think that’s about enough effort trying to find grey areas to justify screwing up a person’s life. Do not post in this thread again.
Ever changed a light fixture and turned off the breaker as well as flipped the switch? Pascal’s Wager in action, apparently.
“Liberal politically correct fascists”?
??????
tee-hee.
I remember reading a certain line in “The Summer of My German Soldier” as a kid and thinking that no one anywhere could be so stupid as to say something like that.
Look at you, proving me wrong.
Bob: You aren’t convincing anyone of anything, you’re not making yourself look anything but petulant, and you’re contributing to a group effort to cause other people pain.
I have enough contempt already, I don’t need more. I don’t think I’m alone here in that.
Pete Newell @1471,
Not your fault at all. A surprising number of professional philosophers (not to speak of philosophy fans) are proudly sociopathic in public.
I’m just making a futile plea for folks to remember that some (too small) number of us are trying not to be like that, rather than being silent and making it seem like I approve.
I have just two more things to say:
Thing #1:
Caine, thank you. I will and I’ll be thinking of you here, kicking ass.
….
Thing #2:
Why do some men, or really any other people who have never been assaulted by a rapist and don’t (because of societal privilege) have to walk around every day with a tiny voice in the back of their heads going over the list of thing to do to try to not get raped, think it’s okay to discuss rape and other types of sexual assault as if it’s some fucking dry intellectual exercise instead of a VERY REAL FEAR THAT ALL WOMEN LIVE WITH EVERY DAY. A fear that grows even larger when we see fucking bags of crap like the ones in this thread going on and on and on about all the things WE’RE supposed to do to make sure our assaults and warnings about raping fuckers can be placed in the “legitimate” column.
You fuckers are disgusting.
You sicken good people.
You harm people who have already been harmed in ways you couldn’t even imagine.
…and all in the name of having an intellectual wank at the expense of women who need to avoid rapey, abusive, oppressive shits like the plague…
…because if we don’t we’ve seen how you’re going to treat us when (not if, you slimeballs… WHEN) we are harassed or assaulted.
Again:I hope none of you ever have to go through what you’re putting people, good people, through right here, right now.
But if you do… if it ever happens to you, I hope the shame of realizing what you’ve done here burns so bad it physically hurts.
Leni, I thank you for adopting a more civil tone, rather than telling me to fuck myself!
You said: “You know what else is scary shit? Getting raped by someone you respect and trust and then getting shitcanned because you didn’t go to police for totally understandable reasons. And then finding out that all kinds of people (not victims like PZ, I mean) knew about it but didn’t say anything because adhering to social norms is more important than safety.”
Absolutely true. It’s one of the fucked up things about our society that has got to change. We need to demand that our law enforcement and legal system do a better job of getting justice done for rape victims, rather than putting them on trial.
You noted, of libel possibilities: “Not if it’s true.”
The issue is not whether it’s true: the issue is whether I can PROVE that it’s true. Too often, playing the he-said/she-said game isn’t going to work. It’s a big part of why the system needs to be fixed, because people are too scared to go to the police, who just make them feel worse rather than protecting them and helping them. That said, we currently live in a system that is broken, and where what IS true matters less than what can be PROVED true.
You wondered: “And are you this skeptical of claims against the Catholic church?”
Nope. At least not once there were multiple claims being made about each of many perpetrators, followed by huge investigations of both the original crimes and the massive cover-up that followed.
You wondered: “PZ did this so the woman could remain anonymous. If your girlfriend had asked you to do that for her, to protect her anonymity and with the intent of warning others, and you said no because you were worried about lawsuits? Would you really do that?”
I don’t know. As it happens, she never requested such a thing. So it wasn’t relevant. But I will explain further below. Let me just skip down a bit, since it’s really the next relevant point.
[A little out of chronological order] You asked: “But what if she had wanted to go public but was afraid, legitimately, of the backlash? What if you know this person was continuing to hurt people? What if you knew people who would be his future victims? How could you not tell them?”
Telling the people I know, and had reason to believe might come in contact with him? Sure. And I did just that, to the extent that I could do so without giving out more info than my girlfriend was comfortable with.
But I think there’s a difference between that and a public proclamation.
Moreover, if I really thought I could prove that he was a rapist publicly, but without dragging her into a trial — and that would be a tall order, since her testimony was the only evidentiary basis I had for making such a public claim — I would go straight to the police. I would want him locked up.
You again: “It’s a shitty situation and humans have been known to fuck up even perfect ones.”
True enough, sadly.
And finally: “I’m not interested in using a past fuck-up to bludgeon you. I hope you learned from it, but I’m having a hard time seeing evidence of that right now.”
No, truly, I did. I had no idea how fucked up things were, and less idea how to deal with it on any level.
But I can certainly understand your skepticism. You don’t know me, after all. Just what I’m posting here.
I do appreciate the more civil response.
you’re very good at erecting strawmen.
are you sure you still don’t comprehend why I call you a disingenuous fuckwit yet?
…1001…
bobchaos23:
Really? Where was this stated? Or even implied?
I mean, I understand you might get that we’re not entirely trusting of the enforcement or justice system. But again — the failure of the enforcement and justice system in cases of rape is well-documented. So it would be irrational to trust it.
But really? Where did you get that we feel vigilantism is justified? Where have you seen universal calls for the destruction of Shermer? In fact, except for the information designed to caution women against his predatory nature, what has been suggested that might hurt him in any way? That is, how are we attempting to take justice in our own hands?
Do you know, I had an ex-boyfriend who used to pull crap like this. We’d have conversations like:
Me: Honey, you know that thing that you said when we were out?
Ex: Oh god, what have I done NOW *eyeroll*
Me: Um, well, it’s nothing serious, just it kind of upset me a bit?
Ex: I KNOW, CLEARLY I AM A TERRIBLE BOYFRIEND AND AKIN TO HITLER
Me: Erm, well, I wouldn’t go that far, but I would appreciate it if you just thought a bit more in future?
Ex: NO NO MY GOOD WOMAN, I am OBVIOUSLY the DEVIL INCARNATE, you don’t NEED to tell me how awful I am, consider my sulking and bad mood for the rest of the day appropriate penance for your HURT FEELINGS.
Seriously bobchaos, your recent comments have become too ridiculous to even seriously engage with any more.
“””You have essentially stated that if courts of law do not yield the result you want, then doing anything you can to destroy the person they failed to punish is perfectly justified.”””
the ” law do not yield the result you want” blech! no no no. read the OP. “solely concerned that other women be aware of his behavior”
and this isn’t lynching, we’ve been over this.
you are done here, and your squirming is obvious.
And praxis – thumbs up to your comment 1479, and take care. Hugs if you want them.
bobchaos23 @1469:
Bob, you lying sack of shit.
Nobody has stated that, “essentially” or otherwise. (It’s a pretty good rule of thumb that when someone says their opponent has “essentially” said something, there’s an incoming straw man.)
Over and over again, you use loaded terminology about lynch mobs and public executions and such. Over and over again, we explain to you that nobody is proposing taking the law into their own hands. Nobody is advocating violence. And over and over again you ignore that and go back to your hyperbole, because it’s the only way you know of to try to prop up your tired claim that nobody is allowed to say anything unless there’s been a criminal conviction.
You can’t possibly be that stupid, so I can only conclude that you’re just being a lying douchebag. Knock it the fuck off.
Point to a single comment that this describes. Please. I’ll wait.
Naturalphilosopher and any others who insist on being pedantic obtuse shits (or those who’ve freshly arrived to tackle the pedantic obtuse shits) . . .
How to blockquote instead of using narration or even air quotes:
<blockquote>Stuff to quote</blockquote>
Turns into this:
Try it!
Fine, sorry, I’m done. I seriously don’t mean to imply that Shermer’s victim fell into one of these gray areas; I just bristle at the sight of black-and-white worldviews and was arguing for the existence of certain gray areas, not necessarily their applicability to this or anyone else’s specific case.
I apologize to those who took my points personally, which was not my intent.
It’s your blog, your call, I’ll zip it.
Like I said, it’s a bunch of male privileged asswipes, trying to justify their own fear of being “accused” of rape, posting endless strawmen, misrepresentations, and disingenuous crap, waiting for that 1001th person who hasn’t read all of their crap previous to chime in with weak agreement, so they can feel better about their own fucked up fears.
They can’t help but try to make this all about THEM, no matter how many times people try to point out to them that it isn’t.
It’s sad and pathetic.
“Seriously bobchaos, your recent comments have become too ridiculous to even seriously engage with any more.”
That’s fine, since no one has seriously engaged them in the first place.
Oh well, at least one single person actually tried politely engaging naturalphilosopher.
PZ, my thanks for shutting setec down.
*****
Okay, I have to run off and try not to lose my supper. Keep those fangs sniny, Horde!
One more thing:
You can stop stating the obvious, naturalphilosopher.
I love the abuse of the word “fascist” to mean “those whom I have a disagreement with”, especially when combined with “leftist” in complete defiance of the history of the word. And the use of “politically correct” complaints by someone seeking to silence others is of particular irony.
But I see no one is going to be hyper-skeptical of my claims of being a victim of a common crime. Wonder why…
Well, “anything” hasn’t been done. Something was, yes. Someone got named and shamed.
That is not “anything”.
This just keeps getting worse and worse…..With every new account coming out about harassment it is like a new crack appearing in a dam. And the powerful forces can now longer plug in all the cracks and more keep appearing. It is about time this dam bursts and washes away all the corruption, oppression and harassment of organised skeptism and atheism. We can do better and we should do better.
Judging by the size of this thread. I am sure there have been some misogynists asswipes who are “skeptical” of the claims presented in this article. To you, all I have to say is fuck off, you festering boils on the arse of humanity.
setec:
On the right side of the page, in a box labeled Frequently Read Threads, there’s a link to a thread called Thunderdome. Feel free to continue this discussion there.
I think you’ll discover it isn’t so much black-and-white vs. grey areas, but a certain amount of context. This isn’t the proper place to discuss those kinds of grey areas.
Thunderdome is exactly the place. It’s an unmoderated, no-holds-barred arena of bloody ideas. Just bring your intellectual chain-saw.
bobchaos, your comments have been pretty disingenuous, so it’s no wonder people are not “engaging” with them.
What is happening is that PZ is relaying an accusation of rape, made by a person he trusts, and people are believing that accusation, and saying that they will take various actions like not associating with the accused and warning others about his behavior.
Somehow, you’ve transformed this into people “doing anything [they] can to destroy the person [the courts] failed to punish.”
That is only true if by “anything” you mean choosing not to associate with the person and warning others about him.
Dontcha know that Jonah Goldberg has conclusively proven that fascism is completely of the left.
Seriously, it was the Worker’s Party.
*snort*
bobchaos23:
What do you mean? I’ve seriously answered you. All your responses have been emotional rhetoric attempting a distraction from your original assertions. You’ve not honestly responded to a single point.
I’ve even been polite.