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.
billhamp @2517:
Indeed. All we have to go on is the conduct you’ve brought to this thread. We’d be fools to make any assumptions about intentions beyond your visible behavior.
Says the troll who insists that PZ has not creditability and should be fired from his teaching position.
Laughable.
Ledasmom:
Thank you very much. I have unbelievable support here, and my fellow Hordelings are the best and most ferocious fighters I’ve ever had the privilege to know, and they’ve provided me with a non-stop education.
Hugh,
Learn what empathy means,
learn what ad hominem means,
learn what attacks actually means,
learn how to be a decent human being.
I know it’s hard, but everyone should be able to do it, even you, you just have to want to be one.
Once a thread gets past the 500 comments/one page mark, I wish there was a quiz that anyone new wanting to post would have to pass first that tests understanding of all previous comments. (lounge excepted)
Anri wrote:
Then Shermer is doomed, whether he is guilty or innocent, and by your lights, ought to revel in the fact. I find that odd.
Stinky or not, I will feel obliged to stand up for you until it is obvious you don’t deserve such support. I don’t know you any better than Shermer, and even if I disagree with what you say, I will defend etc.
For the poster who feels I only reply to males – how does one tell the sex/gender/orientation (cis/trans) from the username? I don’t know or care, and if you do I suspect that says more about you than it does about me. Don’t be silly. My only point here is that this thread has found Shermer guilty, even if it isn’t a court, and that this will do him actual harm. You ask for citations when we are talking about lost book contracts, lost television appearance fees etc in the future. Maybe a divorce, maybe lost contact with his kids. I don’t know what, but I certainly know I wouldn’t want you to do it to me, and I’m pretty sure none of you would want it done to you, save for Anri, who seems to be happy to be blamed for something he didn’t do as he believes he will suffer for the greater good. Let us hope he never has the opportunity to put that to the test.
“Hugh” was the banned user “RazielWasAlone”. As is my standard policy, all comments made after banning are deleted.
@jadehawk at #2256
I would consider it to already be public, lo many years, because even I was aware of the ‘informal’ warnings and fishsmack me if I can remember where I heard it now about MS and others. Heard it in the SF circles as well about certain celebs. But this appears to be the first high profile publishing of social exploiters in this community.
It’s morbidly interesting that information well known to a low profile minority to enhance their safety can be considered ‘not public’.
I’m SO very much not blaming you for phrasing it thus, Jadehawk. It just highlights to me a situation where a person exploits others for personal satiation, does not do it anonymously but considers the exploitation unassailable as if it was done anonymously, treating the affected community as subservient harmless objects, not part of the ‘public’, so the ‘public’ seems to be defined as only sectors of society that can actually do *lasting* harm to the exploiter.
Seems that’s the malignant benefit of silencing and ‘disappearing’ society’s minorities.
All the yelling from the usual suspects now strikes me as similar to the Norse myth of Balder, immune to all harm by the grace of Powers That Be and exploiting-the-privilege…until Loki decides to enable mistletoe’s agency. Not sure if that makes PZ Loki, but there are certainly claims that Participant Safety Awareness is atheoskepticism’s Ragnarok.
Atheoskepticism events can expect to end up generating days like this a LOT more until authentic enforced anti-harrassment policies are built into gatherings, supported by orienteering for all participants. Such policies can’t 100 percent prevent violence and assholery, but at least they shift responsibility for behaviour onto assailants where it belongs.
So let me see.
If someone you know is raped and they tell you, you’d better not say anything without contacting the police first because THE LAW.
But if someone you know is raped, a REAL man would say “screw the police” and go kill the bastard.
Am I following along correctly?
oh hey. the MRA with the made up fake accusation statistics is back. aren’t we all thrilled.
Dee Fiant, for the umpteenth time, the accusations are not anonymous.
You have lost all semblance of acting in good fate.
@docfreeride
No worries. For some reason people get that wrong all the time. I’d change it, but I’ve kinda gotten used to this ‘nym.
@Hugh
Seriously, look up what ad hominem means. It’s not just when someone insults you or makes a judgment about your character based on your words. An ad hominem is when you reject an argument, not on its merits, but based on the person making it.
I have not engaged in an ad hominem fallacy here. In the contrary, I’ve made a specific, rational point, which you’ve now ignored twice: The default assumption is that conferences are the same as everywhere else. You need to provide evidence to counter that.
and by fake i mean false
2507:
But Dee, I think it’s already been addressed that in the world of journalism, or in the courts, no, there’s not enough here to get a conviction or file a story.
But this is public conversation, the grapevine, if you will, and while yes, that is a forum ripe for potential abuse and liars and all manner of shenanigans, there are a number of factors to consider that make Jane Doe’s story worth taking seriously, if not being enough to declare Shermer categorically guilty of rape in a strictly legalistic sense. To wit:
• PZ is placing his own reputation on the line in posting this. Some people, even friends of PZ’s who are very much on the side of the angels where supporting rape victims are concerned, have questioned his wisdom in doing so. But that’s moot, as he felt it was right to do so. So either one must believe that PZ is a rank fool with no concern for the damage he could have done himself to have posted this, or that based on his own personal friendship with the victim and his acceptance of her credibility, he felt the risk to his own credibility was worth helping her get her story out. Look, I’ll play devil’s advocate: it all could be false. Fine. But it’s absurd to think PZ’s choice was made with complete thoughtlessness, whatever the case.
• The latest accusation against Shermer is the latest info in what appears to be a long-standing reputation the man has for being a bit of a rake with the ladies at conferences. The only thing that’s changed now is that he’s now accused of leveling up from “rake.” Serious charge, but not out of the realm of plausibility.
• PZ himself has already taken the “let’s be wary of anonymous accusations” tack in regards to Lawrence Krauss. If he was more cautious about Krauss, but willing to run with the story about Shermer, do you think it’s because he’s thinking “Ah Shermer, fuck that guy,” or that he finds the accusations against Shermer more credible than what’s been circulating about Krauss?
So, all things to consider before repeating the whole Journalism 101 lecture to us again. We got it, thanks.
Cupcake, you are wrong until you evidence yourself right. Fine job with the doctored false rape report, by the way. Your credibility took a fatal hit with such a simple error.
PZ:
Well, that explains a lot. I have to stop being nice to these people.
@2509 Dee Fiant
I think you’ll find you’re wrong about that.
Okay, because of PZ banning Hugh, that’s messed up the numbering, so Dee’s comment that I’m replying to in 2527 is no longer 2507. Whatever, Dee will see it.
“Dee Fiant” was the banned user Carol. Dealt with similarly. Isn’t it sad when the fools have to resort to sock puppetry to generate the illusion they are numerous? I left in the one comment where “Dee” agrees with “Carol”.
” Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought
10 August 2013 at 11:48 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
billhamp,
Do you realize that you are asking for details about a very traumatic event? Have you ever lived through anything traumatic? I’m not talking about rape, it could be anything. Now imagine being asked by complete strangers to recount all the details, so that they could be scrutinized in order for these strangers to determine whether they will believe you or not.
Now imagine that these strangers aren’t qualified people who can actually do something useful regarding this traumatic event from your past, but some assholes on the internet who have no problem calling you a liar the moment you opened your mouth, and who have had little sympathy or understanding for you, but loads of it for the person who was a harming factor in that traumatic event of yours.”
Let me be clear to those of you who seem to think that I and others are “asking for details.” We are not asking for anything. We are saying that we would be more likely to reach a conclusion if there were more details that did not change over time and which were capable of being validate by some external means. As it stands, there is only a claim, without supporting evidence. More information is always sought by the skeptic, but we are in no way demanding or insisting that details be provided.
Additionally, many of you are correct that details alone would not be enough to change one’s position and would be, in and of themselves, useless. However, in the face of a story such as this, details are useful for checking the consistency of a story at different points in time. There are, however, better ways to determine if the story is true, and I’ll certainly concede that. It was but ONE of the many ways that I listed for providing support to the claim.
As to the rest of your post, I reiterate that I am not calling anyone a liar and never have. I have only said that there is no way to determine if this claim is true, one way or another, and that PZ may have opened himself up to serious legal problems. I am suspending judgement, as I have said, and calling the person who told this story a liar would be a judgement. Finally, so many of you hurl the “if you had ever been raped” and “have you been a victim?” phrases, which I find oddly hypocritical. You are speculating about a person you don’t even know and insisting that that person would feel a certain way that you prescribe if that person had been raped. Since when do you get to determine how a person who has been raped feels or reacts?
not if they were as famous and consequently well-entrenched as shermer is.
hell, an anonymous accusation on a blog somewhere would probably not even harm them even without being famous
So numbering is even more messed up, and you’re replying to a comment that doesn’t exist!
fucking figures. but hey, she wouldn’t “conscience” writing what PZ write, amirite
#2445: Caine, Fleur du mal:
—–
“OY! MORON! Shut the fuck up and read the damn thread. I’m so fucking sick and tired of you idiots all parroting the same damn thing. Go to the first fucking page of this thread and read post #82. Addresses your little concern. So do hundreds of other posts, ad infinitum. YOU ARE NOT HELPING. You’re just another ass who can’t think their way out of their own belly button.”
—–
I read your post (82) and I appreciate your point about the fact that law enforcement may not take this as seriously as they should – that is a huge failing, and I am very aware of that aspect (indeed, I have personal experience of it). I still think this blog post is irresponsible – sorry to disagree with you.
Abusing me with swearing and insult does you no credit whatsoever.
Caine:
I do not get why these banned commenters keep creating new nyms to post the same crap. Its like they think they have something vital to say that hasn’t been said in 2500+ comments.
I swear I left the room just for a moment. What the hell happened… /rhetorical
You know the hyperskeptics will spin this into, “They can’t even COUNT! Of course they can’t properly weigh probabilities to assign guilt and innocence!”
RE: the sock-puppetry, I think at this point we can say exactly the same thing about the MRA brigade and the rape-apologist brigade (mostly the same brigade though) what was said al along about Christians: if they are right, why would they resort to lying/deceiving all the time?
And whining about swearing makes you look like a fucking pathetic little pile of shit, bezoo.
But it is amusing. Almost enough to make up for the constant rehashing of the same old tropes.
My last comment also refers to a deleted one, so… nevermind.
What on earth (that would be this planet, the one we’re on) makes you think that? Are you not aware that family members commit rape against other family members, and that it’s a frighteningly common thing?
Loved one or not, I’d give weight to the victim until I had strong, valid reason to disbelieve them. I have experience in this regard. I was raped for six years by a family member. Said family member was highly regarded in the community, at his workplace and at his church. You can’t tell by looking who might be a rapist. That would be one of the primary reasons to listen to victims.
Crispy Christ onna Stick, what do we have to do to get people who are capable of thinking?
No, you wouldn’t.
All the “sick bastard” would have to do is say “she had a drink and had legit sex but afterwards she didn’t want her bf/hubby/whoever to find out so she’s claiming it was rape.”
And you would believe the rapist over your “friend” or “family”.
Because that’s what you just said yourself about PZ’s friend.
As another mostly lurker I wanted to chime in and tell Jane Doe that I’m sorry for what she went through and thank both her and PZ for talking about it.
There’s nothing else I can say that the Horde hasn’t already said. So just thank you to all of you.
Just wanted to add my support of Jane Doe and PZ. Thank you.
Thanks also to the horde, for their tireless work against the rape apologists and hyper-skeptics.
Finally, a big “fuck you!” and “fuck off!” to billhamp. Not only are you wrong, on so many levels, but you’re fucking boring and repetitive too.
I meant public as in directly accessible to an uncontrolled amorphous “public” everyone as opposed to being shared one-on-one in a more controlled fashion, but you’re right, that did make a weird parallel to the way it’s still often that women=private, man=public.
BillHamp–Are you familiar with the concept that truth is a defense to a claim of defamation?
bezoo:
You haven’t been abused. I haven’t lost any ‘credit’, punkin. I’ve been dealing with one asshole after another, attempting to monitor this thread when no other monitors have been around, which has cost me a great deal of sleep and keeps spiking my blood pressure to the point of no return. I’ve been repeatedly triggered by the continual rain of flaming doucheweasels. The very least thing I’ve done is go into full court cussing. It helps, and I favour colourful language. Your feeble attempt to finger wag at me is utterly meaningless.
As it seems that cussing disturbs your delicate ears, I suggest you leave.
sock explosion and cleanup
Emrysmyrddin: No problem. I keep feeling like Clouseau so I thought I could leave that there for someone to laugh at.
So Shermer is someone you know very well, and can with great assurance say they wouldn’t commit rape? Someone you have known intimately for years, and from all that you know about him, it would be really difficult to believe that he did something as horrible as rape?
No?
Then the situation is pretty different than a situation in which someone you know very well is accused.
But never even mind that, what others have said concerning this is true as well.
Every rapist is somebody‘s family member or friend or that polite neighbor, and his raping ways come as a great surprise. That’s not a good basis for judging whether a claim of rape is valid.
I fail at keeping up.
Bleh.
Let me just add my compliments and thanks, Caine, PZ, and our source; I’ve been fighting elsewhere, but appreciate tremendously the not-really-a-game of denialist/hyperskeptic/etc. whack-a-mole that you’ve been playing, Caine, the nerve it took to come out and say this, PZ and our source(s).
Fuck yourself, bozo bezoo.
No one cares what you think since you clearly can’t think straight.
You certainly deserve all the “abuse” you’ll get around here. Go home.
Bezoo:
This is a rough and tumble blog. If you cannot handle harsh words that are labelled taboo for religious reasons, you can, you know GET LOST.
****
Billhamp:
So this hyperskeptical thing you are fond of…needing great amounts of evidence for commonplace claims…if a friend tells you their home was broken into, how much evidence do you require to believe them?
What about if I say it is ~90 degrees outside? How much proof will you require to believe me?
Oris your hyperskepticism bc while rape is commonplace, you are worried about the damage done to the accused if the claims are false?
If thats the case, well no worries. Those falsely accused of rape suffer very little*. Certainly not enough to disbelieve a rape victim.
You and your ilk are taking skepticism to new lows. Next you will be asking for proof when someone takes a shit.
*loss of speaking engagements is just TOTES awful…
I agree with Polly-O!
Oh, yeesh. Sock puppets! How very unsurprising.
No Hugh loss.
SIX PAGES of previous comments – which you refuse to read – wherein your precise intrusions have been dealt with again and again and again and again. You should expect insults. Why are you so special that you deserve immunity from criticism of your utter rudeness? Do you always need things explained to you so personally? Can you not see that you are in a thread already SIX PAGES long?
PZ:
:eyeroll: Shades of Tom Johnson and You’re Not Helping.
:D
Bezoo:
To add to Caine’s response to you..I know you have not read all 2500+ comments, otherwise you would see lurker after lurker thanking Caine for her efforts. If anything her “cred” has INCREASED.
Place your bets now for the amount of time that will pass before someone new appears and says “yeahbut, why didn’t anyone go to the police?!” The collective *headdesk* will break so many desks that the desk-insurance companies will be ruined.
Jadehawk:
Me too!
– Polly Esther
Hey so I was irritated as fuck about all the talk of “anonymous claims”, and I decided to put an end to that argument once and for all.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2013/08/10/the-web-of-trust-why-i-believe-shermers-accusers/
(Expect the complaint to show up in this comment thread another dozen times before it’s done. Despite my efforts. Sigh. I’ve been subscribed by email since I commented way back at ~13-ish.)
but but hearsay
Also, seconding everyone else on how much ass Caine is kicking. Don’t forget to take sanity breaks!
Caine: I lol’d. Also now I have an idea for a Horde t-shirt design!
—
I’ve been thinking about something DJ said at the start of the harassment discussion, just before stuffing his own flaming feet into his mouth. He responds to Sophie suggesting a TAM panel on sexual harassment: (bolds mine)
sourced here
With all the research we keep linking for the same old bullshit, I’m thinking it’s high time for some conference panels doing exactly that – presenting education and debunking myths about sexual harassment. The resulting resource collection and videos would find plenty of referencing among the tech and SF communities dealing with similar crap… maybe even generate more speaking opportunities.
MrFancyPants:
Could I just say, *ahem*, NO! No, no, no, no, no, please no, gaaaaaah, no, no more!
Will,
Do you think that none of the people in that group are women and/or rape survivors?
Because you seem a sorry advocate for those people.
They deserve better. So, why don’t you learn something while you’re here and get better?
Also, being an advocate for a minority does not make you immune to bigotry and right now, you sound as misogynist as Rick Santorum is homophobic. In fact, you’re parroting alot of right wing views on “legitimate rape” on this site. I agree that you are very bad at social justice.
Pteryxx:
Ooooh, I can’t wait!
Jason, thank you.
billhamp,
If a friend asked you to warn people about the man who raped her, but asked you to keep her name out of it… what would you do?
Pteryxx:
That’s an excellent idea. Even if it doesn’t get traction elsewhere, I’d like to see that get focus on the next FTBcon. Skepchick might be willing to pick it up and run with it, too.
Beatrice:
Well…as long as she had four male witnesses, a pile of DNA evidence, took a polygraph and passed, had a heap of police reports and court transcripts, he might consider keeping her name out of it for about 5 minutes before he refused.
PZ: Two of the people who were just banned had previously used other nyms to post. I’M REALLY REALLY CURIOUS about all this. I don’t have a blog and have never moderated one so I have no idea what sort of info the moderator has access to. If “Hugh” or “Will” or “Dee Fiant” and so on, try a comeback in a month under another nym, will they be able to?
You are in a position (?) to do stats on this phenomenon (I imagine it would be terribly tedious, but…). I’m having trouble formulating my questions. I would just basically like to know more.
I’ll take the opportunity to THANK YOU and all the people who have been working so hard here for 48 hours to defend the lives and rights of women. I have read the whole thread, have learned a lot and generally, feel a lot happier and optimistic about life than I did 48 hours ago.
Well, here we have a big claim made by an unknown person, published by a semi-known figure in the skeptics community, and some people already believe the claim to be true, or will act as if the claim were true (e.g. not support Shermer’s talks, etc.)
Does the claim slander a known figure? Yes.
Is the claimer even known? No.
Is the claim verifiable? Not anymore apparently; and unknown witnesses don’t count.
All of you people who have already decided Shermer is a bad guy aren’t applying the skeptic view to these claims. Furthermore, PZ’s decision to post this is morally reprehensible since he is publishing a claim that cannot be verified, whose claimer is not even known, and which is clearly slandering a known figure. This is independent from whether the claim is true or not; that is to say, even if the claim were true, PZ’s way of publishing this information is wrong. A person who is slightly bothered by facts and with a minimum desire to stay unbiased would demand far more evidence than what is currently presented to even post this.
My opinion on Shermer is utterly unchanged by this information. However, my opinion on PZ and a lot of the FTB community has been permanently lowered. I used to give the benefit of the doubt to PZ and this community even with all of the YouTube videos calling out the community as being, in some sense, unskeptical and irrational. This blog post, and a lot of the first comments on the first page have shown enough evidence to me to dismiss the credibility of this site.
If you’re going to criticize this post, I ask one thing: Do not just dismiss my arguments just because they’ve been counterargued in other past comments. I’m not insane enough to read through all of the ~2500 comments in this post; so don’t say stuff like “you’re blind” or “this has been proven wrong”, since I can’t be bothered to read all of the comments. Instead, counter-argue, and if I find your arguments compelling, I may change my mind.
Caine and Pteryxx: conference panels, Yes! Also there are so many excellent comments in this thread, they could be compiled. I’m thinking specifically, for example, of the people who have made comments about the legal status in various countries of “hearsay”.
Thank you, Caine, for your work.
lentes: Sorry, already dealt with your objections (~5 times). Feel free to do your own homework.
Another lurker here:
I feel like I need to come into the comments. My heart goes out to all the people suffering because of these horrible events. Stay strong <3
If there is any way that I can help, I will. If a support fund has been set up for the victims I will gladly donate money.
What scares me is that if Shermer does try to sue P.Z for defamation or libel then P.Z might have to reveal the identities of the victims because his defense would of course be that the accusations are true. What's worse is that from looking at thunderf00t's twitter feed it seems like he (and his friends, I assume) are going through the FtB mailing lists to find something to use as evidence that this blog post was made with malicious intent to defame. :(
I hope you're prepared for what you've thrown yourself into P.Z. I doubt I could be as brave as you in the same situation
lentes@2567 If you can’t be arsed to read what’s in front of you before you decide to annoy exhausted, beyond-irritated people by coming here to vent your misunderstood, misinterpreted, offensive twaddle, why the fuck should anyone be expected to pay attention to your entitlement?
Yours stinks too, sunshine, and nobody here is your servant.
You want answers? Read the damned thread.
You want your argument considered? Make an argument.
So far, you’re just another entitled asshole.
@2567 lentes
How about no?
Seriously what the actual fuck is the difference between you going back and reading the answers that are already there numerous times and you reading the answers that you want people to retype for the millionth fucking time? Get out.
And round and round we go.
(Oh, and I’m betting on Carol thanks to “you’re blind” being repeated in a slightly different way)
No. Truth is an absolute defense
Unknown to you, not unknown to PZ.
Again, they’re not unknown to PZ.
Lentes @2567
Do you honestly expect to take you seriously when you have rehashed the same arguments that have been brought up and slapped down dozens of times over more than 2500 posts?
Especially when you admit to being too lazy to have read those posts, arguments and counterarguments?
Fuck, read any of the full pages and you will find the full set. That is only 500 posts, you can do it.
lentes:
You don’t know the difference between slander and libel, do you? Strike one, idiot. Also, Shermer would not have a case for libel. If he even considered it, he’d have to prove he has never assaulted any woman, ever. Strike two, idiot.
Strike three, idiot. We are not your personal tutors, we are not your educational staff, we are not your minders or your slaves. We are not here to cater to you, nor your puffed up arrogance. Your choice in refusing to read and educate yourself. Bye now.
caseyboucher (#124):
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls (#500):
mikeyb (#1885):
Oooh, he’s a “libertarian”! That settles all doubt; he has to be guilty. Libertarians believe in personal autonomy and responsibility, morally object to the initiation of violence or the threat of it, oppose government actions like spying on its citizens and launching drone strikes on other countries’ citizens, object to robbing people to give money to cronies on Wall Street or Main Street, rail against jailing people who have the wrong kind of addictions, and support the right of anyone to due process and the fair administration of justice. Yep, that’s that’s the kind of moral bankruptcy that easily leads one to being an unsympathetic misogynist and takes just a few drinks to turn into an opportunistic rapist.
Case over. String him up!
Beatrice:
Oh, good catch!
If Shermer decides to sue our host for libel or slander, his lawyer will probably educate him about the law, and the whole thing will die.
If Shermer’s lawyer doesn’t, an accomodating judge certainly will.
The last thing Shermer wants to do – even if innocent, which is both unlikely and irrelevant to my point – is to court the Streisand effect on top of everything else.
Not that that’s stopped a long list of stupid folk from doing just that. Still, there’s always hope that one of them will learn.
Fixed that for you MRA Apologist.
further… I noticed while running down citations for this thread that most of the relevant non-research articles out there have comment sections full of the same myths we’ve been dealing with in this thread. The polygraph test myth alone in relation to sex crime allegations could fill a (very depressing) panel. So could the hidden racism and toxic masculinity in that oft-quoted statement “if anyone I knew was raped I’d kill the guy”. Overlapping with the Innocence Project and DNA evidence in stranger-rape accusations, in fact; and the cover-ups of military rape. (Cue cries of ‘feminists hate all men!’) There’s a ton of interesting info that we’ll never get to while dealing with a 100% chance of flaming doucheweasels – and neither will the commenters in all those other places.
Heck, a few panels like that could potentially go far in repairing Skepticism(TM)’s image as a privileged white dudefest. (Or ruining it, depending who’s complaining. /snark)
One of the first things that went through my head was “None of these superatheists are quick to dismiss when a priest is anonymously accused of rape”.
*looks at my post at 2556*
*looks at the post at 2567*
Well that didn’t last long. I ended that argument for all of eleven comments. SIGH
@lentes
If you can’t be bothered to do that, then I can’t be bothered to give a shit what you think.
Oh, and if true, it isn’t slander. Why is the truth slander?
Oh my, it’s Lynch Girl! I know what to do with you:
Comment by Felicity Gowey blocked. [unhush][show comment]
lentes @2567 essentially says, “I’m unable to recognize where my claims have been answered” or “I’m too lazy to look at the posts that have answered these self-same arguments.”
So: Victims sharing information to help others avoid being victimized = BAD
Willful ignorance, laziness = A-OK!
Bets on who Felicity Gowey is a sock for? Or would this be a new troll?
Yeah, it’s just demonization of the other and closing ranks.
No, they believe in getting theirs and to hell with everybody else, including females they and have their way with under any circumstances. Liberturds have no morals.
Where are you getting all the *straw*? How do you make all the strawmen so *quickly*?
Very talented. Pathetic waste of spleen, though. Read and listen a bit, and try again. (because *that* advice is working soooo well.)
uhh, how do you know someone hasn’t? You would only know if he was CHARGED. A lack of charge doesn’t mean it wasn’t reported.
I reported a dude and he was never charged. I just wanted it on record so the next time he raped someone they would take it more seriously. I don’t know if that would work or not but he cried a lot when he found out I went to the cops so that made it a little bit worth it. He was shakin’ in his boots.
Allegro @ 2283:
Trigger warning for rape and molestation.
.
.
.
Your comment gave me an epiphany.
When I was about 13 I was in a 4-H club. The leader of the club had a son who was 17 or 18. And he had a habit of approaching us young barely-adolescent girls in the club whenever he could and engaging in sexually suggestive talk and actions — grooming us. He was pretty smart about it, and never hit on one girl when another girl was around, but fortunately my friends and I talked about it between us.
Fortunately for me, that is. Because he didn’t rape me. He raped my friend. She told me and her other friends. And hearing her story (and not having the inclination to BELIEVE IT beaten out of me) was what kept me safe from him. I knew to never spend the night at my 4-H leaders house, never be alone with her son.
So, the kind of reporting that Jane Doe has done kept me, personally, safe. I am a walking example of the good done by not silencing women’s stories. Silencing my friend or teaching me to dismiss what she said because bitchez be crazy would have removed my ability to keep myself safe from her rapist.
Here’s the problem: Legally P.Z could still be sued for defamation of character even if the accusations are TRUE because P.Z might not be able to demonstrate in court that they are true. I have no idea how he would get out of the boiling water, so to speak, if that happens….
If Michael Shermer has raped someone I won’t complain when you castrate him.
Sicko.
OK, so I’ve read PZ’s post and I’ve slogged through about 1200 comments and I feel kinda ill. I have a few questions/comments that maybe people could comment on.
First thing I thought of when I read PZs’ post is ‘ Shermer is probably on the phone with his lawyer right now’ …so is this an issue?? Could it be considered slander?? For that matter can commenters be sued?
It bothers me so much when someone I admire turns out to be bad – I’m convinced Shermer deserves serious jail time at this point. So who’s next?? I saw a youtube lecture and discussion with Krauss where he made awkwardly flirtatious comments to one of the panelists, but now I’m hearing him accused of stuff ranging from supporting a pedophile to outright sexual assault!?!!?! I love everything he does so I don’t want to believe it but at some point the saying “where there’s smoke there’s fire” is relevant.
When I hear Dawkins and Neil dG Tyson accused I’m just going to give up.
I’m trying to think of something positive that could come of this. It sounds like there was a network of women that was warned about Shermer. It was only the women who were out of the loop that got victimized. So why not make this sort of thing public from the start? Shouldn’t that be what the internet is for? I realize theres a lot of potential for abuse but that could be minimized: accusations could only be ‘semi-anonymous’, all accounts had to be from direct experience, those accused can answer their accusers on the forum…etc
Big fucking shit tone troll, who are the scum of the Earth. Politeness has nothing to do with the lack of quality of your inane statements,
No, you caused your own punishment by being stupid and thinking a male’s reputation is worth more than stopping women from being raped. Live with it.
Well well… David Lisak does speaking engagements.
http://www.davidlisak.com/services/public-speaker/
I don’t think it will happen. A grad student was intimidated, I don’t think PZ will be and I think Shermer will back down.
Hi Dee! Bye Dee!
@ 2587,
I demand to see compelling proof (with corroboration) that Dee Fiant, Carole Menichell, or anyone’s son ACTUALLY EXIST.
Otherwise, your comment falls short of the standards of journalistic ethics and should not be published on this blog!!
Elizabeth, thank you. And Welcome to Pharyngula!
Pteryxx:
You’re right, there’s a tremendous amount of misinformation we could be dealing with and we all know that relentless efforts to educate are effective agents of change. I really do think this would make a good major focus for the next FTBcon. If I can help in any way, you know I will.
You know, it really could help, if we can get the ball rolling.
He has to prove that someone told him that this happened to her. That isn’t that hard.
Yeah, we lynched you, shot you behind the shed, strung you up by your toes and burned you like a witch. Not necessarily in that order. Did I forget anything?
Trolling FoCrazy/Dee Fiant (I will charitably assume that your bedmate Carol the troll really is a separate person, i don’t expect the same foolishness from PZ)
Congratulations, you son is also soon to be banned, and you screwed up the numbering again.
rodw:
Who has most likely told Shermer to keep quiet.
Lentes:
No you damned fuckwad.
We do not need to play by your rules.
You dumped a steaming turd in here that was addressed on page 1. You do not even have to read the whole thread. The first fucking page will suffice you godsdamned hyperskeptic.
Oh, and perhaps YOU can answer: if you do not believe rape claims, do you believe a clIm that somsones house was broken into?
Do you believe me when I say I am having pizza for dinner?
If you do or do not believe those claims, why?
Here’s the problem: Legally P.Z could still be sued for defamation of character even if the accusations are TRUE
Rainbow, here’s why you should steer away from making legal pronouncements: you obviously know nothing about the law and are not a lawyer.
For civil matters, anyone can be sued for more or less anything. The questions are whether it gets thrown out, or who wins/loses and how much it costs. You might want to review what happened when Carreon sued Inman, for example (do some research) and if you’ve got any brains at all you’ll realize that lawsuits aren’t like what you see on TV – which appears to be where you learned what you think you know about how you think the legal system works.
One thing you’ll notice is a dearth of real attorneys weighing in on this matter. Why? Because they know what the probability is that PZ will be sued for anything.
@skeptifem: But what would happen to the victim? Wouldn’t her identity have to be revealed then?
IIRC a public figure, Shermer would have to prove Myers deliberately spread false information with malicious intent. PZ believes the allegations are true and is doing this as a way of protecting others and create a culture where victims feel able to speak out, not to destroy Shermer’s reputation baselessly.
skeptifem–First of all, I am FULLY on PZ’s side on this, but the mere fact that someone told him this information is not a total insulation from a defamation claim. Even if he was told, but he proceeded with reckless disregard for the truth, he could be held liable for defamation. I do not believe that’s what happened here, but such things can happen. I quite hope Mr. Shermer decided to bring suit on this basis, as it would mean that discovery could be conducted as to the truth of the accusation. While inaction should not be equated with guilt, I would advise Mr. Shermer to sue immediately if it’s not true, and to absolutely bring no action if it is true.
Kristinc:
QFMFT. Thank you, Kristinc. I’m glad your friends did the right thing and that you were able to keep yourself and others safe.
leftwingfox–Malice or reckless disregard is the general standard for defamation of a public figure, yes.
Trolling/Dee:
Get off your obnoxious high horse you arrogant pissant. You are not better than anyone just bc you do not use harsh words.
Tone trolling fuckwit.
This is getting to the point where someone ought to do a FAQ
aelfric:
And in hoping that, you are showing utter disregard for the victim, who is living in fear and would suffer a great deal from exposure. Nice.
Expecting it to be read is rather charitable to the trolls. It has basically been repeats since page 1.
Marcus:
Actually, several of our house lawyers have weighed in on matters. Something our oh-so-concerned correspondents would know, if they took the time to read the damn thread.
Caine. Fleur du mal–I certainly meant no harm to the victim. And I was plotting ahead of things that civil discovery might be a way to get at the accusation without revealing the victim, but that is probably unrealistic. Your point is noted.
I would like to add, my deepest sympathies to all those who have shared the stories of their abuse on here.
Markus Ranum & Co., yes a FAQ is needed. Or/And compilation. Much good stuff to do with the material generated.
And maybe time to close down the comments. Do you do that here?
Actually, several of our house lawyers have weighed in on matters.
Yup.
Re: an FAQ – I’m sort of betting that there’s a couple great answers to each of the tropes, somewhere in the comments. Instead of arguing with the trolls, we could just reply “*yawn* 45, 132 OK?”
Seconded.
aelfric:
Gee, thanks, alefric. Pardon me for not swooning. In spite of the fact that this is not a court of law, and that court proceedings have nothing at all to do with what the victim in this instance wished to accomplish, I’m sure you’ll find a way to keep on pontificating your rules lawyering.
I had my fill of asses like you back when my rape took place, and I’m one of the ones who did end up in a court room, for two fucking years. You’d be doing me and others a favour if you’d just stop typing.
, I would advise Mr. Shermer to sue immediately if it’s not true, and to absolutely bring no action if it is true.
You sound like you’re qualified to give legal advice to Charles Carreon.
By which I mean you couldn’t pour piss out of a boot if instructions were written on the sole.
I don’t think Shermer will sue, because to get a decision in favor of online defamation, the same thing would have to be demonstrated as in libel or slander: that the accusation was not simply false, but knowingly and maliciously false, that is, a deliberate lie meant to defame. Even if Shermer says he really sincerely honest-injun believed that the sex he had with this woman was consensual, if her every-bit-as-sincere testimony is that she was intimidated and goaded into sex she didn’t want, boom goes the whole lying-with-malice-aforethought thing.
Hmmmmmm…… I gotta question. If one of the oldest accusations made against PZ and FtB in general is that they stir up shit for the clicks, then why are the scum working in shifts to keep this thread going and thereby increasing the number of clicks? Not a lot a good thinking going on there.
Keep up the good work, Horde. Caine, you rock. Maybe we should start referring to you as Sub-Commandant Caine?
I’ve added another email account to the post. This one doesn’t have such a horrible ending, but it’s useful for illustrating the strategy several people have told me Shermer uses: plying his target with alcohol while he refrains from drinking much himself. That’s what you have to watch out for.
I am not a lawyer, so take the following analysis with a significant amount of salt.
I highly doubt that Shermer will sue. In order to put on an effective case against PZ he would have to prove that PZ acted with actual malice. In other words, either he would have to prove that PZ knew the statement was false (impossible if the statement is true, and very unlikely even if it is, because I do not believe for one second that PZ deliberately decided to publish a false accusation against Shermer), or he would have to prove that PZ acted in reckless disregard for the truth. The latter is still a high bar, and he probably can’t do it, especially as PZ has been up front about the sourcing of the information and the amount of verification he has done. In addition, even a person who desperately wanted to be anonymous could change her mind if her rapist calls her a liar in court. Unless Shermer is absolutely sparkling clean, it would be seriously damaging to his reputation for Jane Doe (and possibly others) to get on the stand and testify against him.
Libel suits are not to be brought lightly.
Elizabeth:
Only on rare occasions. A thread this long isn’t all that unusual. I don’t think we were doing pagination when Elevatorgate hit, but that was 3D5K+ (3 days, 5,000+ comments.)
Caine, Fleur du mal–I did not mean that court rules apply or that there is any sort of duty on the part of the victim. I apologize for not saying so explicitly. I am not one of those “it has to go to court” types. I meant to express a desire that Mr. Shermer somehow be held responsible without the attendant devastation that it can bring to the victim. I apologize for doing so inelegantly. I fully support the victim’s choice here, and PZ’s choice, for that matter. If you think me an ass, so be it.
Morgan:
Hah! Nah, power corrupts. :D
Caine, it’s totally OT but every time I see your ‘nym I want to ask if you’re a Baudelaire fan..? (I am, and I always get a kick out of seeing the reference; in fact I think it’s interesting how my brain immediately picks it out from long familiarity)
And there you go – the woman felt humiliated, guilty and ashamed, when she didn’t do a single wrong thing. There’s a message there, for people intelligent enough to get it.
I have no idea.
hey regulars:
I looked for our house attorney’s and their commentary but had a hard time. I am busy watching a baby (they are napping right now) so I don’t have all the time in the world. I hope my pre-baby pharyngula cred will earn me some help in the matter. If you just tell me names to control+f for on the other pages I would be most grateful. I am extremely interested in knowing the legalities of what has transpired here.
Skeptifem, LynM, for one, names are escaping me at the moment, I’m sorry – I’ll try to remember.
skeptifem: One of them is Lyn M.
eigenperson:
Yeah, but the suggestion that should happen and might be successful are brought up all the fucking time. Lightly, even.
Of course, the suggestion of libel is an excellent metric by which to judge the commenter. It basically means they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about. So at least it’s handy that way.
Marcus:
Why, yes, I am. :)
Lazy asshole is lazy.
why should we care?
Jesus fuck, Felicity Gowey is also Linda Rosa RN. I’m getting a little tired of cleaning up all the sock puppets here. Do they even realize that it completely undermines their credibility when I smoke them out?
I bet you think you’re being a skeptic.
The whole “plying them with wine thing”: I’ve never understood why anyone would find sex with a dead-drunk partner to be satisfying. If that’s your only way of getting it, you suck at life.
Caine:
Yeah, it means she would’ve been totes complicit had she had sex with him. It’s not like he set out to drug her (I mean, it’s not like alcohol is a drug) to reduce her ability to give or refrain from giving enthusiastic consent. It’s not like he’s preying on the gray area so zealously defended by all these JAQers-off.
It’s not like that at all.
That’s the message I get.
I notice that the Shermer supporters here think one man possibly getting “defamed” is worse than numerous women being raped. They’re willing to risk the second, but not the first.
The are in a tizzy to protect this dude from getting possibly (should all the people involved in coming forward be either lying, misled or incapable of knowing the truth) defamed.
Rape is not an extraordinary claim.
(Jesusfuckingchrist, I wish it were.)
Links have been provided should you need to see evidence of that fact.
These people who are so concerned for Shermer’s rep. really do not give any fucks for my safety or the safety of any other woman. I won’t be forgetting that soon. No one will.
Remember that, hyperskeptics.
For those of you who like to pretend this is a court of law; you better bet that in the years to come you’re documented contributions here will be will be a reminder of just how bad things were and why this community needs social justice advocates.
Oh wow the emotions you people show! No wonder why trolls have a field day here (not saying I am one).
Sure, I’m lazy for not wanting to read all of the insults and crap you people write so arrogantly. Reading most comments here is like stepping into an abyss of madness, in my opinion. I was merely taking a shot at discussing the matter and knew chances were low that you’d argue with me. Whatever. There was one post that did show some form of counter-argument other than stupid insults, and I’m reffering to the guy who posted the link to the other article about why some guy agreed with what PZ did. I read that article, and ultimately disagree with the guy who wrote it, because again he’s not applying skeptic thought.
His whole argument is: “I trust this guy, therefore I believe him.” and “PZ’s post will not destroy Shermer’s career, but will serve to make other potential victims wary of him in the future.”
To his first argument, I say fine. You can trust him. Just the same way christians trust the Bible or a priest. Trust alone does not warrant truthfulness of the statements made.
But what about the second argument? Is it worth it to slander a potentially innocent well-known figure so long as it might prevent some victims getting raped in the future? Sounds like a nice idea. But it’s stupid logic. Because, if he is completely innocent, then we could claim anybody to be a rapist, and have women know that they should be wary around anybody. In other words, the waryness around Shermer may be utterly unfounded, and that is the whole issue here. His reputation is being slandered. I’m not from the USA, and a politician I know was once slandered pretty badly because he was about to win the elections. He ended up losing the elections just because of the anonymous slander note, because stupid people will believe everything they’re told.
Now, I concede the FTB community is different from the voting people I mentioned above, in that the person publishing the claim is somebody they really trust in this case. Here’s the rub: I don’t trust him, and many other rational people don’t either. For you to demonize those who stay skeptical against this sort of claim really shows your true colors as emotionally altered people rather than true free thinkers.
Demanding that others repeat the same argument for the thousandth time instead of you reading what has previously been said, because you’re YOU so they should have to… and you probably deny the existence of privilege.
Damn it! Good thing no one took me up on any bets… that one would have lost me some money. I don’t even remember Linda Rosa RN being banned before switching to a sock account.
I am guessing they want to do whatever they want during sex instead of wanting to provide any mutual pleasure.
I wish he would just buy a real doll.
Well, I’ve read every single comment on this thread (including some of the now-deleted ones)–so I find these Johnny-come-latelies who whine about how they can’t be bothered to read anything before they post just pathetic… not to mention lacking in due diligence.
To Jane Doe: I don’t know if you’re reading these. Given the number of triggering stories that have been shared, and the assholes crawling out of the woodwork to deny your account or even your existence, I somewhat hope not. But maybe PZ is sharing some of the better comments with you. I just want to say that I am so sorry this happened to you, and I greatly admire your courage and conviction in trying to make sure that no-one else has to go through what you did.
To the survivors in this thread who have shared their stories (and those who haven’t): I am also sorry for all that you have gone through. I salute your courage in being able to share your stories and experiences here. They help illustrate that this accusation does not exist in a vacuum, and that this post and Jane Doe sharing her story have meaning, and will hopefully save other women, regardless of what may happen to Shermer.
To the Pharyngulites who have fought the good fight: I’ve read each and every one of your comments, which I have found thoughtful, cogent, well-reasoned and well-sourced, and I have learned from them. I fear I haven’t recorded each of your names to paper or memory, so I hope you’ll forgive that I must salute you as a group. Thank you all.
To the tone trolls: I actually agree with you that the constant “fuck offs” are off-putting. Not because I am a shrinking violet who finds the word “fuck” contaminates all the words surrounding it, so that a reasoned comment becomes corrupted and sapped of all worth by its presence… but because it’s so repetitive (of course, the “arguments” of the trolls here are far more repetitive–and certainly more damaging). Come on, Horde, can’t we shake up the profanity some? Get inventive!
To the people who suspect PZ or Jane Doe is simply fabricating this account: I am somewhat surprised that this has been only been brought up obliquely, but people have habits and patterns. Someone who whips up a frenzy to get blog hits (as though PZ needs them) is likely to have a history of doing so; someone who concocts fake outrages is likely to have a history of doing so; someone who make up lies just to hurt a person they dislike is likely to have a history of doing so; etc. If you read LousyCanuck’s post, you’ll notice he points out that a false accusation of rape was made by someone who had a history of other false statements:
I have read Pharyngula since back when it was on its own domain; followed it to ScienceBlogs; and now here. I haven’t read every post he’s ever written–certainly have not agreed with all that I have–but to the best of my knowledge, PZ doesn’t have a history of doing these things. I find it vanishingly unlikely that he’d start now. I cannot speak for Jane Doe, but PZ knows her and does speak for her–and I believe he (and the other person he mentions vouching for her) would notice such a habit of hers, if it existed.
To wit: we have no reason thus far to doubt this story, and increasing reasons to believe it.
PZ:
I wish I could say I was surprised. Nurse MobJusticeLynchGirl was posting with both identities in the Karen Stollznow thread.
Jafafa Hots:
I bet they think they know what they’re talking about, too.
I’m always amused by people who attempt to lawyer a situation who don’t even know the difference between slander and libel. It just gives their argument so much more weight, y’know?
I’ve never understood why anyone would find sex with a dead-drunk partner to be satisfying.
Martin, They aren’t satisfying sexual desires. Rape is about power and being a dysfunctional, entitled, sadistic fuck.
lentes:
That word doesn’t mean what you think it means.
We have multiple testimonies. So your “slander” accusations would now necessitate you adopt a conspiracy theory involving all of the women who have come forward.
How’s that “skeptic thought” working out for you?
UGH. Forgive my pedant side–and let me say again, I fully support the victim here who did a brave thing in letting this incident be known. I do not believe that this post constitutes any sort of defamation. But, if it did, it would be libel, not slander. Feel free to ignore this nitpicking.
PZ writes:
Jesus fuck, Felicity Gowey is also Linda Rosa RN. I’m getting a little tired of cleaning up all the sock puppets here. Do they even realize that it completely undermines their credibility when I smoke them out?
Wait – do you mean that some of the people complaining your friends may not exist don’t actually exist, themselves? And I thought irony was a lost artform!
Lentes, again:
Lentes, sweety, you don’t need to say you’re a troll. We can already tell.
Then you typed a bunch of more words, but I’m not sure why.
I think they have sexualized their desire for power and sadism. You can sexualize just about anything. It doesn’t make rape inherently about sex, but I believe it plays some sort of role.
The best move for Shermer would be to keep his mouth shut. Methinks this is just the tip of the iceberg.
borked the blockquote. Oh well.
P.Z I hope this does not affect your professional career in any way. You brave old cephalopod, you. :D
Who the fuck cares who you trust. Your opinion is irrelevant to what I think, and who I trust; hint, it isn’t you. You presented nothing we haven’t seen before. Another rape apologist who can’t read the thread.
I KNEW IT!
They were the same person.
Even more dishonest.
Strongly suspected it really.
Sorry for the shouting.
After “their” showing in other threads, the tag team timing seemed too coincidental.
Of course why these assholes can’t just masturbate instead… Wait, they also want power and control…
Or the illusion of being a “stud”.
Lentes, I have this nice crown of decayed porcupines for you. You can wear it as a sign of your terrible persecution as you trample out the vintage of the internet. Go forth and declare your outrage, Cupcake, the internet awaits you.
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. Don’t you think that this is ALREADY THE CASE, you blithering moron?!
shermer is on twitter, not directly saying anything about this incident, but…
hard to think its a coincidence. some of his followers/supporters took it to mean he was commenting on the rape accusations.
Skeptifem, Jackie: It’s probably also that when some men get a taste of celebrity, they think they’re entitled to the rewards of celebrity, which in our culture includes DAT ASS! So it’s probably not so much outright sadism (as in, a desire to cause pain) so much as training yourself to think of women as your just reward for being Captain Rockstar behind the podium. Which is no less pernicious a form of objectifying, of course.
skeptifem: I’m a law graduate from England who will be commencing pupillage as a barrister in October this year, so I am competent to discuss English law, so far as it’s relevant (which as far as I can tell, as yet, it isn’t). I also hold an LLM from a US law school, but I’m not a qualified attorney in any US jurisdiction: I have some knowledge of US law, but I’ll defer to Lyn M and others on those issues
Just because. Just on the off chance someone might want to take a risk and educate themselves.
Explainer: What’s an MRA?
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/10/explainer-whats-mra.html
Nice Guy™ 101.
http://synecdochic.livejournal.com/214607.html
Schroedinger’s Rapist.
http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/
Meet the Predators
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/
Predator Redux
https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/predator-redux/
lentes:
Actually, there’s a huge difference here.
We have statistics on the number of rape claims that turn out to be unprosecutable. It’s about 8%, according to the FBI. This doesn’t mean that those 8% are false claims of rape — it means the rape was reported, but not prosecuted. As others have mentioned in this thread, rapes are reported but not prosecuted all of the time. Also, many rapes are not reported due to the fact that rape is not taken seriously by many jurisdictions, and is notoriously hard to prove even if the case goes to court. (Why is it hard to prove? Because unlike breaking and entering, sex really can be consensual.)
In spite of that, let’s assume the 8% false report rate. That means that 92% of the time, the report of rape is true, and contains enough evidence to prosecute. That’s an order of magnitude in favor of the truth of the claim.
So, the rational person would assume the claim is true, until other evidence is presented indicating the claim is false.
Now, please note I’m not talking about a court of law. I’m talking merely about the statistics of the claims, with respect to taking those claims seriously.
The rational skeptic would go with the statistics, and that alone warrants the assumption of truthfulness of the claims.
Lentes:
Not a troll?
Kudos on the impeccable imitation.
The subject at hand is rape.
If you do not get emotional–like Billhamp and his Vulcan logic–I would be worried. This not some dry subject without an impact on humans. In fact, we have had several courageous people speak up about their own stories. Do not diminish their experiences.
lol isn’t it funny how everyone who is like “I BET PZ IS MAKING IT ALL UP AND THESE ‘VICTIMS’ ARE JUST SOCK PUPPETS” are totally willing to use sock puppets themselves? Shitty people always imagine that everyone else is as shitty as they are, I guess.
Just because. Just on the off chance someone might want to take a risk and educate themselves, part 2.
Things Happen to Men Too
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/phmt-argument/
XYOnline
http://www.xyonline.net/
The Male Privilege Checklist
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/
http://genderbitch.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/intent-its-fucking-magic/
Straight Privilege Checklist
http://lgbteducationforum.com/?p=123
“hysteria”
Look, there’s that word again.
How…usual.
@lentes
In your very first post, you state that you “can’t be bothered” to read what people have previously written. Why would you think that anyone would take you seriously?
“Hey, I don’t care what you say, but you should all listen to meeeeeee.”
Fuck off and may all your pubic hairs become ingrown.
Skeptifem:
So, he’s sticking with the whole witch hunt thing, eh? Tsk.
Tony,
May I offer you all the internet hugs?
Reddit thread on the subject.
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1k0ooh/pharyngula_an_even_more_prominent_member_of_the/
I am undecided who to side with here. I think it was ok for PZ Myers to bring this out to the open. I think Shermer should sue PZ Myers for libel. This will force things to a resolution rather than this half assed “I have no evidence only the word of some people that you are a rapist and I will make it public but I do not want to have charges pressed against you”
No. If you commit a crime you should be prosecuted. Even if the victim does not want to press charges. That is not how the justice system works. Shermer should have the right to defend himself because he could be innocent and he has his 6th amendment rights.
At this point, I wonder how Shermer would go about attempting to demonstrate that he is ‘innocent’? Assuming he responds at all.
@2680 Azure Dragon
I feel like I’ve seen this somewhere before but I can’t put a finger on where…
Jackie:
Yeah, to the point it’s completely boring and meaningless. It is rather astonishing to find myself saying that about a centuries old misogynist stereotype, but after you hear such microaggressions so many times, well, I can’t be arsed to give a shit about a single thing such a person might say. The only note I can make is that they are excruciatingly boring.
… Azure Dragon, you are either woefully naieve or willfully oblivious of how the justice system works.
I suggest you look up what happened to Rehtaeh Parsons before her case captured international attention.
That is how the justice system works where rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment is concerned.
Azure Dragon–As was correctly pointed out to me earlier, the problem with the “Shermer should sue, so the truth comes out” stance is that it would inevitably result in the disclosure of the victim, and she is due our respect and deference. Moreover, the 6th Amendment is in no way implicated as he has not been charged with any crime. Allegations do not trigger our constitutional criminal protections.
QFF
Thank you for your diagnosis. I was only trying to get the horde to listen to themselves by going along with their conclusions. They haven’t and won’t listen, being a perfect example of a mob. See Trotter here http://books.google.com/books?id=4L4YAAAAYAAJ
(and yes, I hold a Wilfred Trotter gold medal in surgery and feel obliged to point out that all of this is a well-trodden path!) Despite those surgical skills I have failed to castrate even one person in the 34 years since I won it. I simply try to point out to you how much egg you will have on your faces if Shermer is innocent. Perhaps he isn’t, and is guilty as hell. If so we will revile him. But to judge him in advance of the facts is to pre-judge him, ie prejudice – which even the most uninformed amongst you likely understand as a bad thing. Would you want a mob to do the same to you if you happened to be innocent? Is a 90% guilty rate for complaints of sexual assault good enough to assume he is guilty? If it is, you must live with the fact that one in ten of alleged assailants are actually innocent. I am not saying, and cannot say that Shermer is innocent. I’m saying you are destroying the man’s life, family and career here, and you might not be right in doing so. Do you get that or will you tell me once more to ‘read the thread’ or that I am a ‘rape apologist’?
Naturally. After all, who gives a shit about the victim?
Oh, another expert! Tell me, punkin, how the justice system works. I’m just dying to know, ’cause I just didn’t learn a darn thing during the two years of trial I was testifying in, given those pink ladybrainz of mine and all.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/08/09/if-you-wont-shut-up/#more-5915
A lawyer discusses some of the legal issues here. Its not comprehensive but it is enlightening.
Azure Dragon:
This quote is out of context: you were definitely not claiming PZ is lying. I don’t want you to assume that’s my interpretation of your post. I quoted this line only because that’s the bit to which I’m responding.
All I’m saying is, Shermer has no standing for a libel suit even if the accusation is false. He’d have to prove that PZ posted this knowing it was false, and with intent to cause damage. The OP definitely lays out both the epistemological standing of the post (not guaranteed to be true, but assumed true based on personal knowledge of Jane Doe), and the reasons for the post (not for defamation, but to serve as a warning to others about Shermer to avoid future potential rapes).
Throwing around shoulds is a dangerous thing. Be careful when parceling out advice; too often, it turns out we’re not as knowledgeable or as clever as we assume ourselves to be.
De-lurking.
The Horde continue to amaze me. Thank you all.
Thank you, PZ.
Jane – just…pure damn guts there.
/lurk
dogberry–“Not guilty” and “innocent” are entirely different concepts. Our justice system does not declare anyone “innocent.”
Chas:
Um, I don’t know what that means.
Hey, Chandrese! Good to see you.
@nigelTheBold, also Avo
Again, being pedantic, reckless disregard for the truth can sustain a defamation claim. I agree that it would be nigh impossible given the facts here, but actual malice is not always an element of defamation, even where a public figure is concerned.
Damage to MS will include his book sales going up as all the MRA sockpuppets buy six books each to support their Great White Hero.
Sorry, PZ, but I’m actually not sorry that you’re having to clean up sockpuppets. I’m glad; it means they’re a small handful of determined assholes.
I do wonder, though, why anyone thinks it’s so important to be an asshole here that they feel compelled to created a bannable sockpuppet to do it.
Couldn’t they just go be assholes somewhere else?
notsont:
Thank you for posting that. So Miranda Celeste Hale has reported FTB to their ISP.
:shakes head: I hardly know what to say. Some people…
dogberry:
Which conclusion? That the chances are the victim’s story is true? Especially with all the corroboration received? This isn’t a court of law, nor have we claimed it is such. A victim wanted to warn other potential victims to avoid a specific person. For that warning to be effective, names had to be named.
So, a couple of questions for you: do you think the story might be true? If so, which is more important, possibly tarnishing the reputation of the accused, or preventing future rapes?
You’ve presented only strawmen (castration? really?). Why should we listen to an argument that’s predicated entirely on a strawman?
Read back. No suggestion of punitive action has been discussed seriously. Most of the mentions of punitive actions come from folks like you, who are attempting to create ridiculous strawmen versions of this discussion. Even the few folks who have mentioned they are not going to attend any future con in which Shermer speaks have not received any kind of support. So you’re attempt to show how ludicrous we are with your fake fucking support only undermines your argument.
In fact, it demonstrates you have no argument against what is happening here. All you can do is synthesize a controversial conclusion, thrust it on us as our own, and pretend it’s us who want to punish Shermer.
So, really, you’re not doing yourself any favors with your fake outrage.
Fuckity-No.
Thanks for coming forward with your support. I think you’re grand. I really do. The following isn’t meant to sound harsh or angry. It just may be something I think you can grasp, but may not have grasped just yet.
Keep in mind that as I type this, I’m continuing on with normal family life. The kids want to know who is next on the gaming system. The teen and her buddies are coming and going and I have to keep them all quiet because their dad is napping. We re-certified for CPR this morning. We’re both a little tired. We have to make dinner in a few minutes. So if I’m not creative enough, that’s why. I’m a real person. I’m not pixels on a screen and I’m not here to entertain you.
But, it isn’t a bad suggestion. So, bell that cat yourself. Freshen the place up. Hang around a couple months and think of new ways to answer the same questions. I look forward to your creative contributions.
Welcome, I stalk Reiux (not really) because I never fail to learn something interesting in whatever he posts on.
aelfric:
I will bow to your superior knowledge here. While I have some knowledge, I certainly won’t claim lawyerly knowledge. Or even paralegal knowledge.
@AzureDragon:
Well, at least you’re straightforward that you don’t give a damn about what the victim wants. It’s a little refreshing that you’re not even hiding behind a veneer of respectability.
Actually, that’s precisely how the criminal justice system works. People choose not to press charges against someone all the damn time. You cannot force them to do so, and it would be malicious and reprehensible of you to try.
This is not a court, and PZ is not the government. Besides which, Shermer can speak on his behalf whenever he likes. No-one has taken that from him.
If there is a lesson to be taken away from the third(?) story in the OP it is that one should know when to start refusing offers to have your wine glass refilled from strangers.
Someone, quickly…fainting couch. Near fatal eyeroll/headdesk combo coming…
Azure Dragon:
So which one are you?
Will?
Jimashby?
Carol?
Carlos?
(The queer shoop now wonders how many actual idiots have infested this 2700 comment thread)
****
Watch as I try my best to play the part of Broken Record…
HEY!
DOGBERRY:
Can you explain, rather than assert, how Shermers life will be ruined by false rape accusations? Aint none of you Rape Culture Apologists even attempted to explain this. All you do is assert it with no proof. Come on, pony up. I want to see all the examples of people losing their cars and their home, job and spouse, community support and life savings all bc of false rape allegations.
I actually do have all weekend long, but I am rather anxious to get an answer sooner than later.
notsont:
Yes, I appreciated his lawerly posts on the issue, I learned a great deal. I keep thinking I just shouldn’t be shockable at this point in my life, but the lengths that people like Hale and Mayhew will go to in order to protect rape culture are…surprising.*
*I’ll go with Gytha Ogg here: I’m not shockable, but I can be surprised!
Alright so I really didn’t know the definition of slandering since my first language is not english, and assumed by context its meaning was close enough to defame (defamar in spanish). So when all of you started crying about how I was using a word wrongly, I looked up the definition just to make sure I wasn’t using some word in some outlandish way.
Turns out, the only difference is in how the defamation is done! The nitpick is so laughable that you guys just made my day; like I am leaving this abyss of fanatism happy that I learned the technical difference between slander and libel in the english language and amused that you guys would think I was at all entering law into my argument (from the start my whole argument has been about the morality of the case, not the law, since I don’t live in the USA).
Because of course, not knowing some technical difference in the definition of two words constitutes a lack of skeptic thought and intelligence. A financially poor friend who works for me is, despite his linguistical ignorance and informal treatment of subjects, a really smart person compared to my lawyer friends who get frustrated over technicalities that don’t deserve mention in a non-legal context (not saying that all technicalities do not deserve mention, but the meaning of what I said was clear to everyone with their head not between their legs). Anyways, that’s all from me, keep calling each other rape apologists, trolls, and crap like that, and here’s my piece of advice for those of you who haven’t been taking your pills lately: don’t make arguments so emotional, that’s what keeps trolls coming.
Lente, Asure Dragon, dogberry
Everything you say has been addressed, debunked and dismissed at least once per page in this thread. Repeating the same bullshit for the hundredth time is no more convincing than it was the first time. Actually fucking read, do your best to comprehend, and shut your worthless fucking pieholes.
I was going to castigate a few others, but they met the banhammer in the interim, so fuck it.
Oh great, Reddit.
The same people who sent my hit on flickr for an antique carousel rooster through the roof for weeks as they linked to it for a joke while they insulted women for “riding the cock carousel” (daring to have sex with some OTHER dude!)
Yep. Led me straight to a cesspool of MRAs. Topic of complaint = “I’m not the one they’re fucking! Those SLUTS!” (as usual.)
Fuck Reddit.
I ended up having to replace that nice carousel photo (which people liked) with a fuck-off message on the same URL.
(Did I say fuck Reddit?)
I am a male that saw him a while ago back in the 90’s speak nearby. I have always cited his speech as something that put me off, even a few weeks ago at a local skeptics meeting – he was like an evangelist or a politician.
He made fun of some physics – hardly something he should be doing until he become more knowledgeable, and time has proven him wrong, but boy oh boy he sure could make people laugh and smile, just short on evidence. Laughed joked, and was much more engaged with the college women than the males, to the point it was obvious, and reminded me of the politicians I worked with at the time (at the time I was very active in the Missouri GOP, and many of the politicos / ‘layman preachers’ I worked with wound up with “women” troubles – they didn’t have evidence, plans, or anything else but they sure could smile and engage the ladies over drinks…). After he spoke, it was like after a GOP sanctimonious religious speech ended, time to bring on the booze and chat with the co-eds. It affected me as much as I was when I saw my first evangelist drunk asking me to ‘keep his wife busy’ while he ‘counseled’ a young lady he just met and drank with…
Obviously, my observations don’t prove anything…. and they are just my opinions, that he acted like a boor…
skemono:
In fact, Shermer could come here to address this directly, if he wanted.
Ain’t the intertubes wonnerful?
Rainbow:
While it never hurts to be cautious, that is not a take away lesson. A take away lesson is that for all of given history, the onus of being raped or assaulted is always on the victim, and it is past time to change that. It’s time to put the onus on those who would rape. I highly recommend looking into the Don’t Be That Guy campaign in Canada. It’s working because it aggressively targets would be rapists, rather than bleating out yet more ‘tips’ on how women need to restrict their lives in order to not be targeted.
PZ, I salute you for doing this. I have never been to the US but for years have heard rumours about a prominent skeptic behaving like this had picked up enough clues that it was Shermer. However, these rumours have done nothing to protect women from his attention.
What really pisses me off is that no-one has done this before. Surely, other prominent people in the skeptic community knew what was going on and could have challenged him directly and collectively without necessarily involving the victims?
And what is it with the sort of “hero worship” we see from some “skeptics” and “atheists” the sort of hero worship which is the very anathema of what I see a skeptic/atheist being?
Caine, you are amazing. Carl Sagan talked about a candle in the dark – you are a veritable flamethrower!
Caine, I was once a Thunderf00t fan. During Elevatorgate I spent a lot of time arguing with the (people that you guys call) “dudebros”. But I didn’t come ’round here (and wish I had). Now, I’d really like to see the archives.
At this point, I wonder how Shermer would go about attempting to demonstrate that he is ‘innocent’?
Well, a fairly convincing rebuttal would look like:
On such and such a date at so and so conference, I hung out in the bar most of my free time. So and so and so and so and so and so would be able to attest to that. While I was there, I drank with possible accuser A, who was already quite drunk when they arrived. So and so and so and so, who were already there, probably would remember that incident – go ahead and ask them. Meanwhile, at about 2:00am I left to go to my room and possible accuser A followed me into the elevator, at which point I asked them not to follow me any further and went back to my room, threw up, played World of Warcraft until 3:00am – I have no idea if there are logs available that would show that – but I also sent a couple of emails to friends. My sent-mail archive shows I was sending messages at 3:30 when I passed out, and so and so who I sent messages to might be able to corroborate that. The next morning when I went to breakfast I was greeted by so and so and such and such who might have noticed I was alone. … etc.
Then at such and such conference, the banquet ran until 11:00, and I was sitting with so and so and so including possible accuser B who was coming on to me in a rather embarrassing way. I went to my room afterwards and so and so who were at the table with me could attest that I left alone and that possible accuser B was annoying everyone at the table with their behavior.
etc…
See, the thing is that a plausible story is going to have gaps in it. Like, if I went to my room alone and woke up alone, etc. But it’s not like people don’t exist and at a conference with other people around, there’s a chance they’ll remember and talk. In this situation, that appears to be working against Shermer rather than in his favor.
The flip side of this is that if you’ve got any brains at all, you’re going to think of the appearances and take them into account. Because, if you don’t, yeah – you may wind up looking pretty bad. And that appears to be the alternative narrative that (so far) Shermer hasn’t done anything to counter. So if the big name conference speaker is flirting outrageously with attendees, pouring them lots of wine and suggesting they go to their room to “see my etchings and maybe win an autographed copy of my book” yeah, people are going to remember that and come forward to help flesh out a picture of a creepy character.
See how it works? That’s why the hyperskeptic cut and dried approach doesn’t hold water – if someone manages to build a long-standing appearance of being a masher, their either a masher or they’ve got their head so far up their ass that it never occurs to them that their behavior might be damaging their reputation..?
I mentioned earlier that I have a lot of experience as a conference speaker. Well, in 2007 I was at a conference (IANS, it was called) in Boston, and me, Randy M from UVA and another attendee sat at the hotel bar drinking a lot and talking about music. The three of us went to my room, so I could get my iPod, then listened this one particular track, Randy left, and the other attendee passed out drunk. So I went and found an armchair in the hotel lobby and crashed out there. I even made a point of mentioning the whole thing to my thenwife (for obvious reasons) and to the conference organizers. Guess what? No problem. It’s not hard to cover yourself and it’s not hard to corroborate it. What’s hard to cover is a history of mashing on drunken conference attendees, and – it sure sounds like – a history of deliberately setting up that situation and going too far with it.
The hyperskeptics ought to be asking Shermer, “what’s up with those accusations, Mike?” Why aren’t they? Because if he’s 1/10 as smart as he seems to think he is, he’ll have a good answer. Right?
Yes, Lentes, when you make a legal argument it DOES count against you when you 1. don’t know the terms and 2. don;t know the law.
Yeah, it is pretty picayune to resort to getting down to legal definitions merely because some guy wanted to make a legal argument on the internet.
Tell you what, I’m going to go to bat for you. I’m going to send a note to the judges asking them to reconsider complete incompetence as a disqualifier.
Nigel:
Actual lawyers have been happily discussing this issue over at Almost Diamonds. It’s a good read.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/08/09/if-you-wont-shut-up/#more-5915
Today’s lesson in doublethink:
A. PZ Myers is totally irrational for posting this, because no rational skeptic would accept the mere word of several women as sufficient evidence.
B. This post will cause Michael Shermer immense damage, because all of his fans will stop buying his books, the conference organizers will stop protecting him, his wife will leave him, and his children and friends will stop speaking to him, because all of these people will accept PZ’s post as sufficient evidence.
If you can hold beliefs A and B simultaneously — congratulations! Start creating your sockpuppet accounts and step right in!
Rainbow
Oh fuck no.
That is textbook victim blaming. Maybe not your intention, but it is.
lentes @2707
Thank you for explaining what brought you here.
BTW, have you started your reading yet or are you still expecting people to spoonfeed the information to you?
advice from a tone/concern/rape apologist troll? I don’t think so Tim. Here’s some advice for you. Your inane and arrogant opinion will be ignored each time you present it, as you are trolling. So just fuck off and fade into the bandwidth. You will accomplish nothing with further posts.
Did someone really bring up the author of Candide as someone who would be skeptical of a claim of rape?
Elizabeth:
A lot of people were. The path he chose was unfortunate.
Unfortunately, NatGeo has not seen fit to restore the comments to any of those threads. It’s a loss many of us mourn.
And now the ableist insults from Lentes.
“Hey, you should trust my opinion on discrimination – I use bigoted slurs.”
for fun
To Jane Doe, if you’re reading any of this: it took a lot of courage to do what you’ve done, even through the cloak of anonymity, and I admire your willingness to allow your story to be shared in this manner. I am sorry this happened to you. I’m glad, though, that at least in this little corner of the internet, you have found good people who are completely and irrevocably on your side.
To the Horde: Caine, Pteryxx, Nerd of Redhead are names I can recall offhand, and there are countless others whose names I don’t can’t recall, who have been huge in this thread. Whether or not I can remember your names, though, you rock. Completely. I’ve never met any of the Horde. Having seen Caine, et al, in unwavering defense of Jane Doe, I can say that it is my loss.
To PZ: thank you for seeing someone in distress, analyzing all the pitfalls of acting, realizing that stepping in could well prove problematic for you, and doing the right thing anyway.
To those more concerned with Shermer than potential future rape victims: you sock-puppet, strawman, and cherry-pick your way through this thread without showing the slightest bit of true compassion for someone who was raped, reserving it instead for someone with a great deal of privilege who will likely face little to no hardship over this whole matter. Where is your fucking decency?
If you only care about morality, not the law, why are you being such a slimy piece of shit? If you care about the law, Defamation of Character suits ultimately require measurable harm.
IIRC, you can only choose not to press charges if consent is an element of the crime – doing so effectively means telling the police you consented. Now, you’re not going to get very far without the victim’s cooperation in a lot of cases, but they’re not actually the same thing.
Mikee:
Aaaw, you just gave me a very long lasting warm and fuzzy. Thank you.
PZ,
, why have they not been banned yet? Because seen in this light, the thread plays out quite differently:
Linda Rosa barges in at 176, and continues to argue in comments 275 and 283
At 288, Linda Rosa starts whining about mob justice
At 294, Felicity Gowey says the following (amongst others):
299, dishonesty contuinues as Felicity Gowey
And then at 302, under the name of Linda Rosa, the ultimate icing on the cake:
Then she gives basically two times the same comment, at 356 and 357, each time under a different name.
The dishonesty displayed is staggering, if indeed this is the same person (and the timing of the comments seems to follow sockpuppeting behaviour quite closely).
So answer me this: Let’s say person A publicly accuses person B of murder, on the second-hand report of person C, and not other direct corroborating and convincing evidence is presented. Now let’s say my gut reaction is that person A has inappropriately accused person B. So does that now make me a member of the “murderer’s apologist culture”?
Just wondering…
@Rainbow
Really? I would think the lesson was “don’t be a creepy rapist who tries to use alcohol to incapacitate victims”. Maybe that’s just me.
You’re moving focus unto the actions of the victim, instead of keeping it on the perpetrator. Don’t do that.
PZ Myers:
I am not Felicity Gowey.
MF Headcase:
You don’t remember me being banned, because I haven’t been. Yet.
Do you have any idea what that would mean for the victim? What she would be put through?
On using the swears: I am one of the people who swears here. A lot. Much more than I do in person. One big reason for me is that it is such a freeing feeling – I grew up in a very religious house. I think the only time my father ever even said “damn” was when he cut through his entire thumb on a table saw (it got better!). Every time I swear, for me it has a nice little frisson of thumbing my nose at religion (ew, just saw how bad a phrase that was to use right after that example on reread, but I’m leaving it there anyway).
It also serves to provide emphasis. It most definitely is NOT a sign of weakness of argument to feel passionately about a subject. To the contrary, it can really drive a point home to see exactly how deeply that point affects someone, and that’s the very raisin date* for expletives. Lastly, we do have a history here of coming up with a lot of creative invective, but those run the risk of accidentally sideswiping someone or some group without meaning to, and when you start to pay too much attention to how you swear, it takes away the punch of the reason the swearing is there in the first place – you end up drawing attention to the swearing rather than it serving as an exclamation point, and you spend a lot of time thinking about how to tell someone off when often, you’re tired and bored of the dumbass argument they’re making for the hundredth time and don’t want to spend any more time on them.
*in-joke, sorry, couldn’t help it.
@lentes
There’s a bittersweet irony to the fact that the people who make 12 sock puppet accounts to cry Stalin/witch hunt/Pol Pot are also the same believing that people are ‘too emotional.’
It’s also funny that the poster who thinks he’s entitled to direct responses while making it clear he has no desire to make a small effort to understand what’s going on is calling others arrogant.
Uh… Are you going for a ‘I’m rubber, you are glue’ argument?
Nobody cares what you believe. This post is to make it known to women for them to choose whether they should be in a situation where Shermer could abuse them. That’s all. Clearly, you’re not affected by this, so feel free to get drunk with him all you want. Multiple independent accounts are a pretty common way to know who people should be around. We do this with everything else. You’re lucky not to worry about being raped, now give yourself a pat in the back and circulate.
Wow spectacular tag fail, ok trying again without links:
PZ,
If Linda Rosa RN and Felicity Gowey are actually the same person, why have they not been banned yet? Because seen in this light, the No, it could never happen to her! thread plays out quite differently:
Linda Rosa barges in at 176, and continues to argue in comments 275 and 283
At 288, Linda Rosa starts whining about mob justice
At 294, Felicity Gowey says the following (amongst others):
299, dishonesty contuinues as Felicity Gowey
And then at 302, under the name of Linda Rosa, the ultimate icing on the cake:
Then she gives basically two times the same comment, at 356 and 357, each time under a different name.
The dishonesty displayed is staggering, if indeed this is the same person (and the timing of the comments seems to follow sockpuppeting behaviour quite closely).
Let’s see, we have the implication that we’re all crazy or PMS hysterical, should be on meds, and have the nerve *gasp* to act like humans! Well, you’re not just a pile of illogical bias, are ya? Go kiss a cockroach, Cupcake.
Hypotheticals mean you have no new evidence to present, as mental wanking about hypotheticals is just so much nonsense, essentially meaningless drivel. So stop with hypotheticals, and stick to reality if you can.
Don’t tell me, you just sleep with her, right?
Woah. Didn’t expect to come across a thread like this when I got linked to one of PZ’s old blog post and decided to read a little more of his stuff…
I wanted to give props to this here community. I’m very impressed. I don’t understand much about ethics, but I understand that when something like this goes public, or, as the OP states “Boom,” the community closes ranks and mans the battlements, ‘cuz it is going to be a shitshow, and it ain’t going to blow over for a while. Y’all done well.
Jane Doe, looks like you chose a good confidant/advocate. PZ, being considered a good confidant/advocate may be bad for your health and financial wellbeing. But you both done earned my respect. Thank you, and good luck.
Yeah, you’re just wondering, you lying assface.
I’m just wondering which one you are. An actual rapist or just a rape apologist.
Another false positive then? Felicity is your neighbor, snarfing your Wi Fi?
If you get banned, it won’t be for a difference of opinion.
OTOH, sockpuppeting…. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/08/what-do-you-do-when-someone-pulls-the-pin-and-hands-you-a-grenade/comment-page-6/#comment-665116
Sorry, didn’t mean to tax your mighty all-powerful brain with my pithy hypothetical question. Of course you’re right, nobody ever gets inappropriately accused of murder. Silly me.
This is beautiful. Yes, this.
Seriously – what harm do you think will come to Shermer? At most, women who have heard this story will be less willing to get drunk with him. Oh, the humanity!
12 sock puppet accounts to cry Stalin/witch hunt
To be fair, Stalin had some pretty impressive sock puppets.
Vancouveratheist:
How about if we don’t? How about, if you actually have anything to say about the actual OP, then say it. And FFS, don’t repeat the same crap we’ve already dealt with. Chances are, 99.9% of anything you can come up with, we’ve seen and dealt with, which is why the standard suggestion is: READ THE WHOLE FUCKING THREAD, STARTING WITH COMMENT #1 ON PAGE 1.
Anyone see the episode of “The Big Bang Theory” where Penny gets super drunk and come on to Leonard and he viciously rapes her? Oh wait, no he didn’t, he sent her home because he didn’t want to be a rapist.
Out of curiosity I would love to know how many people think it wouldn;t have been rape if he just guided her into his bedroom instead.
No, stupid you. Take your wanking on the road.
I’m delurking to express my support for Jane Doe, and also to thank PZ and the Horde – particularly Caine, in this thread – for providing a space where topics such as this can be discussed. Myself and many friends of mine have have had our experiences with sexual assault in day-to-day life dismissed and minimized. It’s a common response, and it’s painful as hell, so I’m very happy that ‘bitches be lying’ isn’t an attitude that goes unquestioned on Pharyngula.
@Caine 2694 – *waving* Hi!
Thanks for all those links you just posted. Some are new to me. Looks like I know what I’m doing this evening now that I’m caught up on the thread comments.
________________
I always want to ask those who minimize sexual harassment and assault against women (and men) – what world do you live in? No, not every woman has been raped, but harassed in some way at any and every age / stage of their lives? How can they not know about this? Is it some denial strategy they employ as a charm against it happening to them? A complete lack of empathy? Or something even more awful, a way to further harm those who who’ve already been harmed?
Sigh.
But Caine, if we don’t pay attention to each and every one of them who comes by and asks a question then we’re oppressing them and preventing their free speech and refusing to engage them when they COULD BE AN ALLY, DAMMIT, if we’d just spend all of our time spoonfeeding them the answers they want with a minimum of effort on their part? Anything else is just us being nazi commie groupthink hivemind religious lockstep acolytes who drank the kool-aid. Or something.
Chas:
Oh! I’ve learned something fun. Thanks.
@vancouveratheist
Remind me, when people are killed, do the police routinely ask the witnesses “are you sure he didn’t maybe stab himself in the chest twenty times?”
If a person who has been stabbed has knives in his kitchen, do the officers just write off the case and refuse to investigate?
If a person is stabbed by an ex, do the police automatically assume that the stabbing was consensual?
Rape is nothing like murder. It’s handled entirely differently, it carries way more baggage socially, and anyone who doesn’t recognize that is either clueless or evil.
vancouveratheist:
Thank you for admitting you do not brlieve testimonials from women count as evidence. Does it need to come from multiple women to count? Oh, wait…read the OP.
Oh, and unlike rape, murder is treated with more seriousness. There is no Murder Culture you ignoramus.
Which sockpuppet are you?
****
Linda Rosa/Felicity Gowey:
Hit the road Rape Culture Apologist.
Carlie:
Yep. I’m good with that. :D Honestly, if those marvels of Freeze Peach, Hale and Mayhew can be ever so busy attempting to infringe on PZ’s freeze peach, I’ll happily indulge in being a nazi commie groupthink hivemind religious lockstep acolyte who done drank the kool-aid. And it was delicious, too.
vancouveratheist @ #2730
I’ll take false equivalency for $500 Alex!
Listen, Mr. Oh-So-Clever-Questions: I’m sure you think you’re a very clever fellow (as demonstrated by the use of ‘atheist’ in your ‘nym), but alas, that cleverness did not help you when concocting that steaming pile of shit you shoved into people’s faces under the guise of clever rhetoric. The problem with your example is twofold:
First, murder and rape are VERY different crimes in terms of incidence. That is, within modern Western society at least, there are more rapes committed than murders committed in any given period of time. Thus, simple Bayesian reasoning would tell you that, compared to an allegation of rape, an allegation of murder would be less likely to be true.
Second, unlike rape victims, murder victims are seldom targeted for investigation in terms of what the victim (as opposed to the offender) did wrong. Rape victims are systematically portrayed as flawed and untrustworthy, particularly when they accuse people of some standing in the community. The same is seldom the case for people who bring forth accusations of murder.
So, other than providing a shitty analogy (and seriously, we’ve seen enough of those) and demonstrating you do not understand the first thing about rape culture (there are links scattered through this thread. Look ’em up) you’ve accomplished nothing, other than perhaps give you some smug sense of superiority over all the hysterical over-emotional leftist fascists need-to-take-chill-pill people in this thread.
So, good job, I guess.
Of course it might be true. I accept the statistics that 90% of the time such an accusation is made it does turn out to be true. Shall you take responsibility for the harm done if Shermer is in the other 10%?
Then you speak of ‘punitive actions’ and obviously no actual sanctions of a legal kind can be instigated by this forum. Let’s get personal. I don’t know you, where you live, what you do or what relationships you have that are important to you. Assuming you are just as much of a nobody as I am, I would guess that you still wouldn’t like it one bit if I published my opinion that you are a rapist, and possibly you would dislike it more if 2,700 people piled on with agreements even though we have to admit that none of them can actually speak to the charge I laid against you. Pretty horrible, isn’t it? Now even if this theoretical complaint of mine were true, and some jerk like me spoke up against it wouldn’t your victim(s) be annoyed? Of course, and rightly so. But we must not blame or castigate an individual until some standard of proof is met, 90% or not, otherwise we run the risk of 10% of our felons being wrongly imprisoned.
Your second question is an interesting one, and one that our society has already answered. Generally we feel it better that a criminal goes free than if an innocent person is jailed. Right or wrong? I don’t know, and I didn’t make that standard. I suspect you suggest it is better that Shermer’s family, employers and friends all come to believe him to be a rapist than we give him the benefit of the doubt in case he isn’t one. I find that a fairly heavy burden of responsibility to do that to someone if they are actually innocent. Obviously, in this situation it would have been best if the victim had made a loud and official complaint as soon as possible after the alleged crime. I know of no society that takes sexual assault as seriously as it should, nor of any that gets the convictions that should be obtained. I hope, perhaps wrongly, that this is the case because of the need to protect the rights of all, including the accused, rather than because of assumptions made about rape victims and their complaints. We seem to be slowly moving in the right direction in that regard and there are few judges brave enough now to suggest that a victim invited the rape. I’m afraid the police are less enlightened and that seems to be the main hurdle to a successful prosecution now.
I will say once again that I understand that this forum is not a court. But everything published here has consequences. How would you feel if it were you being accused here? How does the victim in this case feel when she reads all this? None of us can judge this – we have neither evidence nor authority to do so, but we are impacting the lives of the victim and the alleged perpetrator. No doubt some of you will say thank you when I now promise to shut up!
The Pigeon, thank you.
Chandrese:
You’re welcome. They helped me a great deal.
Wow, I don’t remember that one, for a show with quite a lot of cringe-worthy sexist and other punching-down stuff, they actually got that one right, then.
Or, if I am less charitable, the show had a lot of ‘look at those nerds’ punching-down humour, so maybe it was intended like that? ‘Look at that giant nerd, not taking advantage when he could, like a real man would do’ ? Fuck, I’m tired, at a certain moment, you begin to question everything. Fuck this toxic culture we are living in.
Keep up the good fight everyone, especially kudos to Caine, of course. The comments section wouldn’t be the same without you.
@vancouveratheist
Yeah, your analogy is flawless. Multiple first person independent accounts of sexual assault and rape are the exact equivalent of a single secondary account of murder.
Somehow, I wondered if you were that Vancouver atheist. You know, the fierce warrior who wants to rename it Mancouver. It must be lonely here for you.
Also:
To Jane Doe, you also have my support.
To PZ, kudos on doing what’s right.
And to the Horde. I first found Pharyngula shortly before ElevatorGate hit. And I’d like to think I’m a better person thanks to what I learned from the brave brave people here. Seeing your work once again in the face of endless assholery and douchebaggery, I once more tip my hat to you. Y’all are awesome.
Anyone see the episode of “The Big Bang Theory” where Penny gets super drunk and come on to Leonard and he viciously rapes her? Oh wait, no he didn’t, he sent her home because he didn’t want to be a rapist.
I learned that lesson from “Animal House” – perhaps I’ve just dated myself. But we had morals even back then. ;) Now that I think of it, the great frathouse party scene interposed Pinto and (I forget her name) his drunken date, and Flounder and his drunken date against Mrs Dean Wormer and Dorfman. Pinto looks at the drunken dean’s daughter and has the little devils and angels dialoguing on his shoulder, then decides to take her home – leaving her in a shopping cart at her parents’ doorstep. Meanwhile, Dorfman and Mrs Dean Wormer are drinking but the entire time portrays enthusiastic consent. It’s odd to realize that there was a deliberately positioned moral lesson in that particular film. Who’d’a thunk it?
carlie:
At this point if one of these trolls will answer the damn question, I will share my pizza with them.
But noooo, they are all so busy talking about the harm that can be done to Radford (Linda Rosa/Felicity in the Stollznow thread) or Shermer (every troll in this one) that they fail to prove anything will happen.
Well actually now that I recall the episode may have ended with Raj taking a drunk girl home and raping her…
Okay, okay, let me play this game too!
My turn to avoid reality by using an “analogy” that is not only a far less common occurrence but also prosecuted far more often, more successfully and severely than rape and sexual assault. And then let me say they’re equal, ok?
Or I could try one of the old style ones and compare rape to someone accidentally picking up my wallet or something.
These analogies help clarify things!
Ze Madmax:
Now we need an update: Okay, we’re all hysterical over-emotional leftist fascists need-to-take-chill-pill nazi commie groupthink hivemind religious lockstep acolytes who drank the kool-aid.
Will that make all you fucking flaming doucheweasel idiots go away?
Why do I get the feeling that if Jane Doe had video and a jar of jizz, these same rejects would be hollering “CGI!” and posting inflated statistics of fertility clinic break-ins?
I’m still on page 5.
Why can’t any of them blockquote?
Maudell:
:snorts tea: Godsdamnit, I made a mess. Seriously?
I’m too slow today. By the time I type a reply, a zillion have already replied before me.
Which is a good thing.
PZ, any chance we can make failure to blockquote a bannable offense? I think we’d clear out 90% of the troll straight away.
Of course, then we wouldn’t have any chew toys. Decisions, decisions.
Elizabeth Hamilton wayupthere:
Here you go: 3D5K in convenient archived form.
Always Name Names
The Decent Human Being’s Guide to Getting Laid at Atheist Conferences
Oh no not again… once more unto the breach
For historical reference and context, see also Suirauqa’s timeline:
http://ohthehumanityofitall.blogspot.com/2012/07/deep-rifts-or-humanity-of-it-all-part-1.html
Dogberry:
How and in what way will Shermers life be destroyed by false rape accusations?
There is pizza on the line!
Ragutis:
Because that’s exactly what they would do?
Zenlike, thanks.
dogberry @2756:
Are you under the impression that Shermer’s family, employers, and friends are all waiting to hear what you and I think on the matter?
Is it your position that they — along with everyone else who might encounter Shermer — should be deprived of the information provided to PZ, because… you think they’ll reach the wrong conclusion? Or, more precisely, they might reach the right conclusion but not with the degree of certainty you think they should? And you as the gatekeeper of all information get to decide what they should and should not know, because they don’t deserve the right to make up their own minds?
PZ, I am really grateful to you for posting this information and to everyone here who has been fighting of the trolls. However, I don’t think that it’s wise or necessary, at this point, to continue hosting every rape apologist on the internet, even if it is clear that you don’t support their positions and even if there are some wonderful people here to fight them. I know that you tend to operate relatively unmoderated, but on a thread like this, where it’s likely that survivors of rape will be paying attention, I think it’s more important to ensure that they know that they are safe if they report (at least, that they are here) than to host the FREEZE PEACH of genuinely horrible people. If they want to do this bullshit then they can do it in Thunderdome; if they want to copy and paste other people’s stories about rape in order to make accusations then they can get a blog of their own or do it in Thunderdome, but it is not only not your job to host them; it is actively damaging. Please cut off the comments.
Pteryxx:
Eeeeee! I love you so much.
Yes, thank gourd!
@ #2767 Chigau
Because that would require reading. Judging by how many times, “Slander!”, “Why didn’t she….” and other stupidities have popped up in spite of being commented on many, many times earlier in the thread, I don’t think they can. The few that do read (some), fail at reading for comprehension. It’s a sad, sad day for educators everywhere, I fear.
@Caine
Seriously – A Voice for Men thought about renaming the city. PZs favourite AVfM editor was behind that. I get to see him on his videos and on the street :-/
Gertrud:
No, I don’t think you get to make that pronouncement on behalf of all, Gertrud. There are countless rape survivors in this thread, all 6 pages of it, women and men. They are here, fighting, because we know how much it matters to other survivors, that we refuse to give quarter, that we refuse to back down. We are their voices, we are their candle in the dark. We have their back, We Are Their Axe.
Caine, Fleur De Mal re: #2712
I’ve been pondering the “Don’t Be That Guy” campaign as I’ve been reading this thread. I have a vague memory of reading that the Edmonton Police Service was up for other orgs re-promoting the campaign?
If that is true, how doable (and I’m not directing this at Caine except as an idea) would it be for FTblogs, or anyone willing, to err. pin? imbed? link? the campaign to their front pages as an ‘illustrated’ primer of behaviour they don’t support?
I was also wondering if it was allowable to build upon the campaign with some more posters (albeit more the photoshopped internet poster style, rather than professionally photographed) done by the horde and allies? Not for lulz like that dumbass campaign done by the MRA martyrs, but as true advisories about behaving more empathetically, or at least less criminally. Sure seems like a lot of people need a “Don’t Be xxxxxx” guide.
The thing I liked about the EPS campaign is it wasn’t all heteronormative, although much of it was. I could see where new ones could expand on everyone’s safety, including bystanders confused on what could be their part in a situation breaking bad.
Of course, then I wondered if the format could be used to go beyond rape culture and into themes faced by visible minorities.
It’s just an idea. I don’t have the mad skillz to follow through on it. The best place to do all of this education is likely with adolescents in comprehensive ethics and human rights classes in school curriculum, but with that absent (unless someone wants to give it a shot in youth programs at cons or the like) maybe something along these lines could be a ‘comic book’ stopgap toolkit.
You know what…after reading the pile of dogberryshit left at #2756, I just want this fucker gone. The entire comment is about Shermer. Not one note of support for the victim.
Like EVERY OTHER DAMN HYPERSKEPTIC in this thread, this asswipe cant be bothered to show support for Jane Doe. Nor have any of them shown support or words of encouragement for those that shared their stories of sexual assault.
All these people are worried about are the precious fee fees of Radford or Shermer. They have testerical fits when people show support for Jane Doe. Bereft of empathy…void of compassion…these are the people who help perpetuate Rape Culture.
Fuck them all.
Hmph. Pointless arguing with some people. Similar to the arguments I used to have with my mother, a devout roman catholic, about the infallability of the many testimonials about god, christ, the pope, etc. etc.
You’re all very good skeptics. Keep it up!
Cuervodecuero:
I’m not sure, I’ll have to do some reading. I do know that the campaign was such a success, it’s being continued. I think your ideas are good ones. I really think there is a dire need for such a campaign outside of Canada, and it sure as hell would be fabulous to see such posters in schools!
LykeX:
Sadly, we would have a lot fewer new commenters too
(I know you were j/k)
Maudell:
Oh, that fuckwit. I know it wasn’t his intent, but I just can’t stop laughing over ‘Mancouver’.
vancouveratheist, take solace, you’ve proven you can’t read! That’s something, right?
vancouveratheist @ #2783
Well, what’s important is that you get that unwarranted feeling of superiority over everyone. I’m just happy to help.
RAPE APOLOGIST, SHUT THE FUCK UP. You have nothing to say to us, and your repetitions don’t make your bullshit anything other than more bullshit.
I wouldn’t say it’s pointless for us to be arguing with thick-skulled blockheads like yourself. Many other readers–the ones actually capable of reading and critical thinking–get a good education out of it.
Because rape is just as non-existent and mythical as gods and… the pope? He’s not real, either? See, I learned something!
vancouveratheist:
Good for you…bowing out like that.
Deep down you must be deeply embarrassed that your analogy was pathetic and that you have no point to make other than showcase your Mad Skillz as Rape Culture Apologist #386
Yes, they said it was ok – I only know because I specifically looked it all up and forwarded it to my campus safety people. Not sure if they’ve done anything with it yet.
Oh, no, you do not get to do that. Don’t try to guilt us with how the victim would feel about the support she has gotten on this thread. Hopefully now she knows how many people have her back. She had PZ put it here on purpose. You don’t get to try to “protect” her by preventing her story from being told the way she wanted it to be told.
Would anyone mind if I start shouting BINGO! every time this pops up?
Here’s your answer, flaming doucheweasel: I wouldn’t be accused, because I don’t rape people. I also don’t sexually assault people. I also don’t sexually harass people. I also don’t have a history of skeevy behaviour involving alcohol and women. Or alcohol and anyone, for that matter.
Caine, I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear, and I owe you better than that. What I mean is that it’s damaging to make clear that he’s willing to host pages and pages of rape apology in response to something stated by someone he knows. I don’t personally think that any amount of fighting against it makes it worth having it on this particular post, not in general. Fighting has to happen somewhere, but this serves as a reminder to me of how much the skeptical community hates me as a rape survivor and hates women in general. It’s good that people will fight it. It should not have happened, and not for six pages, on a post where someone he knows might have read the response. I think there are other places. I’m not going to come back and go further, though; I’d just like to register as someone here who, however appreciative of all of the good work done here, thinks it should have been unnecessary in the first place and that it should not be necessary in the future because hosting rape apology in response to a friend’s narrative of having been raped is not okay. Even when it’s contested. This shouldn’t have been the place.
But thank you, and I’m glad you’re fighting. I haven’t got the spoons for it, so I’m glad to know that you’re here since it’s still going on and will continue to despite what I consider to be better judgment.
Oh no, we haven’t agreed with vancouveratheist (also with the ~9 other people who’ve said the same thing.) We must not be skeptical because he has the power to pronounce on that.
Gertrud, I understand. I really do.
I’d venture to guess that since Jane Doe trusted PZ to present her story, odds are good she knew exactly how this comment thread would develop, based on priors such as 3D5K and The Great Harassment Policy Debate. For all we know she’s a regular, whether or not she’s actually reading now.
*salutes*
Pteryxx:
seconding Caine’s love
(I’m still 600 comments behind here)
Ahhh, Dee Fiant was very probably totally lying about everything (except that she agrees with herself). I wondered because journalists I know, not that many, are concerned about getting their words right. By “conscience” something, I think she was aiming at “countenance”. She also said “tenants” instead of “tenets”.
I have to admit that I thought the theory that she was an undergrad trying to make herself important seemed plausible.
I have just got to the comments where the “Lyn M” signal went up. I see your question skeptifem and want to do a bit of research before I answer. I want to up-date my law before spouting. Also Walton made a comment, another house lawyer.
d’aww, thanks y’all. I don’t even remember where or when I found that archive – but it was in my stash of links.
I would feel terrible and would seriously question if my behavior had caused someone harm. Even if I felt that I was acting appropriately I would feel like shit about having contributed to someone feeling violated.
I might feel defensive at first, but when I am accused of wrongdoing I usually take it pretty damn seriously. I would at least be sorry. I wouldn’t pretend to be a victim.
…did the thread just abruptly slow down because everyone’s gone to read either Caine’s stash of links or the 3D5K archive or both?
…sweet.
I got such a strong sense of déjà vu from PZ’s second postscript. Either my brain is seriously malfunctioning and I can expect a petit mal any second, or I read a very similar account in an old thread in Skepchick, or somewhere near there, which only stood for a couple of hours or so before the commenter asked that it be taken down because of, well, fears of libel actions or other retribution. I think it was about Shermer, and getting the commenter drunk, and her being rescued by her friends. If I’m not just confabulating the Skepchick/whoever comment, I’m glad you’ve found your voice, Jane Doe #3, and sorry that it’s taken so long for supporting testimony to appear.
Or it could have been about someone else, somewhere else, I guess; I doubt the basic method has changed much since alcohol was invented. There’s probably an untranslated Sumerian clay tablet somewhere with a similar account.
Pteryxx @ #2802
I just assumed all Brave Hyperskeptics had been run off by the lynch hunt mob. And without targets, all the hysterical over-emotional leftist fascists need-to-take-chill-pill nazi commie groupthink hivemind religious lockstep acolytes who drank the kool-aid become dormant.
Dedicated lurker here, delurking for the first time to thank Jane Doe for sharing her story with us. It’s so important. I wish for your comfort and health.
PZ and The Horde, you provide a uniquely safe space. It’s life-affirming to watch you rip the fuckers apart and it makes me stronger when I need to get the claws and fangs out in real life.
You’ve done the right thing here. It’s been a long time coming and it’s a relief. Shermer is a missing stair. I hope the organizations step up and protect their members. http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/06/missing-stair.html?m=1
Ze Madman: Well, I can’t speak for any other leftist fascist Kool-aid drinkers but I’m a little tried after all the reading and the commenting. We aren’t machines.
And besides, I’m a quart low on Kool-aid.
NelC:
*snort* No doubt.
I don’t believe it! I caught up!
Also, I am totally knackered and am off to bed. Keep up the good work and, once again, especial thanks to Caine.
Mouthyb:
I think I am, too.
Maureen, good night. Sleep sweet.
Your mother must have a heyday with you when can only offer up false equivalencies as a defence of your position. I think you might serve atheism better if you just shut up about it. Just sayin’.
Is anyone else so over the religion dozens?
I’m having a trip down memory blog, and just read this bit from PZ, in one of the e-gate posts:
The italics emphasis is mine. Effectively, this is what has happened to Shermer.
Rutee:
Yes. I’d like to never, ever see that again.
I’m on this page!
I refreshed the page and there were NO NEW COMMENTS!… aw crap.
A relevant stick-man comic from author Jim Hines, just posted. Talk about déjà vu.
I’m still on page 5.
Why can’t any of them blockquote?
Because they’re inferior to you.
Eeeeeeeeeeeeee, I gotta re-post Carlie’s song:
This is just a rough first draft.
Ode to dipshit commenters who don’t even know how to respond to anything but the voices inside their heads:
Time is on our side, (hangin’ on!)
Time is on our side, (gettin’ bored!)
Now you always say
That your comments are key
But you’ll knock strawmen down (said you would baby)
Rather than respond (I said so many times before)
To questions put to you previouslyyyy…
Time is on our side, (hangin’ on!)
Time is on our side, (gettin’ bored!)
You’re trollin’ for good times
But just wait and see
You’ll get banned someday (I won’t have to read you no more)
For insipidity (spend the rest of the thread in peace, baby)
You’ll get banned someday by PZeeeeee…
Go ahead, go ahead ignore the questions
And baby, be as obtuse as you can
Remember, we’ll always be around
And we know, we know
Like we told you so many times before
You’re gonna come back, baby
‘Cause we know
You’re gonna come back saying
Yeah, saying the same shit
Yes, yes!
Time is on our side, (hangin’ on!)
Time is on our side, (gettin’ bored!)
‘Cause we’re talking about facts
The kind you won’t see
You’ll be repetitive (said you would, baby)
You’ll say stupid shit (we always said you would)
You’ll ignore real discussion, for eternityyyyyyy…
Yes time, time, time is on our side, (hangin’ on!)
Time, time, time is on our side, (gettin’ bored!)
Oh, time, time, time is on our side, (same thing again?)
I said, time, time, time is on our side (close the thread!)
Oh, time, time, time is on our side (do you even read what you write?)
Yeah, time, time, time is on our side
NelC:
I ♥ Jim Hines. He didn’t miss a one.
Ha! If you hadn’t put my name on it, I wouldn’t have even remembered I was the one who did that…
Carlie:
I loved your songs throughout that mess. They’re just as appropriate now, sad to say.
vancouveratheist @2783:
Will do, thanks!
dogberry @2756:
Sure! What harm would that be? Fewer conference invites? Fewer women hanging around him? Seems pretty tame to me, but you apparently know exactly what will happen if Shermer is innocent. Care to enlighten us with your superhuman knowledge?
gertrud @2794:
First off, I’m sorry for what happened to you and wish I had the power to change things for the better.
This argument, however, will have to take someplace. If it doesn’t happen here, then it’ll happen someplace that may have fewer commenters to push back against assault apologists. I’d rather not have them spread their shit uncontested, and others might draw inspiration from what the Horde has accomplished in the last two days and re-use their arguments.
If you do come back, I’d like to recommend Shakesville. It’s very feminist friendly and highly moderated, so you’ll have less potential to be triggered while still being able to follow these issues. Other bloggers on this network have had less of a troll infestation, so they might be worth a skim.
Either way, good luck and be well.
Spent the morning here catching up – damn that need for sleep!
Is this the day shift or the night shift?
I am outraged that the good name of sockpuppetry has been tarnished by the fuckweasels.
Caine, you need levels of praise that will enable you to defy gravity. Same for the rest of you guys.
Chigau: reading this much concentrated vileness in such a short time is life threatening – take care!
Everyone else: please read all the comments before adding your own. It’s a big job, but if you think what you have to say is so important, you owe it to yourself.
Oh wow, NelC, that comic was spot-on.
notsont @ 2763:
I’m going to risk delurking again briefly and hope it’s not too much of a derail to say that she wasn’t particularly drunk—she took Raj home because he was “Such a good listener.” This was like the 3rd or 4th episode and he hadn’t discovered that being drunk allowed him to talk to women yet.
De-lurking to add one more small voice of support. I have tremendous respect for Jane Doe and her courage in recounting her horrible experience in order to warn other potential victims. I can’t imagine what she must be going through but I do know it can’t have been an easy decision to make. By publishing her story PZ has once again demonstrated the compassion and integrity we have come to expect from him. And the Horde have been magnificent! I don’t know how you all find the time, energy and mental strength to fight off the waves of ignorant and malicious attackers the way you do. You provide inspiration and education. Thank you.
I am reluctant to speculate on the ins and outs of what could happen as I feel as if I may help out anyone who might want to think of ways to get at information. This answer is therefore going to be pretty vague.
The relevant law here relates to libel and defamation. In the United States, where a person is a public figure, he or she must prove that the alleged defamation was made with actual malice. I think Mr. Shermer is a public figure or a limited public figure in law, but that issue must be decided as well. (If not a public figure, different required elements to be proved.)
Proving intent is a difficult, because it requires the claimant to demonstrate a state of mind in the defendant. (Ie: what the defendant was thinking or intending when he or she published the statement.) That is never easy. A claim for defamation can fail right there.
But before the trial, a claimant has a right to get information from the defendant. This is called discovery, where I practised. In discovery, you can ask for pretty much anything, so long as it might be relevant. That could include the statements that prompted the publication. And yes, that would usually expose information about the source.
But many a journalist has promised anonymity to a source, so there is law on that. It appears that a journalist may keep the source anonymous.
TL;DR — Must the source be disclosed? Maybe, but there are potentially ways around that.
PLEASE NOTE: I am making general observations on usual trial procedure. Experienced counsel, expert in the law of the jurisdiction where such a trial might be held, could doubtless give a better answer.
I have a vague memory of having seen Jim Hines comment on FTB before… But i may have crossed wires.
NelC, Rebecca just tweeted that comic :)
You know, now I’m getting depressed, because it just never changes. The so-called arguments don’t change at all. Same old shit, from day to day, month to month, year to year. Women are evil liars and men are persecuted. Yikes.
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge:
It’s not. Hopefully, this is the last leg of this thread, and the flaming doucheweasels are actually gone, rather than getting prepped for another assault.
I know the feeling caine. there are some real assholes on the jref thread pushing the ‘its just drunken regretted sex’ bullshit
Tinkerer, thank you. Every voice adds to our strength, and makes a difference. Thanks for yours.
Well, it changed for a lot of people. Many folks here have admitted to never really thinking about these issues until exposed to them through these kinds of comment threads. You’re effecting positive change in people, Caine. That there will always be assholes to shout their asshole stupidity doesn’t change that.
Yeah I might agree but he was totally sober and they did imply that almost everyone else was pretty much wasted. Scene ended with him naked in bed with a passed out girl if I remember correctly. I suppose how drunk she was is open to debate but It seemed like it was not something she would do if sober.
Well the good news is that if they can’t think of anything new and won’t listen to reason, at least we know their pseudonyms or names so we know who to avoid like the plague?
There is no calculus, no algebra, not even any arithmetic to back me up on this. It is a subjective judgement of a such a distilled purity that I almost dare not uncork it for fear that it might react with everything.
The world is filled to overflowing with the clueless, the ignorant, and the compassionless. But despite their multitudes, despite their incessant cockroach scritching and scuttling and nigh-on supernatural ability to reproduce they will not kill my hope.
They cannot kill my hope because I value those people who come forward with these experiences despite everything society does to question, control, vilify and demonise them. I value them so highly that just one outweighs every last hateful, misogynist, hyper-sceptic, straw-vulcan shit-weasel who has ever slymed their way across this earth.
So slyme on you fucking crumbled coal-lumps, all you do is give those fighting you more opportunities to demonstrate that, like the Church, you cannot hide your anti-human hate any longer.
Oh and yes, you’re right, I’m emotional about this. In fact, I’m fucking furious. How about that? Such a revelation, someone being angry over the inequities and injustices of this world. Here’s the thing though: passion coupled with reason and evidence is what changes the world. Fear it you fucks., your days are numbered.
Skeptifem:
Oh gods. Well, I think we all knew that particular hydra was going to grow and gain momentum, given how central it is to rape culture. It’s one of the hardest to fight, too. Look at how long setec went on and on and on and on about it. Alcohol gives them their get out of rape card, so they don’t have to think about what they’re doing. They’ll defend it to death.
Tinkerer:
Thank you for adding your support.
Just so you know, yours is not a tiny voice. None of those who have spoken up are tiny voices.
MrFancyPants:
Thank you, I really needed that reminder. I think we all need that reminder.
Yes… that last anecdote is extremely illustrative. Thank you for posting it, and thanks to Anonymous #3 for sharing. It’s basically how I assumed this kind of thing would be playing out, but it’s nice to have some confirmation.
FossilFishy:
Bravo!
Let me second that. I know Elevatorgate changed me for the better. Oh, I was never an MRA or a Dudebro, but I probably had “Nice Guy” tendencies. In my defense, I didn’t realize how bad things still were. I don’t think most of us did. But you’ve kicked a lot of sense into a lot of heads. Don’t despair over the few who have no room for it.
Caine
If it helps, I suspect that the rabid shitweasels are getting louder because they know they are losing in the long run.
Now, if we could get more of the decent human beings to get loud too, this will become more clear.
But fuck, *I* mostly lurk, so it is not like i have the moral authority to insist on other speaking up more often.
Caine
I can’t begin to understand what you and the rest of the regular horde go through battling the bullshit full time. One other thing that hasn’t changed is you being an awesome strong voice to support people who need it. Thank you, Caine.
@2835
No, she wasn’t passed out—she was incontinently babbling as she had been since we first saw her. Yeah, another invidious stereotype, but she certainly wasn’t passed out.
John Scalzi just retweeted that comic, too. :)
(he’s the president of the Science Fiction Writers of America. He has 50k followers. And he’s awesome and writes extensively on his blog about -ism issues.)
Caine, I think it does change. Not quickly, but there are fewer of them and more of us, I think. And at the least, every time it comes up it breaks the taboo that nice people don’t talk about such things.
Well that makes me feel better, it was a while since I saw that episode.
FINALLY!
I got an answer.
Sort of.
I asked for proof that false accusations lead to peoples’ lives being ruined and Linda Rosa/Felicity Gowey responded with…Reputation Repair companies.
…
…
…uh, yeah.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/06/no-it-could-never-happen-to-her/comment-page-1/#comment-665168
It’s worth noting that even the slymepitters seem a little abashed, if Twitter is anything to go on. The funny thing about them is, harassing assholes though they might be, you can’t say they aren’t aware.
Pteryxx. thank you for the 3D5K links, and your awesome links throughout.
I just haven’t had the spoons to go looking for false reporting stats to discredit the trolls.
__
Do I have to read page 5? Can I skip it? I am so tired of reading the same stupid troll comments over and over and over.
Linda Rosa/Felicity is the same troll? I wonder if either is their “real name”? Is there a real Linda, or is the FB page an elaborate troll ruse?
Don’t be depressed Caine! You, and others, are definitely making a change. I was definitely one of the women who felt we lived in a post-feminist world, the job was done, I was as good as any man and just let the world hear me roar. Needless to say, I’ve learned better.
Since Elevatorgate I have donated money to various feminist and women’s organisations, volunteered time to caption the Tropes vs Women videos, run sessions on feminism and women’s issues at my school (I’m a teacher) and just generally looked for ways to improve our curriculum on that front.
I’ll add my thanks to Jane Doe for sharing her story and to PZ for lending his platform.
@ Caine
I keep intending to say this and then get on to the subject of my comment and forget. You do rock. All day and all ways.
Here is information about “Don’t be that Guy”
The Vancouver Police Department, in partnership with BarWatch, Battered Women’s Support Services (BWSS), Women Against Violence Against Women (WAVAW), and the BC Women’s Hospital Sexual Assault Service are launching the “Don’t Be That Guy” campaign.
I got that from http://mediareleases.vpd.ca/2011/07/08/dont-be-that-guy-campaign-launch/ *Hangs head in shame for being unable to add a link properly.*
They may be happy to share the posters, etc.
My favourite place to look for change is the comment sections of totally unrelated websites.
Anecdotally, 5-7 years ago, a post about a drunk women being assaulted would be inundated with assholes. Now, its usually about 50/50. That’s just what I’ve seen. Maybe I’m misremembering, but it gives me hope.
Caine, I’ll just say that you’ve been a bit of an inspiration. I used to be cowardly about starting fights about social issues, but watching you battle it out helped me break free of that, at least a little. That goes for the rest of the horde as well.
Caine, the people here, and you in particular have made me a better person. I’m still working on it, but there’s been definite improvement.
A week or so ago we had friends over to help move some heavy stuff to the new house. Afterwards around the traditional pizza and beer one guy related how he’d seen a female reporter get kissed out of the blue by her interviewee. He related admiration because “He just did what everyone wanted to.”
In the past, assuming I’d even noticed just how wrong that was, I wouldn’t have said anything. After all, he’d just gone out of his way to help me. But this time I didn’t. I pointed out that that was sexual assault and no, not everyone would want to do that. The silence that followed was awkward to say the least and another guy piped up with “Hey, we’re all adults here.” to which I responded with “An adult would know not to condone sexual assault.” Then Ms. Fishy came in with some distraction, deliberately I’m sure, and the moment passed.
Please believe me when I say that my willingness to engage was a direct result of watching you battle this shit again, and again, and again. It’s the very least I can do in repayment for all you’ve done to make this world, my world, my daughter’s world, my idiot casual-misogynist friend’s son’s world, a better place.
For all those who are so worried about how Shermer is being affected by this, here are his tweets since yesterday, reversed to chronological order and with links removed:
Wow. He’s being utterly destroyed by this here blog post. He seems to be spending all of his time obsessing over it and worrying about it and having it affect his career and such.
Reverend battleax
OMFG!! they showed that on television? ;)
Another thread delurker delurked to give major props for the vigilance Caine and the rest of the Horde have displayed ever since PZ went live with this. I came in when the thread was nearly one page full and I have had a hard time keeping up as a reader. I honestly do not know how each of you can not only keep up but continue to contribute thorough, cogent, and spirited responses to dimwitted, ignorant, dispiriting people. I understand why — this shit is just too important for rape defenders to get an upper hand — I just honestly don’t know how you each have the quick, smart thinking and the continued resilience to address every boneheaded thing these nutjobs throw out there. As I continue to ponder that, let me just say that I appreciate the hell out of the fact that you do it.
Caine, you in particular in this case, but this place in general and a few others like it are inspirational.
People as a group suck. Individual people learn. Individual people grow. There’s a slow, cumulative effect – we’re fighting a lot of momentum in the other direction, but it isn’t a case of Sisyphus and his damned rock. No magic cheating for the other side. And he got that damned rock up the hill time and time again.P
People like you have an effect on that process that you rarely see. I hate when I make myself sound and feel like an idealistic naif, but if you don’t keep that side up to balance the cynicism, you wither.
Please don’t wither.
Wow. I am so late to the party, but I want to add my voice to the chorus of people supporting Jane Doe, the other people who’ve come out as victims, PZ and the entire Pharyngula commentariat. You all rock, and I am honored to make your acquaintance, even virtually.
And of course to those who are more concerned about the fate of the guy at the top of the power gradient, I can only wish that one day you realize just what you are and have to live with that knowledge for the rest of your pitiful lives.
@2856, honestly, he’s probably not sure how to respond. I mean, this is a big deal and he’s likely getting deluged with private messages. I’d give it a few days.
It should not surprise anyone that AVfM did not like the “Don’t Be That Guy” campaign.
Pteryxx way up there,
thanks for the links. Have only checked out one so far (and the comments and comments and comments that came after), namely the Decent Human Being’s Guide. It’s almost 4 in the morning here so I should get some sleep.
It’s strange to take that trip back in time but I was able to confirm that a lot of you were arguing along the same lines I was arguing and ‘how to get laid’ certainly was this big major issue. I can also see, no, get a feeling for how the Elevatorgate changed “the Horde”, how things have evolved since then.
I’ll check out the other links tomorrow. thanks again and more later.
MrFancyPants @2834:
QFT. There will always be assholes, but they will be assholes about far more minor things. Look at the suffragette backlash from a century ago; we’ve come a long freaking way from postcards with harried fathers on them, to unquestioned acceptance that women deserve the vote. In a decade or two, some people will look back on this as a mini Dark Ages, in admiration of people like Caine who were willing to push back against the tide of ignorance.
I’m not saying he should have responded yet, just that it appears that the complete and instantaneous cataclysmic destruction of his entire life predicted by many in this thread hasn’t happened.
Maudell and Caine;
“Mancouver” :D
North Man, West Man, East Man, ManCity …
Nice! Something to make me smile before I refresh the page! I needed that.
And, Caine! You’re still here! You deserve a dozen medals. Thank you.
QFMFT
And thank you injuringeternity, for scratching that itch at the back of my mind. I knew there was a concept or a reference or a link I should be remembering. The missing stair was it.
“This one isn’t so awful, but it’s mainly illustrative of his tactics…”
“Shermer chatted with me at great length while refilling my wine glass repeatedly.”
“Michael Shermer helped get me drunker than I normally get, and was a bit flirty.”
This is the ‘tactics’ we are talking about for a man you are accusing of rape?
Is this an illustrative tactic for
“Mr. Shermer coerced me into a position where I could not consent”
Refilling a wine glass….
I really hope not for everyones sake.
My goodness, if either one of these women had instead got into a car and drove home completely drunk and got arrested, would they have had a shred of defence by saying… Oooo but the man in the bar kept refilling my glass…. Even if the man had encouraged her to drive home, the blame is still hers.
This 3rd update post completely belitals and make a mockery of the 1st post. Calling someone a rapist and then trying to back it up with a different story of someone saying a guy kept topping up my wine glass and flirted with me….
You do realize even if that was all he did, its very creepy and wrong for a speaker at a con to do that to attendees right?
Jameswaller, you attempt at twisting facts is kind of hard to do because the rest of the post is still there.
Ahem…
A friend got her out of the situation.
Dishonest assclam.
Another comment on the pile thanking Anonymous, the corroborators and PZ.
Ah well, it couldn’t have lasted could it?
Crap analogy jameswaller. In the case of drunk driving it’s the drunk person doing the driving of course they’re to blame. In the case of rape where the victim is unable to give consent due to intoxication there’s another person involved, you know: the rapist. Without the actions of the rapist there is no rape. Way to go with bog-standard victim blaming bullshit.
*tag*
jameswaller #2868
Did you happen to notice that your comment is #2868?
And thanks to Caine, rowanvt et al for their hard work in the comments (I only got up to about 150).
Caine, you know my story already. All these lurkers and new voices coming forward, and the discourse slowly changing, are due at least a tiny bit to you. Conventions have harassment policies now because of you. People volunteer, donate, and help enlighten and protect their friends because of you. Support networks are forming in disparate communities because of you. Survivors have written their stories in plain sight for the first time because of you. (We broke 100 during this thread, by my rough count.) And because of PZ, Rebecca, Stephanie, Ophelia, Jason Thibeault, Surly Amy, Josh and Carlie and Cipher and Tony and Ogvorbis and mouthyb and that pro bono lawyer I thanked some months back for helping people like me. And I’m on that list too; and so are all you lurkers reading this far who have given (or will give) it a bit of thought and decide(d) they too could Do Better. That’s what we’re here for. Skeptics and atheists and humanists. Lighting little candles in the dark.
Here we go. Hi, Jameswaller. Have you perused the thread at all, thought perhaps somewhere in 2867 comments somebody might have voiced your concern? I’m pretty sure there are a couple few posts in there you’ll find compelling.
Too subtle for likes of him chigau. But I laughed.
Rev. Battleax:
Thank you so much, I really appreciate it, especially because I remember you, and it’s good to see you again.
MFHeadcase:
I suspect you’re right. Thanks.
HappyNat:
Thank you, Nat.
Carlie:
Yes, you’re right. I was looking at too much all at one time.
Tony:
! That is, hands down, the best and funniest thing I’ve seen today.
Hazelwood:
Wow, you are Superwoman! Way. To. Go. And thank you so much. If you can get it in, try for the ‘Don’t Be That Guy’ campaign. That would generate a ton of talk, I’m sure.
Lyn M:
Thank you. Right back atcha, always.
Jacob:
Thank you, Jacob. You do a good job yourself, you know.
FossilFishy:
Such a gift. A priceless gift. Thank you.
Tonyinbatavia, thank you.
Pete:
Thank you. I promise, I won’t.
You are all saying she is not in any way responsible for him helping her get so drunk and then having / trying to have sex.
But with everything the same if he instead puts her a car and gives her the keys to drive home, then it IS her responsibility that she got so drunk in the first place.
It would be no defence to say, he kept topping up my glass officer.
Wow, this thread’s sure been educational. I’ve learned so many things from the concerned souls who braved the Horde to cry out the Truth in the Wilderness.
1. Rape is a Very Serious Crime that should be dealt with through a trial and then castration of the rapist.
2. If there’s no Conviction, then we the community must presume that the Accused is innocent. Any woman who, after reading this post, decides not to drink in Shermer’s company is committing a miscarriage of Justice.
3. Until a conviction is obtained, there should be no whisper about this serious felony in the community. For a non-convicted person to have their Life Ruined would be unconscionable and every person who’s ever been accused of rape has had their life ruined.
4. Of course, it would be wrong to cut off an Innocent’s balls when there could possibly be a misunderstanding, so incontrovertible evidence must be produced. Testimony of the Accuser–not Victim–does not count as evidence.
5. While none of these Brave Heros have explained exactly what would constitute evidence, we can presume that a signed confession would be acceptable.
6. The fact that these rules make it de facto legal to rape as long as one is in a position of power and keeps the actual non-consensual intercourse out of public view is somewhat unfortunate, but just something that we have to deal with for the sake of Justice and Truth.
—-
But I can’t even say how depressing the whole argument is. I wish that I had someone to anonymously tell about the man who raped me. I wish there was something I could do to prevent him from doing what he did to me and at least two other women. Every asshole on this thread who’s talked about “justice” needs to go hug a jumping cholla. There’s no justice in this world for sexual assault victims.
Thank you for telling your story, Anonymous. I believe you and I hope against hope that he never does it again.
Susannah & Suido, *fistbumpl*
Pteryxx, you have my heart. Always.
Does anyone want to let jameswalker in on how women are socialized.
Though I do think that he would think that “Don’t Be That Girl” campaign that I just linked to has some valid points.
dogberry:
Again, you are the one who questioned the rationality of accepting the story of the accused. I merely pointed out that the statistics support it. I’m not entirely sure why you are avoiding that point. And if you are truly a rational skeptic, I’m not sure why you are arguing against the logical conclusion.
But yeah. Rationally, I would accept 9:1 odds. Especially if the winning side saved women from rape, and the significantly less-likely side ended up with someone whom women refused to share drinks. Seems like a safe bet for me.
Again, I was replying to your actual comments. You are the one who strawmanned our conversation here. You are the one who introduced punitive actions, where we did not. So why do you avoid this point? Are you ashamed of your original posts, and you want to distract attention from them?
That seems to be the situation. That, and a huge case of “moving the goalposts.”
Not really. Nobody I know personally reads Pharyngula, except those I’ve met through this group. You might ruin my reputation among people I enjoy interacting with, and I would be devastated if many of the folks here chose not to communicate with me after, but as for my day-to-day life, it wouldn’t really matter.
It’s odd you’d pit my inconvenience against saving women from potential rape, though. That’s real stand-up of you. You’re just a swell guy, I can tell, putting the inconvenience of me (a man) ahead of the slight irritation a woman goes through when she’s raped.
Just stand-up.
So, you start off admitting this isn’t a court of law, but now suddenly it is? I’m confused.
No. Scratch that. I get what’s going on. You’re confused.
Again, not a court of law (which I explicitly stated), so this is another strawman.
Then why do you predicate your argument on that assumption?
What problems will Shermer really face? I mean, really? It’s not like he’s going to jail. It’s not like his career is ruined. If the allegations are true (with a 92% likelihood), the most he’ll face is a problem getting women drunk at conventions.
Cry me a fucking river.
On the other hand, by bringing this out in the open, several women will now not be raped by Shermer (assuming the allegations are true).
You’d rather worry about the small affects this will have on the man, and completely ignore the rather significant affects on several women?
So your argument amounts to, “But think of the menz!”
Good to know.
You are one hell of a stand-up guy. Just a fucking champ.
Did you happen to notice that your comment is #2868?
And what?
I just see the main post got updated now and I wanted to post my opinion.
jameswaller.
There’s a note at the bottom of many invites to BBQs in Australia. BYOB – Bring Your Own Booze. (As well as BYOC, bring your own chair, and other in-jokes for the group in question.)
Perhaps the woman in that scenario was lucky that she had her own version of BYOB.
Bring Your Own Bystander.
jameswaller @2879:
Have you ever tried judging how much alcohol you’ve had while under the influence? While one of your skeptical heroes whispers sweet nothings in your ear?
Where I live, bars will hand out free taxi rides to anyone they deem drunk. Why? Because they’re held liable if that person drives drunk then crashes. So you are wrong, at least according to my local laws.
Which tells you how deeply the police have absorbed rape culture, if they think someone not of sound mind can think soundly and grant consent.
jameswaller
What I meant was the answers you seek are in the 2867 comments preceeding yours.
here:
control-f
use it wisely.
No, its not the same. You pretending it is is you being both dishonest and fuckwitted. What else is new? Rape apologists are both.
Oh, I forgot!
7. Since rape is such a Very Serious Thing, it’s important not to denigrate Real rapes by calling “sex with a drunk person” rape. It’s their fault for getting drunk after all! (Also, we’vehadsexwithdrunkpeoplewhodidn’twanttohavesexwithusbutwe’re Good People andthereforenotrapistssoshutup.”
Learning so many things, it’s hard to keep it all straight.
jameswaller, while drunk driving requires a driver, a rape requires a rapist, do you see the difference?
Here is the fucking clue by four, jameswaller. It means that there has been a metric shitton of comments. And you said nothing new yet you seem to think that your repetitive question should be treated like it is yet an other serious challenge.
Jameswaller, unintelligent or so self centered that it smothers what intelligence he might have?
Whadda know, another rape apologist with the same name pattern.
Hey PZ, do all these come through proxies?
If you honestly do not see how this can be a manipulative tactic to get someone drunker than they intend, you are either naive or not very bright.
I suspect that neither is the case, and that you know exactly this sort of behavior, keeping someone’s wine glass topped off makes it harder for them to track just how much they have consumed, also the politeness programmed into most of us, drives people to consume what people have gone to the trouble of providing for us.
Shit, IIRC, this technique, minus the flirting, has been used in the TV show Burn Notice, as a method for getting a mark into a compromising position.
Keep the mark’s wine glass topped up, take only the occasional sip from your own never more than half full glass.
And I will add another comment thanking Jane Doe, and those who have bolstered her warning, for helping women at future events (and, potentially, men). I think that the word is going to get out, despite all the noise.
Thanks to P.Z. for being willing to take the flak. I like to think that I would have done the right thing in similar circumstances, but I honestly can’t be certain. In fact, I doubt it. However, since you have made such a good example, you’ve probably made it easier for others to be advocates and allies.
Further thanks to the commenters here, particularly the survivors and their friends, who have been on this from the start. You’re like the blog’s immune system or something.
I don’t go to conventions, and rarely attend atheist or skeptic gatherings of any kind, but if I ever do I now I have a better idea of the things to watch out for. However, I fear that I would be apt to freeze, or make things worse, if I didn’t have a clear idea of what to do when seeing the kind of thing that Anonymous #3 described, or even what Ashley Paramore described in her recent video.
Does anyone here have any recommended resources for the best ways to intervene in situations like these? I feel that I need to brush up.
Thanks, again, folks.
bonus
<blockquote> paste words here</blockquote>
does this
No, James. What we’re all trying to get across to you is that you are coming at this from a privileged, biased point of view. Nothing wrong with that, at least not initially, because we are all sexist, it can’t be helped, and we all have varying degrees of privilege. Now, somewhere in the wilds of this page or the previous one, I posted about 10 or 11 links, which have to do with all the cognizant, surrounding issues. It’s a good way to educate yourself.
Now, given that we are all raised in a sexist society, a society in which we are all also soaking in rape culture, it’s important to understand how these ingrained biases work, as well as how rapists work. A majority of women are raised to be polite and passive, under all circumstances. I’m sure you’ve seen plenty of examples of this in day to day life. You know, women should be graceful, they should smile, they should be nice, and so on. Now, imagine this is a part of who you are. You’ve just met someone you really admire. They’ve signed your book and they have singled you out for attention. They flirt with you a bit. You’re flattered, right? Remember, you’ve been trained and taught all your life to be polite and passive! So, at first, you’re a bit concerned about the wine topping up, but that person you admire is very smooth, they know what they’re doing. So, you drink, not only to be polite, but a bit out of nervousness as well. It doesn’t take long for the alcohol to hit, especially when you aren’t in the habit of being drunk. Now you’re fuzzy and can’t think straight. In this case, there is no friend to see what’s going on, grab you and get you home and to safety. Now the person you admire slips an arm around your waist, murmurs to you, and guides you to a different room. Do you see at all where this leads, James? Can you honestly say that’s okay?
dogberry:
Conversely, will you take responsibility for the harm to the women that Shermer will rape if the allegations are true, and folks like you manage to squelch this discussion?
jameswaller, regarding drunk driving, this comparison is better:
If you are sober and driving, you don’t get to run over drunk people.
Yes, they might walk out in front of your car, but you still can’t hit them and say they were drunk and stumbled in front of your car.
You certainly can’t get them drunk, then run over them.
As for getting people drunk, yes, it is possible to get someone to drink too much because of peer pressure, shaming, helpfulness and a whole lot of other things, techniques which some men know all to well. Women are often expected to be polite, and are often afraid to give offense, and, once a few drinks are taken, things get worse.
Michael Shermer is an expert at plying people with drink, and this thread was started as a warning to women to not let his start. The judgement that you expect women to show is partly gained by knowing who does what.
Any man who deliberately sets out to get a woman drunk so he can have sex at her, is a rapist.
A manipulative rapist.
Seriously, folks, if you want to tear up some epic bullshit from someone who’s invented all new categories in Rape Apologist Bingo, I present you with GrzeTor. You’ll love his extensive itemized list of reasons why a man like Shermer is utterly above suspicion.
It’s also the case where I live that if a bartender overserves a clearly intoxicated person and that person goes on to do something damaging the bartender can be charged for that overserving. So, you fail again.
Also, you’re still not addressing the point that a drunk person driving is responsible for doing that illegal action. A drunk person being raped is not responsible for that rape, it’s the one doing the illegal action, you know: the rapist.
So now I want to know: Why is it that you wish to place the blame upon the victim, hmmmmm?
Scr…Archivist:
If you see something like that happening, a good trick to keep up your sleeve is lying. Walk over and address the person who has been marked as prey and say “hey, X is looking for you, come on, I’ll help you find them” or “did you know that you were being paged? Let’s go to the desk” or something to that effect. You can always pull out a cell phone, call a friend, tell them to play along, then approach and say, there’s a phone call for you, hand them the phone, then act like you’re leading them somewhere more private.
Jameswaller:
You are victim blaming.
It does not matter how drunk she got.
The responsibility to not rape falls on the potential rapist.
The amount of alcohol consumed does not matter.
It will never matter.
Rape victims have been sober.
Rape victims have been buzzed.
Rape victims have been pass out drunk.
The level of intoxication has no bearing on what a rapist chooses to do.
Jameswaller, Dont Be That Guy.
You don’t see the difference between a car that is sitting there as an inanimate obect, and a person who has agency and is actively doing something to another person? Really?
Scr… Archivist @2894 (yikes)
The topic you want is Bystander Intervention:
http://www.nsvrc.org/projects/bystander-intervention-resources
Also, local rape crisis centers often give free instruction on sexual harassment, assault, how to assist victims and how to recognize problem situations and intervene. I refer folks to the (US) National Domestic Violence Hotline:
http://www.thehotline.org/
which can direct you to resources in your area, and also answer questions.
Getting someone so drunk they can’t think straight (and ergo can’t consent to sex) and then having sex with them? Yeah, there’s a word for that: rape. It’s a time-honored tactic among rapists.
Yes, if a drunk person decides to drive home, they’re to blame. If a sober person decides to have sex with a drunk person without that person’s ability to consent, the drunk person is not to blame, because they didn’t do anything wrong–the rapist did.
Given that getting her drunk is what happened to the 1st Jane Doe, someone else coming forward to point out that Shermer has a pattern of doing this does not in any way belittle that. It would tend to support it.
Nepenthe! *fangs bared fistbump and ferocious hugs*
It doesn’t even have to be anyone else supplying it. I noticed one night at the pub after work that I was getting pretty hammered. How could that be? I’d made sure that every single drink I’d had was white wine and soda. Then I happened to be right in front of the barman when he poured the next one. Whoops!! He basically filled the glass with wine and topped it off with a squirt of bubbly water.
Ever since I’ve made sure to describe it as half soda, half white wine.
But I’m just lucky that, on several previous occasions, I’d not driven nor been in a position where someone might have pushed their luck.
Well yes, actually, pressuring someone to drink heavily is a tactic, and one that is often used to incapacitate the person being pressured into drinking. There’s a difference which apparently escapes the most recent of the visiting idiots between “would you like another drink” and refilling their glass without asking.
Since it’s the same distinction trolls tend to thrash about trying to avoid, I’ll spell it out: consent.
It’s not fucking hard to say the words “do you want ______”. It’s also not hard to take no for an answer.
How the fuck do some of these trolls function in society? I’m bad at that shit and I can take no for an answer.
Where I am in the US, the bartender or server (or person who supplied the alcohol) is also legally liable for damages incurred by the actions of a drunk driver. It’s a not uncommon law in the US, a response to drunk driving.
Tony:
Y’know, that reminds me of something A_Ray said back in the Egate days, that a woman should be able to get pass out drunk, naked, in a room full of horny guys and not be touched at all, except by the one guy tucking her into a bed, alone, to sleep. That’s stone truth, and it’s got to be something that becomes fully accepted.
Mouthyb, basically, it is any state that has a dram shop law. It is illegal to serve alcohol to a patron who is obviously intoxicated.
lol james… in soviet russia, car drives you!
In all seriousness, being so drunk you can’t consent and then some guy deciding to rape you is nothing like being so drunk you can’t consent and then YOU decide to get in a car and drive. do you see the difference, dumbass?
I would like to point out a lesson I learned from Caine a while back.
GUYS, SPEAK UP.
Every voice is important in turning back the tide of Rape Culture Apologists. Among that crowd, there are some who never listen to women. But there are some who will listen to men. Speak up. Add your voice. If you have something to say, do so. There are people that draw inspiration from more men speaking up.
Learning that lesson from Caine had a profound effect on my life. It, along with much of what I have learned from the Horde, has been the driving force behind several of the tales I have shared in the Lounge. Speaking up here has had a spillover effect into meatspace.
And I am damn happy for that.
The harm done Shermer? What harm is being done to Shermer? As we can see here, he’s got a whole lot of support, and probably will get speaking gigs out of this mess, and become a symbolic martyr of the menz
He may get a few less women to chitchat with, if chitchat is all he really does, and perhaps lose a few speaking engagements. But he will damned sure not have to live with feelings of violation, betrayal, loss and fear for the rest of his life—things that a raped person feels. Nor will he be denounced by half the men in the internet as a slut, a liar and deserving of rape—which happens all too often to rape victims, as we see here..
Shermer will have taken very little harm from all this, and, if he were an innocent gentleman, say that he is sorry he gave the wrong impression, and that he is grateful to have provoked so much awareness of an issue that affects all of us.
My godz, PZ stepped up and did what he thought was right, and is taking flak for doing so. Shermer could do the same—if he doesn’t, he’s not a good person.
And if Shermer were a good person, he would ruin his own career, gladly, if it would save one woman from being raped. Would a gentleman not risk physical hurt to stop a rape, if it were in his power? Why then should a man complain if he takes hurt in the effort to reduce the culture of rape?
Oh Christ. Are you trying to get an award for missing the point? What Shermer did is a well known tactic. He’s not consuming the same amount of alcohol, not even close to it. Back when I advocated for rape and sexual assault victims, there was more than one case where the rapist didn’t have anything alcoholic in their drink, but it appeared as though they had an alcoholic drink.
Tony, have I told you how much I love you lately? If not, I love you so much.
It’s kind of embarrassing for the people that attack me personally rather then what I wrote.
Rape is really really serious.
In this case a woman is choosing to keeping drinking from a glass a man keeps topping up in front of her. Is he forcing her to drink the glass as well… No she does that all by herself.
Perspective here?
What kind of world do you want to create when a woman can infer rape intention and absolved of all responsibility because a guy she is talking too is refilling her glass at a bar.
You want to have it that all the women who get drunk and regret sleeping with someone can also just shout rape?
I’m sorry but if the women in the 3rd story did end up sleeping with Shermer that’s what it would have been. She was aware he was flirting and chose to keep drinking and drinking.
Anyway this stories are just crazy…. I don’t have any reason to just completely believe her side of the story. They are kind of meaningless after you accuss someone of rape.
If you are accusing someone of rape, to me its like accusing someone of murder and then posting little anecdotes that after a few drinks the man in question was aggressive to me in a bar once.
Vigilante justice if ever there was.
I’ve been reading/skimming for about 1100 comments and I doubt I’ll finish the thread, but I’d like to offer my support for Jane Doe as well. Also, thank you for stepping up on her behalf, PZ, and on behalf of all other women in the atheist/skeptic community.
I’d like to point out that in addition to being a perennial anti-atheist troll, Anthony McCarthy is, or was, a regular blogger at a radical feminist blog, Echidne of the Snakes. You’d think he’d know better than to spout the shit he’s been spouting. I suppose that the desire to take potshots at atheists trumps any actual empathy he has for rape victims.
Also,Jameswaller, If you had the chance to hang out with a man you seriously admired, and they pulled that tactic of always making sure your drink was topped up, or there was another waiting, and waited until you were seriously drunk, then got you alone and raped you, would you think it was okay, because you had been drinking?
Jameswaller,
Getting a woman so drunk that you can fuck her without consent? That’s rape. Do you even understand that? Or is it you don’t (or don’t want to) understand the word consent?
I should delurk too to support Jane Doe. And PZ too: I can see that it was a difficult decision to post this.
A few things I’ve noticed, after reading 80% or so of the thread:
1. There seem to be some people who don’t think that alcohol is a drug. It’s the most well-known drug that rapists use that there is. Someone who keeps filling up your wine glass while flirting is not doing something innocent. It’s not necessary that it be an exotic drug secretly added for it to be an attempt to drug someone.
2. For all of the people who insist that it has to be brought to the justice system: it will be if Shermer chooses to file a libel suit against PZ. I am not a lawyer. But I assume that the person who e.g. corroborated that Jane Doe reported this to her right after it occurred would be likely to testify if a libel suit happened. At that point, Shermer’s defense pretty much becomes that he got this woman drunk at a conference and they did something consensual, and no conference organizer in his or her right mind ever has him speak again. For that reason, I don’t expect the suit to happen. But the people who really, really want someone to bring this to the law should start asking Shermer why he doesn’t.
3. I know this is a spelling flame, but I have trouble believing that Dee Fiant is a reporter when he or she repeatedly can’t tell the difference between “tenant” and “tenet”.
jameswaller: So it is just that you’re totally ignorant of how pressuring someone works, or are you being disingenuous?
I’m guessing disingenuous as shit. I don’t know anyone who hasn’t been subjected to social pressure before, or overcome by their admiration for someone, or has otherwise acted differently due to not a gun to the head.
jameswaller, I went out of my way to be nice to you and take you seriously and provide a detailed explanation. Thanks ever so much for proving that it simply does not pay to do that.
james,
Wow. Dude, if you’re going to repeat what I said in 2889 at least have the decency to credit your source.
Also, I was being fucking facetious.
Damn, rape defending doucheweasels are so fucking repetitive and predictable.
*waves to Caine*
…Somewhere back in history a commenter posted about working at a bar that trained its staff to watch for alcohol-rapists and intervene – by calling cabs for patrons instead of letting overly friendly guys offer them rides, by watching whether a woman’s intoxication level matched the number and type of drinks she’d ordered and so on. So that’s another potential approach… nudge the bars you patronize, if any, to institute staff intervention policies.
Oh, thanks Martin Wagner.
I don’t know whether we have a Bingo set for Othering – No Decent Man Category.
Have these people never once seen neighbours of mass murderers/ child molesters/ other horrible people interviewed on television? He seemed like such a nice person, very friendly, always helping others. We’re all deeply shocked.
jameswaller, you are using many of the techniques we see used by trolls, creationists and other people with dishonest agendas. The twisting of what someone says into what you want them to admit to saying is one technique you are using. Claiming to be personally attacked is another. Stop it.
Rape is a personal attack of the worst kind, upon a person who cannot stop the attack. And here you are claiming to have been personally attacked—in a RAPE thread.
jameswaller, I am a man, and I disagree with you most heartily.
I also despise you.
jameswaller:
This is classic victim-blaming. Please just stop it. And maybe try to read? Like, for example, read this:
How can you not understand this basic concept?
**din ding ding ding!**
We got the “vigilante justice” bullshit again.
Hey shitweasel, none of us are advocating hunting Shermer down and putting 2 in the back of his head.
I personally would not advocate that if he had raped ME.
What we are advocating is that people should pay attention to the actual VICTIMS. And we are also passing warning that women may want to avoid Shermer, especially when ther is booze involved, at the same time.
Yes we have perspective. She is being manipulated by a predator stalking her. You need to get context and perspective rape apologist.
Yes.
A world where the rapist is blamed, not the victim. Not the answer you like rape apologist.
And your analysis and whining is deviod of compassion, empathy, and desire to have rapists called out for their activity. How many rapes like this are under you belt. You sure sound like you are trying like hell to rationalize away your bad behavior.
Rape and murder are different. If you have to resort to that type of hyperbole, you have no argument, you know you have no argument, and are throwing in a non-sequitur to hide your lack of argument.
@2880 Nepenthe:
Extremely doubtful. Tribalism trumps signed confessions every day of the week for Brave Heroes. The only thing that would ever get the mindlessly ritually tribalistic Brave Heroes to admit error about one they consider their own is brain damage or the healing thereof.
So jameswaller thinks it’s the victim’s fault if someone gets her drunk and rapes her. Tell me, James, does it give you pleasure knowing you’re a rape apologist? Do you get your jollies by excusing the rapist and blaming the victim? Or are you just a clueless git with an overwhelming admiration for Michael Shermer, noted skeptic and rapist?
Aargh, scratch mine @2915. HJ Hornbeck, my apologies, I got confused and fucked up.
mildlymagnificent:
Scorching hot, that. +8
Caine
QFFT
This is what happened to me. Was there more alcohol in my drinks than I was expecting or were there drugs? I don’t know. But the “friend” who raped me sure as fuck was keeping himself sober.
And then later on, I found out he had a reputation. See, he’d go to bars and pick up “wasted chicks” all the time. Nobody warned me about it. That’s just pick up culture, right? No big deal. Just a guy who doesn’t really drink, getting women drunk…
Gee. If only someone could have anonymously warned me, eh?
I find the massive number of comments encouraging, even from the dudebros.
There will be ripple effects, even amongst those that doggedly stuck to their misogynistic or enabling arguments. Many of them are tough guys online (never back down, blah, blah…) but will have second thoughts about their conduct elsewhere. They won’t admit it here. This is a typically male thing- more of a boy thing really (my apologies if that sounds sexist – in Australia we would call it a ‘bloke thing’. It is a cultural aberration)
For the genuine recidivists they will be more aware that their actions are under the spotlight from both women and other men. We are watching you. More of us than ever.
I mean, fuck, it’s not like there aren’t web pages describing getting women drunk or anything.
Just as a possibly irrelevant philosophical aside, it’s striking to me the way the “skeptics” choose what to debunk:
1) Things that would be super freaking cool if they existed, but unfortunately they don’t, like Bigfoot or Nessie, must be debunked relentlessly and with extreme prejudice.
2) Things that would be a total catastrophe if they existed, but fortunately they don’t, like YHWH the Wind God, they can’t be arsed debunking with their mad skeptical skillz.
3) Things that would be a plague on society if they existed, and they do, like unearned privilege—sexual, economic, racial, etc.—any assaults on them must be frenziedly debunked by any means necessary: lying, sockpuppeting, death threats, rape threats, etc. etc.
It’s just interesting to me how they choose their battles.
Pteryxx:
Yes, I remember that. I’d happily patronize a bar which had such policies.
Perzackly. If there’s any effect on him with his close personal friends and family, that’s where it would be. “Don’t give a bad impression.” “When you do that flirting/drinking thing like that, people will not respect you and might even suspect you, so learn better manners/ technique/ behaviour.”
The other effect might be the missing stair effect. Oh shit. I never really thought about the fact that the women club members/ neighbours/ colleagues seem to avoid being alone with him.
It just depends on where and how these behaviours occur – all the time, or in specified places, or at specific kinds of events.
jameswaller, how about if you got into a poker game? Got worked into a game with a real pro and got cleaned utterly out.
Would you take all the blame?
Would you have wished that someone had given you a friendly heads-up, there, beforehand?
People are trying to give information to prevent rapes, and you are fighting to allow women to be raped.
Why are you doing that?
dogberry:
Doomed to what?
Seriously, that has been asked of you multiple times, and you haven’t answered it yet. What has he been doomed to? What terrible thing(s?) must he now deal with? Please explain.
Also:
And yet, you continue to use references to punishment, and to trials and to evidence and standards and legal concepts such as innocent until proven guilty and better that ten criminals go free rather than a single innocent is jailed…
If you understand this is not a court, you surely must understand that using court logic therefore cannot be convincing and that you therefore look like a complete fool for continuing to persist in it.
Such as…? (for the umpteenth time.)
Yanno, someone actually answered that question, earlier, unasked, in a post you quoted.
It was me, in fact.
You pretty much just shrugged it off.
Try reading it again.
I suspect it’s just possible that PZ is a better judge of the possible effect on the victim, as he know her personally, even than you, amazing as that may seem. And that he considered that carefully in making this response (given that he said he did and all).
As to the life of the perpetrator, once more I have to ask: in what way?
How has he been impacted?
I’m not saying he hasn’t, but I’d like you to lay out what terrible things you believe have happened to Shermer in this affair. Personally, I think you can’t, because there haven’t been any, but you keep insisting there have been, so it’s time to describe them.
If you can.
I’m not thanking you yet, as I am suspicious of a flounce claim – there have been others claiming to flounce, only to come dribbling right back.
In other words, I’m hyperskeptical of your flounce – I refuse to just take your word for it.
Well heck, I’ll just leave this here, since it needs reiterated a few times per page.
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/03/25/predator-theory/
Also mentioned in the blog post: Does this sound familiar? (TW for specific rape tactic)
I have caught up with the thread and now I’m going to bed. I’ll be back in the morning to again try to explain reality to people who don’t want to face it.
MM:
Yeah. And that’s what is so fuckety fuck fucking infuriating about all the flaming doucheweasels in this thread – it’s the one thing they just cannot be arsed to care about, that Jane Doe put other women in front of her own concerns, that this whole things is about protecting women and preventing other women from becoming victims of rape.
jameswaller. Fucking hell you’re obtuse.
Getting drunk is not a crime.
Having sex with someone who’s drunk enough to lack the ability to consent is a crime called rape. Doesn’t matter how that person came to be drunk, though if the rapist was seen to be encouraging their drinking it does speak to a malicious intent.
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the rapist has to commit rape in order for this to be a crime? A person drunk enough to lack the ability to consent is just a very drunk person until some criminal decides to rape them.
What kind of world do I want?
I want one where anyone can be drunk to any degree and be sure that no one will use that as permission to rape them.
I want one where it’s general knowledge that victims are not responsible for their victimhood in any way shape or form.
I want one where douchebags like you are so much in the minority that to see them in the wild is a noteworthy occurrence.
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge:
Yeah. It’s almost as if they have some kind of self-interest in all of these, right? I mean, they get to show off their mad Skeptic Skillz™ while also maybe getting a little sugar on the side. Even if they have to shoplift a little. KnowwhatImean?
Fuck. Did I just cross a line? I’m feeling nauseous in any case.
OK, let’s walk through this bit of what you’re writing.
So far, so good.
OK. Here’s what you appear to be missing, to my mind. A woman in this situation is under serious social pressure to be polite, and a woman in the presence of a big name in a community she wants to be part of is under even more pressure.
Also rapists – and rape is really really serious, right? So that’s part of the context here – are known and documented to create and use this exact situation to set up their victims even without the added star power at play in this case.
Now you’re minimizing the stated case, by leaving out all of the factors I just mentioned.
And now you’re engaging in hyperbole, at best. Let’s just go with “No” and point out that the only people who’ve said anything like that have been people taking positions resembling yours.
You’re still blipping over the concept of consent. There’s an excellent set of links upstream – scroll up until you see all of the underlined text. I’m not going to look up the comment for you. Rape is really really serious, right? So you surely won’t mind doing a bit of the work yourself.
These stories strike me and a lot of other people here as typical and common, actually. Nobody has asked you to believe her, and you are perfectly entitled not to.
We’re saying that women – who live in a very different set of circumstances than you do, with different risks and concerns – should be aware of the allegations and decide for themselves whether *they* believe them. Because we think they will be safer in so doing.
And if we’re wrong about Shermer? They’ll be safer from other rapists who use tactics exactly resembling the recreational practices Shermer appears to engage in. Again, at best.
So even if Shermer is perfectly innocent of the rape accusations, he’s still someone who chooses to engage in activity that makes it much harder to refute them. That seems …unwise. Some would suggest that his behavior makes some of the accusations his fault.
Well, we’ll have to disagree about that analogy. For reasons that have already been given to you, adn which you haven’t replied to. Reading and listening might help you here.
And this one has been so debunked and refuted already in this thread that repeating it merely decreases your credibility. And the people who’ve had to do so for the last two days are so impatient with it that – again, at best – you’re innocently suffering fallout from the offenses of others. But you could have avoided that by reading and listening first, and acquiring some more context before you spoke.
From your series of posts, it doesn’t look to me like those are things you do. I don’t think it helps you much.
Better?
jameswaller
READ THE THREAD YOU COMPLETE DOUCHNOZZLE!!!!!. Your tedious bullshit is identical to tedious bullshit that whole legions of assholes like you have brought here for nearly 3000 posts now, without anything new that we haven’t seen in this thread and the last dozen on similar topics.
Unrelated to james, but it’s been bugging me ever since some twit brought them up a while back; its Suffragists. Suffragette is a misogynistic term of diminution applied by their political enemies. I now return you to your previously scheduled shouting at trolls.
I just wanted to add my voice as a longtime lurker and occasional poster (although it’s been so long I couldn’t recover my password from my previous ID). I appreciate the anon allowing PZ to make the post and particularly appreciate everything that the Horde has been doing, in particular, Caine. (Also, a shoutout to SallyStrange for her humor on Page 1.) It was Jim C. Hines’ cartoon that got me to re-sign up; the post hits close to home for me and I think brought into relief what the original anon is dealing with.
I thought that I had heard every abuser-minimizer excuse in the thread. Jim’s cartoon does a great job of summarizing everything we’ve heard and reminded me of how particularly ridiculous minimizers will sound – so while what I went through isn’t anything close to what the six (plus?) women who had to deal with MS did, my “favorite” from my own situation was, “But you were open about retracting your foreskin in a group shower; what did you expect?” Well, I sure as hell didn’t expect what happened to me.
And I want a pony. Or at least some sheep, ’cause I’ve now got 2 acres and no means of mowing it. /levity to reduce the throbbing in my temple veins
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge: In my opinion, they pick the really easy battles because that’s the only damn thing they’re qualified for–debunking something that cannot be proved to exist. Things Weekly World News carries articles about (BatBoy and the like.) You know. Low hanging fruit.
And I mean that in the most damning way possible.
Think about sheep. Sloooowly, peeeeacefully, munching their way across your paddock.
(But borrow them from a neighbour. You don’t want all the hassle of trying to feed them at the end of summer or protecting them in bushfire season.)
Jameswaller:
You need to properly educate yourself on rape culture before commenting again.
Also learn what consent means (hint: anything other than ‘Yes’ is not consent).
I recommend checking this page and the last for links by Pteryxx and Caine or even checking the sidebar.
You have a chance to learn here and stop supporting rape culture. That would be a very good thing.
mildly magnificent: Or those adorable pygmy goats, which appear to be popular around here.
Nigel:
No, you’re fine.
Darkwater, thanks, and your situation? Holy Rats, it doesn’t sound good. You have my empathy and support.
FossilFishy:
A goat. You want a goat. They will, of course, eat everything else, too. So maybe not.
Rev. Battleaxe @2825:
There was also the more recent episode where Penny woke up at Raj’s, not remembering the night before, and Raj let her think that they’d had sex, despite knowing that he’d prematurely ejaculated before any serious sex acts had started. It was…seriously problematic, as that show’s issues with women and minorities often are.
Sheeeep….peaceful, calm sheeeep….fluffy, daggy, stooooopid sheep….. dammit now I’m thinking about Jameswaller again!!!!11!!!1!
Yes James, that was an insult. I’ve addressed what you wrote elsewhere.
Ms. Fishy’s family has a 3000 sheep or so, we’re planning on borrowing a few. Not too worried about feeding ’em as it get dry, there’s plenty of hay round here to buy. Hadn’t occurred to me about protecting them from bushfires, dammit.
Caine the Kickass @2933:
No worries, I’m astonished it hasn’t happened more often given the frenzy of posts. Hugs if ya want’m!
Having read 1600 or so comments, I may be chiming in unprepared. Seriously, how do people read all 3000 comments? I didn’t even have much to do today and I got overwhelmed.
Thank you to Jane Does #1-3 for coming forward to speak out. Thank you to PZ for lending your blog to their voice. Thank you to Caine and all the others who’s names I’m too tired to remember for your contributions to this thread.
A couple of things struck me (which may very well have been covered in the 1400 comments I haven’t read):
First, any discussion (and there has been a lot; setec I’m thinking of you, even though you are long gone) of what “is” or “is not” rape is complicated by the fact that in the US alone there are at least 52 different legal jurisdictions with independent laws covering rape and sexual assault, and those laws can have vastly different answers to “is this a crime” for various scenarios. Arguing legal absolutes without specifying when and where is pointless, and even with that specified it’s pointless if you aren’t a lawyer (which I’m not). But it doesn’t matter, because the accused behavior (accused by all three Jane Does) is reprehensible, regardless of if it is technically criminal.
Second, I find it much more believable that Jane Doe #2 thinks she knows who Jane Doe #1 is than that PZ would tell Jane Doe #2 who Jane Doe #1 is. As such, It is plausible, even likely, to me, that Jane Doe #2 is describing a separate, strikingly similar, incident to what happened to Jane Doe #1.
hjhornbeck:
*whew* Thanks. :)
Dear god, not a goat! Those things are the Houdinies of livestock. We can’t afford the fencing to keep one on our property. The neigbours to the north of us had a small flock that kept getting out until the neighbours to the south threatened to shoot them all and then come shoot their owner. For the most part the rural folk round here don’t live up to the negative stereotypes, but there are a couple doing their best to make up for that.
buddhabuck: it’s plausible, but also note that due to the nature of the informal trust network, the Jane Does likely are not anonymous to each other. Jane Doe #1 mentioned five other Does who came forward to her directly.
jameswaller @2917:
If I told you I owned a dog, would you believe me? Sure, it’s a common enough occurrence; 35% of Canadian households own a dog, and with about three to four people per household that translates to about 8-16% of Canadians owning a pet.
If I told you I was raped, should you believe me? Sure, it’s a common enough occurrence; about one in three Canadian women have been raped, and with women taking up roughly half the country that translates to about 16% of Canadians being raped.
Where’s the flaw in my logic?
I don’t have anything useful to add, except that this thread is evidence for why so much of the skeptical/atheist community hates FtB so much… from the top to the bottom you folks set a really fucking high standard. It must be easier to hate and attack than to try to live up to that standard.
I believe and support rape victims, I don’t try to create hypotheticals to justify dismissing them. Hyper-skeptics and rape apologists can piss up a rope.
FossilFishy@2957
Good thing you’re on our side then. Otherwise you’d use it all up making your arguments and have none left to feed the sheep
If they’re fishy-in-laws’ stock, just find out whether they’d rather you took them back to be managed with the rest. Or find out the best way to handle them on your own property. The thing that would get to me would be having them on my “Bushfire Management Plan” or whatever you call them over there.
FossilFishy(Anti-Vulcanist), I like that.
A person should be able to get falling-down drunk, with no fear. Yes, still having responsibility for any harm they cause while drunk, even to themselves. But nobody should be able to harm them.
Dammit, this thing we call civilization is about protecting the weak and the helpless—said weak and helpless including all of us at some times and places. We try to prevent tyranny, and disease, and plutocracy because it is the decent thing to do, and the best for all of us. We cannot, as civilized beings, step back and say that it is okay to rape drunk people.
We fight wars to prevent worse wars, supposedly.
StevoR, over on Thunderdome, was arguing that it is necessary to drone-strike potential terrorists, despite the deaths of bystanders, because the terrorists would kill more people than that if left alive and killing. He defended that logic quite strongly.
So now, people who sound just like StevoR, are over here arguing that it is wrong to cause any harm to a man, despite the women who say that he raped them, because he is surely innocent. He must be assumed innocent, and defended at all costs, and the “alleged” victims punished in every way possible, and the defenders of the victims slagged mercilessly.
The harm to the man is assumed to be infinite, the harm to the women is dismissed, and is assumed to be their own fault. (As I once heard a gang-banger say of the innocent bystanders he’d just killed in his drive-by, “They shouldn’t have been there.”)
There’s a pattern of “otherness” running through these men, and a great enthusiasm for men, men’s right and men’s toys. To them, it’s okay to blow brown women up with rockets, it’s great to rape drunk women, it’s ideal to be a man in a man’s world, and quite literally, fuck everybody else.
Well, I am a man, and I say fuck that.
Improbable Joe, bearer of the Official SpokesGuitar @2964:
Aww, thanks! You should probably put a </sarcasm> tag in there, though; with the posts coming at a furious rate, it’s easy for someone to skim and miss the nuance.
Pete! That got a good laugh, thanks. But I must point out hay =/= straw.
And a new word I learned recently: agistment. I’m hoping we can find someone to pay us to keep their animals.
#2915.
Caine, Fleur du mal
This is important enough a point to bear repeating. Buying drinks with higher alcohol content for their chosen victim and then challenging them to keep up as they knock back glass after glass of watered down or booze free beverages is a tactic used by sexual predators. I’ve also repeatedly observed male bartenders (back in my pub crawl days) mixing heavier drinks for the female clientele than for the guys in order to “loosen then up.”* There was a time when I considered that a bonus for me– yay, more booze– but I can also see quite clearly how a predator may rely on heavy pours by bartenders to enable their predation. For every three drinks he has, she gets three with the alcohol equivalent of five. She thinks he’s just as drunk as she is. He’s not.
*to which I now say ew, gross. Why it’s almost like rape culture is everywhere.
(Apologies for the sloppy header on this post, comment box hates me again lately, will not let me backspace, and everything I post has to be c&p’ed from somewhere else. Took me almost 30 minutes to write this comment. Siiigh. Sure does slow down the ragetype though.)
Thought experiment… when guys get falling-down drunk among a bunch of friends, they aren’t usually afraid of anything worse than getting Sharpie’d upon, are they? (Which is still a douche move – no drawing on someone without consent, either.) They crash on someone’s couch, wake up in wrinkled clothes, have a chuckle and go home?
Why shouldn’t that be true for everyone?
Well, no, hay !=straw.
But given the camels the trolls have already swallowed, you don’t think a gnat like the difference between hay and straw is going to give them a problem, do you?
WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK. *rage*
@hjhornbeck,
It was admiration, not sarcasm… if I were a shithead rape apologist, or some suck-up hero-worshiping douche-canoe, the Horde would scare the living shit out of me. I can see why anonymous rape survivors would feel safe telling their stories here, and why rapists and their apologists would be so desperate to pretend this place is dying and try to destroy it.
That about bartenders mixing heavier drinks for the women just blew my mind. It puts MRAs whining about the misandry of “ladies’ nights” into a whole new level of horrible.
I had to read your post twice Joe, I read it then saw your name then realized I must have mis-read it and got it the second time. I mist have read a good 5000 comments and tweets in the past 5 hours so I am a little bleary eyed.
*raises hand* I believe Jane Doe.
@hjhornbeck,
It was admiration, not sarcasm… if I were a shithead rape apologist, or some suck-up hero-worshiping douche-canoe, the Horde would scare the living shit out of me. I can see why anonymous rape survivors would feel safe telling their stories here, and why rapists and their apologists would be so desperate to pretend this place is dying, and also desperate to try to destroy it if they could.
iJoe is one of us.
Improbable Joe, bearer of the Official SpokesGuitar @2974:
Sorry. I’m a touch twitchy myself, and I’ve only just got here. :P
What the usual idiots seem to be missing about the most recent update (the “he kept filling my glass” story) is that I don’t think anyone here is claiming that those actions, in and of themselves, are criminal. But they’re further evidence of a criminal modus operandi. You know, supporting evidence like they all keep demanding.
Also interesting is how many of the people who accuse us of being a lynch mob and believing in vigilante justice are quick to tell us that they would happily kill or castrate someone they really believed was a rapist.
And somehow I posted the same comment twice with a long gap in between… the whole world is getting buggy!
Don’t get greedy and put too many on – a couple of acres isn’t much. (I just worked out that it’s six times the size of my previous suburban house block.) The important thing is that if you get the stocking rate right, you’ll always have feed when the worst of the season has made things tough for the stock-owners. So you’ll be able to keep on feeding some of their more valuable stock when they’re having problems on their own properties, or paying a fortune for feed to be brought in.
If you’ve got a dryish area of half an acre or so, you could “seed” it with saltbush seed bombs, as long as you can protect it from grazing while the patch gets established, and then have premium feed for people growing sheep for meat. Quite apart from established saltbush being tough beyond belief and available pretty well year round even in drought years.
Pteryxx @2971
That literally made me laugh out loud. It was much needed, thank you!
iJoe is a regular here and a respected member of the Horde. I expect we’re all more than a bit twitched out at this point.
frick, now I’m getting twitchy. I’m starting to wonder how reliable is the research about women metabolizing alcohol less efficiently than men. How much drink-spiking bias goes on in self-reporting, and did any researchers let their interpretation get clouded, as happened with the racial bias in lung function tests? *boggle*
Screechymonkey:
Yeah, it highlights the hypocrisy and incoherency in their mad rush to defend that which is most dear to them, rape culture.
“We got the “vigilante justice” bullshit again.”
I can’t help but wonder why??
Sorry by this I didn’t mean to hunt Shermer down.
I mean a group of people who are all 100% convinced someone is guilty because of else’s someones “say so” and nothing more, therefore total disregard for legal processes in such a serious case as this.
Zero evidence presented except a second hand story, from someone who refuses to go to the authorities
You want to have it that all the women who get drunk and regret sleeping with someone can also just shout rape?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
Yes.
Very telling … does this person speak for everyone here?
Your view on women is amazing if you really think that. These poor poor utterly helpless creatures out in the real world. Anti empowering to woman. I’m glad not to share your dehumanising views.
Now I get accused of being a rapist or a rape apologist, what a joke of a phrase to call someone.
What is a rape apologist exactly. Someone that disagrees with you?
In line with that pointless name assigning does that just make you a PZ apologist?
The hostility here if someone has a different view speaks volumes…
Why is rape and murder different when talking about the severity of the claim being made.
I don’t see much difference with this post from PZ then if Shermer had posted an anonymous blog post with someone claiming they had seen PZ murder somone but that they were too scared to go to the authories.
I passed out drunk when I was 11 and got sexually assaulted by one or more girls actually I woke up in the hospital and had to find out what was done to me 2 days later in school. It was not a fun time for me.
Pteryxx:
I thought most people knew about that. Back in my going out to bars a lot days, there were quite a lot them that I was warned about, that the bartenders went heavy on drinks for single women.
notsont:
Fuck. I’m so sorry, Notsont.
No Pete I wouldn’t. After all, they’ve demonstrated over and over that discriminating between similar but unrelated things is just too hard for them.
mildlymagnificent
If we do get in-law sheep they’re definitely going to be just kept by us until it’s time to go to market. Not sure how they’d like us to handle code red days where we’re planning on fleeing. They’re pretty pragmatic ‘she’ll be right mate” sorta folk so I suspect that they’d just say to leave ’em to take their chances. I’m not really comfortable with that though. Sigh. Why is everything complicated? Oh yeah, because I care about doing good, dammit.
crap, notsont, I’m sorry you got put through that. Shows what I know. *headshake*
Frustration upon frustration!
Frustration the first: Some people just will not listen, will not read, will not stop and consider a reasoned argument and absolutely will not stop being flaming idiots!!!
Frustration the second: In the middle of composing a comment somewhere around midnight last night my InnerTubes sprung a leak and went flat. I took the opportunity to shut down my browser and thought a re-boot was in order (my computer stays up and running for days, sometimes weeks). Guess what?
Right. Would not reboot. I putzed around for a while this morning and managed to get up and running in Safe Mode, logged back on (ATT back in business by then) only to find a jillion more comments. So far I’ve made it through 2,799 of which at least half (anybody keeping score?) are mind-crunching frustration generators with +5 insipidy. Yeah, that’s a word. I make ’em up like that to ease frustration.
At times today I have literally had tears of frustration on my cheeks.
Were it not for the amazing, courageous, brilliantly shining Warriors of teh Horde battling on the front, in the trenches and on the flanks I would surely be off wandering somewhere in a stupor. Bouncing off trees, eating mud and scaring the local fauna. You folks are Awesome! I mean that in it’s proper sense. Your performance, your tenacity and singular dedication leave me feeling small and insignificant and nearly dumbstruck. You’ve set a new standard in my eyes and I love each and every one of you.
To PZ: Faced with a choice that lesser souls would have tried to avoid, you stood upon your principles and did what you saw as the right thing even while knowing the inevitable shit-storm that would unleash. I salute you, sir.
To Jane Doe: You also made a decision fraught with risk and, like PZ, followed the dictates of your conscience and took the plunge for what you felt you had to do. You have my utmost respect. May you find a measure of healing and take comfort in the support that has been shown for you.
To Caine: Thank you. Please accept my personal blessing and ever deepening affection. You are a true wonder.
To Tony: Your ferocious side surprises me some and puts a grin on my face. Well done, well done.
To so many more: I am proud to be in your company. You are true warriors for you fight for the rights of all and stand firmly on your convictions. You are all inspiring.
Lastly, that is, on the ass end of this comment where it belongs, to the apologists and excuse makers, the searchers for exceptions and makers of poor arguments, uniformed objections and pouty, foot-stomping, self-centered, smarmy, ill-tempered, inept, repetitive, repugnant and wildly obtuse protestation:
NOTHING.
Nothing at all. If you haven’t listened to all these who have answered and explained already, there is no profit for either you or me in anything I could offer. So I give you nothing. Somehow, that seems fitting.
Conversations on the Internet are not “witch hunts” or “vigilante justice” or any of the other bullshit that rape apologists have to sell. Does any of this involve burning Shermer alive, or inflicting any physical harm on him? No? Then STFU with your dishonest bullshit.
You misunderstand, some here might be 100% sure of things I’m not, I just think as others have pointed out less harm is done by believing the accusers, hell I don;t think any harm is done to MS. This is not a new thing people have been sharing allegations about him for years it has just spread to a wider audience now.
The trick is to take rape so seriously that no crime can ever meet the bar of being Real Rape. If only 12-year-old virgin asexual boys can be raped and only evil Roman Catholic Priests can be rapists and the boy has to tell right away and have at least three corroborating witnesses,* then there’s no risk of the apologists ever having to get off the couch and sharpen their knives. So it’s not really vigilantism.
/snark… sort of
*The atheoskeptic version of the Ideal Victim is a bit different than the conservative Christian one, but no less restrictive.
So does the way you cherry-pick which responses to pay attention to.
I tried being patient with you, you ignored it.
We’re only being hostile to people who are persisting in being exactly the same kind of asshole as fifteen people before them. But you’d have to read and think to see that, and you’re manifestly unwilling to do that.
So.
You’re not looking for discussion; you’re looking to preen.
Fuck off and admire yourself elsewhere.
I feel bad for laughing now Notsont. I’m sorry to hear about what happened to you. :(
Caine @2901 and Pteryxx @2904,
Thank you for those suggestions. I hope other people read them, too!