I have communicated with Ken White at Popehat, who often secures pro bono assistance for bloggers threatened with defamation suits. He has committed to help me and to attempt to secure counsel for me.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Kick ass. PZ, YOU are not alone in this either.
Boo on getting sued, yay on competent representation.
My huge thanks to Popehat!
Awesome. Love popehat.
Seconding this. Take care!
There’s been no lawsuit yet as far as I know, just a threatening letter.
Good to hear. Take care and good luck.
What threatening letter? *looks vaguely around the archives*
Good one. Ken is a law ninja.
I have lucky rabbit feet you can borrow. (Careful. They’re ticklish.)
Excellent.
Whatever happens, you did the right thing and got the word out.
Now go kick some ass.
FWIW, if PZ Myers and FTB start a legal defense fund, I’m in.
I don’t like threats or bullies. I do like the truth a whole lot.
A court of law is sometimes a good place to untangle these situations.
My best wishes, PZ, and should support of the green, papery kind become necessary, don’t hesitate to ask.
I love Ken White and Popehat in a totally non-creepy way and now I love them twice as much (still with no creepiness involved). That’s wonderful news! Take heart, PZ and Jane Doe!
Good thing Ken believes in free speech. Otherwise he probably wouldn’t help you out, considering he believes* that you are “responsible for the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge, Stalin’s purges of the Russian Orthodox Church, and this guy in Philadelphia who raped a 77-year-old woman and told her there was no God.”
* Not really.
On the other hand, I don’t think there is any record of Ken calling you a poopyhead, so maybe he is willing to look past the whole Khmer Rouge thing after all.
I don’t have a lot, but if it comes down to it I’m happy to contribute to a legal fund. Thank you, PZ, for doing what’s right, and thank you, Janes Doe, for coming forward. I sincerely wish you the best in this matter.
Yes! Good for you, PZ, and major thanks to Popehat. You have my support, PZ, in any way needed.
Sorry for the double-post (curse my fingers for hitting “Submit Comment” too fast). I’ll throw my lucky house-rabbit feets in, too. Sounds like both of ours are the luckiest kind–still attached to the rabbit.
I am good at links.
You are doing the right thing, PZ. Protecting Jane Doe’s identity and not allowing yourself to be intimidated by lawyerly fishing expeditions are the correct priorties to have.
I also think that Shermer needs to be reminded of a little online phenomenon called the the Streisand Effect – when you try to muzzle the internet, it has a tendency to bite…
First Rule of Holes. When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.
PZ,
Please take care of yourself, first and foremost. (((Jedi hugs)))
From eigenperson’s link @ # 20:
A regular in-it-for-the-money lawyer might give more help than a pro bono attorney with a grudge against his client.
Oops – on re-reading the OP, I see that Ken White’s role involves finding a pro bono lawyer, not serving as one – so my concerns are misplaced at best, and probably totally unfounded.
“The truth is an absolute defense against libel.”
Good luck, PZ.
No matter the outcome, you have done the right thing and I will give whatever I can to a legal defense fund (should it come to that).
Ken has (successfully) defended people he disagrees with far more strongly, and frequently, than he does with PZ, so I wouldn’t have any concern about his ability to provide a high-quality defense anyway.
I posted the link mainly because I thought it was amusing.
And I’ve worked with people with whom I’ve disagreed far more strongly than with Ken White. We can find common cause with people we disagree with. Hey, isn’t that what all the accommodationists say all the time?
@Pierce R. Butler
I don’t think Ken would be as petty as that. If he was mad enough at PZ for it to matter, he’d more likely just tell him to sniff various arts of his body.
Long time lurker here, coming out ofghe shadows to express my support.
PZ and company, if you need a contribution for a possible legal defense, I will glady reach for my wallet and spread the word. The silencing and hostility towards women in the atheist community stops here, now.
B.O. as works of art? Sure, why not! It’s hard to facilitate the necessary funkified breeding grounds for certain bacteria.
No, I meant like scratch and sniff tattoos. They’re all the rage now.
If PZ were made to take down the original post, and if some folks still had screenshots of it, would it cause any additional legal problems for PZ if afforementioned screenshots were to be uploaded by other people to a whole bunch of other blogs/forums elsewhere? Just, you know, hypothetically.
Another place you can think about, the EFF. Electronic Frontier Foundation.
They did a lot in the early years of the internet and used to have a lot of case law on their website.
yay!
Well, I look forward to PZ being declared guilty of defamation. It will serve as a reminder to idiots all over this blog network not to throw around claims to the public without presenting ANY evidence to the public.
I say this, even if Shermer does turn out to be a rapist, because no matter what evidence Myers is able to come up with against Shermer later on, the fact of the matter is that the article PZ wrote had no evidence of this, and so at that point in time, what he did was (and is) morally reprehensible.
If PZ had corroborated his claims with plausible (not even super solid) evidence, I’d still respect his decision. Of course though, hearsay > evidence in this tiny, sad internet black hole for free thought.
Well, somebody’s being pissy.
TESTIMONY. IS. EVIDENCE.
Fuck off.
lord knows a woman talking about her experience isn’t evidence, that is why they don’t let women talk in court.
lentes, perhaps you could use your superior knowledge of the law to help Shermer obtain a guilty verdict in his civil case.
Go look that up. Seriously, douchecanoe, you are not as smart as you believe. Words have meanings and when you use them in such frivolous ways you’re opening yourself up to being made fun of.
…without presenting ANY evidence to the public.
Since when is a first person account from a trusted individual not considered a form of evidence, you fucking twerp?
lentes, perhaps you could let us know what your definition of “hearsay” is? Because “being told directly by the person it happened to” isn’t it.
Again. What WOULD be evidence?
Yes, yes… the taste of feminist/victimist tears.
No, you’re not a hyperskeptical rape apologist at all. You just are sayin’ that if PZ is going to present several women’s accounts in which they say Shermer raped them, he shouldn’t have just believe those women who are clearly lying, for Reasons. PZ should have done his due diligence and obtained Real Evidence. He should have went to the scenes of the crimes and found physical evidence. You should have brought along his own personal CSI lab before daring to give a platform to women who claim, with their filthy lying mouths and their fuzzy lady brains, to have been sexually assaulted.
But seriously though, just go fuck yourself.
Lentes:
Soooo, a victims testimony counts as ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA in the way of evidence in the tiny little black hole that is your mind. Gotcha.
Does he represent bands as well as bloggers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy5xEipjKQc
Blind Labyrinth
Yes, yes… the blustering of an ineffectual stooge.
…or maybe that needs to be something super duper dense and resistant to penetration by empathy or compassion…something like adamantium…?
Hey lentes, might want to take off those lentes so you don’t hurt yourself sticking your head up your behind.
FWIW, going to court is no big deal.
At least if you are sure of your position and truth, justice, and the right are on your side. It’s a calm, deliberate, and slow way to get everything out on the table.
I’ve been in federal court on a high profile civil case. It didn’t scare me. It didn’t bother me. And oh yeah, we won bigtime and they paid our sides legal bill.
PZ …
If you are sued (which I tend to doubt … Schermer has more to lose in such a public contest than you do), I can’t help all that much unless it is in New York City or environs. But I could do some volunteer research/brief writing, both of which I am rather good at. Let me know if I can help.
Popehat is cool. Coincidently in my bookmarks right after Pharyngula as well.
If ‘lentes’ is representative of the advice the other guy is getting, then this should be short.
And now I will always imagine Teh Menz Brigade speaking in Cartman’s voice. I can’t believe I didn’t make the connection until now.
The funny smell of those calling other people “victimist” while claiming there’s a witch hunt against them.
Lentes, I am sure you will get a call when you become important or even relevant enough to have any extra information shared with you.
In the meantime please understand that you are on the sidelines and no one has a duty to prove anything to you or anyone else here.
If the claim is true then it should have been reported to the police.
@lentes
Please enlighten us as to what you would consider as “plausible” evidence. Since the word of multiple women PZ Myers knows apparently is not. Maybe if a man came forward with a direct witness/harassment/assault statement? ‘Cause we can’t trust the wominz!
It really seems that the whole game of these people is:
a) relying on the fact that finding physical evidence (or indeed evidence beyond testimony) in rape/assault cases ranges from highly difficult to impossible, especially in incidents that haven’t taken place immediately in the past,
b) saying testimony isn’t evidence, or at least insufficient evidence to mention publicly without getting legal threats or attracting angry dudebros,
and c) if nobody is hearing about sexual assault etc, that means it isn’t happening.
Given a) and b), the logic then says practically no rape/assault case can ever be prosecuted or indeed even talked about, which by c) means rape culture isn’t a problem because it doesn’t even exist.
Is this right? Both b) and c) are clearly flawed, but I really don’t think I’m putting words in the mouth of these people.
Nick Nado:
I hope you are not a sockpuppet.
I would hate to waste the following on someone I have already given it to:
FUCK OFF YOU VILE SHITSTAIN.
Well, Iowa neighbors Minnesota, but I don’t think they give law licenses on a proximity basis, otherwise I would be so on board.
Not only that, but does Shermer really want to have to prove that the allegations are false? He has that burden if he sues for defamation. Sorry if I’m late to the party on this, but legal nuances are one thing I actually feel marginally competent to comment on. So, it’d be pretty ridiculous of him to sue for it…but then…we’re talking about a rapist…so…reasonable behavior is right out the window, huh?
So, the claim was false. Gotcha.
chrispollard HAS to be a sockpuppet (first nym/last nym combo)
Cold?
Carol?
Place yer bets now folks!
Portia, in boots. I thought Shermer would only need prove the accusations were damaging to his reputation. Which being a public figure, he’s got no hope in hell. If he were a nobody, then he’d have a case and PZ would need to mount a case to prove he was a rapist. At least, that’s what I parse from Rieux’s comments the other day.
Ideally; the police would ideally take sexual assault claims seriously.
Unfortunately, “ideal” describes assumptions for simplicity, not the world we live in.
Brian E:
Nope, it has to be false factual statements that damage the reputation or belong in one of the following categories:
(Wiki link).
As someone mentioned earlier, truth is an absolute defense to libel/slander/defamation. What that means is that if it’s true, you are not liable whatsoever for telling the truth. And because it’s an element of the cause of action, the plaintiff has the burden of proving it by a preponderance of the evidence.
@mx89
And I would add that even physical evidence in cases like this would be impossible to bring to bear on a case like this, because no struggle was alleged, and the predator can simply say the sex was consensual.
So yes, the people excluding testimony are essentially excluding the only possible evidence that a person was violated.
Testimony is evidence, but it isn’t proof. Also, testimony is not a very reliable form of evidence. I do believe it’s possibly true that Michael did this, just as much as it’s possibly true that he didn’t. This little thing called skepticism needs to be exercised a bit more around here.
Portia, but to prove it true or false, Jane Doe would be dragged across the coals. Not what PZ wants. Better just to get off because Shermer is a public figure, no?
Don’t you folks know nothing bad ever happens unless it’s reported to the police? Only a victimist would think otherwise!
It’s also possible that there’s a giant teapot between here and the moon. Have you considered that?
Testimony from various independent sources is more reliable than various testimonies from one source. Skepticism and all that.
@67 Sounds like a conspiracy theorist.
This kind of thinking is up there with the secret. If you wish for it, and it doesn’t happen, then it’s your fault. If you go to the police and theirs no conviction, you weren’t raped. If you don’t go the police, because there won’t be a conviction there’s no rape, and you’re a manhating life wrecker.
You know, I think I’m in danger of breaking a few keys on my keyboard, specifically the following: what the fuck are you talking about?
@70: I think everyone is well aware of the fact that testimony isn’t as reliable as other forms of evidence. But it’s all people have. And when multiple people are stepping forward, it kind of sounds like Herman Cain:
http://www.colbert nation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/403246/november-29-2011/he-said–she-said–she-said–she-said–she-said–she-was-paid-not-to-say
Mediahint usually works if you are region locked out.
Brian E:
Yes, in order to support the truth of it without resorting to hearsay, we’d have to hear from the anonymous woman, probably. Though…I’m thinking…her account of the events to PZ would have independent legal significnce…so maybe they’d get in anyway…I dunno. Probably would involve her testimony, which would suck, obviously. Still, it’s a big damn gamble for Shermer to follow through with the suit.
Wait. You have to prove malice…have to show PZ reported it without regard for its truth or falsity. That he did not do, he had corroboration and other accounts. Even if it’s false, (which I don’t believe, just to be clear), they’d have to prove PZ published it with malice, as defined above. So. They’re sunk regardless.
What is the nature of this legal threat to PZ?
No, it sounds like someone who is educated on rape statistics.
I’ll join the chorus here that isn’t praying for you, or anything else, but willing to help out a bit (and maybe enough) should things get more real.
Nice to have a real lawyer helping out! There ARE many good people who happen to be lawyers, despite the stereotypes.
@74 I’ve yet to see valid evidence that these ‘sources’ even exist. There is a whole lot of accusing going on with very little evidence being shown for any of it. But hey, I’m in a thread full of people who have already convicted the man, so evidence clearly doesn’t matter here what so ever.
How fucking insightful. Congratufuckinglations on being the thousandth fucking True Skeptic who thinks that things are really that simple and that it some kind of vital, sparkling nugget of wisdom. Here’s something to ponder with your incredible levels of intellect and capacity for completely unique and innovative thought: Have you ever thought that the victim might understand what is best for themselves better than you understand what is best for them? Have you ever thought of the reasons why people not go to the police?
Just some things to mull over, though I’m sure a super-genius such as yourself already has deemed such things Illogical and has astutely decided to ignore reality and remove all of your empathy chips, lest you stray from your utopic vision of a society where the police and legal system just make everything better and where there is no victim blaming or shaming whatsoever.
Exactly, no need to resort to truth is an absolute defence and out Jane Doe. Shermer’s a public figure, he can’t win a defamation suit, unless he can show malice, unlike Joe Nobody. Of course, I am not a lawyer, not American, and possibly not sane. :D
ewor sez: @67 Sounds like a conspiracy theorist.
Kindly fuck off.
Well at least Shermer is playing to his audience’s shortcomings then. Filing a C&D order proves that he has nothing to hide and that he is in fact innocent, by their logic that “no false claims can be made to officials”, except, you know, rape. *goddamnit*
Anybody know how to rub two sticks together to start a campfire?
I have this little thing called skepticism I am f*****g tired of seeing misapplied.
****
Portia:
You rock.
Nothing is proof, you metaphysics-invoking asshole. If testimony is so damn worthless, what will I ever do with my trial tomorrow? I guess I’ll just draw the judge some pretty pictures and hope he decides in my client’s favor.
Just drown him already, if he floats he’s a rapist.
Well, since you don’t trust PZ, Ophelia Benson, and others who’ve said Shermer is on the Skeeve list, then under the generic fallacy, you can reject anything they say because of its source. I’m sure that warms your cockles to resort to a logical fallacy.
Says the denialist, pretending to be all skeptical and shit.
How do we convict him? On what authority could we possibly do so?
You’re making more sense than I am! I’m dredging up second year law school stuff and your public figure point didn’t trip the trigger til you connected the dots in this comment. Yeah, you’re right. He’s blustering. His lawyers smell fresh meat.
—
Tony:
Thanks ^_^ Backatcha.
@portlia Congrats on attributing a position to me that I don’t hold. I didn’t say testimony is worthless, I said that it’s not a very reliable form of evidence. Especially coming from an anonymous source that will most likely never materialize. But hey, gossip is fun right?
Damn straight. Unless it’s a valid syllogism, using indisputable premises, we won’t accept it. Now, fellow Aristotelians, what shall we do about probabilistic science with it’s uncertainty? Where’s my prime-mover when I need it?
Pardon me while I bash my head against the wall.
EWOR84:
you are in a thread, THAT IS NOT A COURT OF LAW.
No one here has the power to manipulate reality such that Pharyngula becomes a courtroom ya douchemaggot. So knock it off with the insipid comparisons to such.
@jacob, in the court of FTB’s opinion, he is convicted.
You’ve yet to see valid evidence that everyone in this thread isn’t actually just me and my cousin Mary.
Shermer doesn’t get regular gigs abroad, does he? Because if he had any in the UK and they dried up and he had deep enough pockets, then suing in the UK with our crap libel laws could be an option.
Yeah, if somebody makes an accusation by which they could only be harmed, not helped, without any conceivable motive to do so other than to help prevent harm to other women, they’re big liars, obvs. And obvs if we believe this person, we are on a witchhunt. A rapist-hunt. Because like witches, rapists are mythical creatures with no social power. Because like witches, rapists are powerless people that we can lynch or burn or convict without a trial, because we have the power of the government on our side, which is why the police immediately believed the victim in this case and…
OH WAIT NONE OF THAT IS REMOTELY TRUE.
Anonymous to us. Not PZ, and it’s not one source, it’s several independent sources with stories that add to the strength of the conclusion.
Why, the world will collapse!
internet points or some equivalent, good sir, well done. :D
An anonymous source has told me that everyone in this thread eats kittens. Thus, it is so.
Blame Rieux. I’m just repeating what I read the other day.
since everyone is pontificating fairly ignorantly, I’ll just c/p and link to what an actual lawyerly type had to say on the topic of defamation:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/08/09/if-you-wont-shut-up/#comment-259995
One good thing about going to court,
It would be far more interesting and productive than reading the usual crap from the usual trolls.
It’s boring, dumb, and goes nowhere.
I’m off for greener pastures but good luck PZ, and if you need a legal defense fund, we are here.
This “gossip” has been common knowledge with women inside closely-knit circles of trust for a LONG fucking time now. It’s beyond gossip. It’s a warning, a helpful warning, to stay away from a person who has been known, by experience, to verge on, if not commit, some creepy rapey shit.
Gossip? Fuck off with the rest of the douchegaggle.
PZ is credible. You are not. See, that’s another thing missing from the syllogisms you so treasure.
And yet by your logic, you’ve already “convicted” PZ of libel/defamation without “evidence”. Oh the humanity!
A truly devout Shermer worshiper, right down to the witch hunt memes.
Serious Business.
I thought you didn’t trust anonymous sources? PZ doesn’t, why do you?
ewor84:
Did you know that there is an entire 4000+ post thread that is now locked down that contains answers to your “concerns”? You do now!
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/08/what-do-you-do-when-someone-pulls-the-pin-and-hands-you-a-grenade/
Its only a page back. You should read it. If anything it’ll keep your ass from dropping any more turds in here for a bit.
Sexual assault statistics: about 200 000/year
Kitten eating statistics: none
“PZ is credible. You are not.” That’s like, just your opinion man.
I confess, I couldn’t read the other thread, no time and probably no stomach for it. Sorry for dropping in without helpful additions.
Oh FFS, so all the flaming doucheweasels are going to show up here to try and re-enact the grenade thread? I don’t think so. Sorry, but I’m out folks, I’m declaring a mental health night.
PZ, consider shutting the comments down, rather than letting the doucheweasels hold court.
In Baysian terms it’s a belief. Based on previous interactions, the updated conclusion is that PZ telling the truth. It’s sort of how science works. Now, you reject anything PZ says, 100% out of hand. You can’t update your priors. So, you’re actually being extremely dogmatic. Also, genetic fallacy.
What if he can?
What if he does?
If you think about it, someone might well have something serious to worry about and be spending a lot of sleepless nights. And it might not be PZ Myers here. That is what it is starting to look like.
Jadehawk, that was Rieux’s opinion I was trying to remember. Glad you found it, before I embarrassed myself.
PZ doesn’t want to blow Jane Does identity, and subject here to a court case I’m guessing.
LOL yeah no. What’s not reliable is eyewitness testimony. As in picking a suspect out of a lineup. When most acquaintance rapists are known to their victim, and they’ve been exploiting that relationship to get the victim to trust them, how freakin’ likely is it that the person they raped can’t ID them?
QFFT, though I doubt it will have any effect on the braindead troll. They’re utilizing the ‘spray n pray’ approach to trolling, the mark of an amateur.
No less helpful than mine, so sorry.
Just occurred to me that the “testimony is unreliable” trope actually suggests that the victim doesn’t know whether they are raped. Or, I suppose, the more probable inference is that the speaker believes the victim is just lying. Urg. Nevermind, I don’t want to follow that path further.
—
Upon closer reading, I see I eventually reached Rieux’s analysis, though xe said it much better. I feel less dumb now.
Pffft, unhelpful? That was beautiful.
Understandable.
And she might change her mind, especially if it looks like something resembling justice is happening. And especially if other women come forward. It’s happened that way before.
We will just have to wait and see.
Kitten eating statistics: none…
The immature school boy inside me is emerging…
ewor84 @ 70
Sorry, this is us lawyers’ fault but, in court, what we call “evidence” is the same thing as what we call “proof.” There is even a famous textbook called “Proof of Facts” which is all about how to enter evidence in a trial. So, yes, testimony is “proof.” What evidence/proof isn’t are “facts,” which are determined by the “trier of facts,” either a judge or jury. Of course, as so many false convictions have proven, legal “facts” are not the same as … well … facts.
The big difference here is between credible evidence and non-credible evidence, which I don’t think anyone outside of the parties can know at this point. But PZ has the right to make his own determination of credibility and to be defended unless and until he he is [cough] proven wrong.
Just a word to everyone: I’m trigger-happy on the banhammer after that humongous thread full of trolling idiots, so anybody who starts reciting the tired arguments of the rape apologists from that thread here are just getting quietly insta-banned.
John Pieret:
It is our fault, isn’t it? Using so many words that sound like English, but are actually legalese with meanings that range from slightly altered to drastically opposite.
ewor, to answer your question farther up the thread, yes. We’ve already convicted him. Of being someone whose actions we’ve heard about from others means we wouldn’t trust him. In case you didn’t notice, that’s not a crime. He’s not getting a jail sentence.
You seem to think that he’s entitled to trust and respect and an audience. He’s not. And if you don’t think he’s entitled to those things, then what are you arguing about, because at best it’s all he’s going to lose (and given the behavior of the dudebro skeptics at large, it’ll be a very tiny loss).
I’m bringing this up because it seems relevant, but I was in contact with a guy who wanted to meet me for potential dating purposes. Thing is, he acted really shady and weird and I backed off, telling him he made me uncomfortable. He then proceeded to tell me that me judging him as untrustworthy was wrong of me to do and that I suppose thinking his trustworthy was more important than my own personal safety and wellbeing.
That seems to be the dominant thinking amongst the trolls here: being accused of being untrustworthy or dangerous is worse than people doing so for their own safety and wellbeing.
PZ, you mean starting now? ‘Cause there are a few of them here that began with the tired arguments earlier in this thread.
Portia, in boots, let me add my voice to the chorus that says you rock. Dayamn! You’re good.
Portia, Brian E, you’re doing fine. You’ve pretty much reduced this particular douchegaggler (I love that bit. SO stolen) to “I know you are, but what am I?”
PZ, good for you on the stand you took and the actions you’re taking. Ken White is rock solid. One more voice for the defense fund if it comes to that.
Jane Doe, you’re a brave woman. I salute you. You do what you have to for you. You’re already a hero.
Michael Shermer, you’re … what you are.
Has anyone seen Popehat’s twitter feed lately? Some trolls are actively bugging him for agreeing to help PZ with finding a pro bono defamation lawyer. Good grief.
“Gossip?” Wasn’t that exactly how Pope Ratfucker dismissed the priest molestation scandal?
Just sayin’.
If PZ C&D, removes blog post and then post the Shermer lawyered apology, could that not later be used as defacto evidence, that there is merit to the claim for defamation, as a tacit admission that the claims are valid. Could this be a catch 22. I don’t know, hope not.
You know, I bet that person on the JREF forums who independently corroborated the story of PZ’s anonymous source is probably just a PZ sockpuppet too. In the end, we’re all just PZ’s sockpuppets. It’s sockpuppets all the way down.
Just a HUGE thank you to PZ come what may – we’re here.
And thank you again to all who told their stories in that epic thread.
Also the most appalling thing about the lawyer letter is the idea that PZ “did it for the pagehits”….
I think…and this is my OPINION…that this is the scummiest part of the CandD.
Intimidation is par for the course….
Be strong y’all. And be good to each other out there.
…..and another night of a Sharia interrogation of the situation…where we learn there is no such thing as a woman’s testimony as evidence…and the skeptoid imam contingent asks for blood on the sheets…
We seeeeeee you!
The only people who win in defamation lawsuits are the lawyers.
ewor84 @ 83:
Yes, because the more plausible scenario is that PZ, in reckless disregard of the fact that libel and slander are even things, just decided to troll Michael Shermer by inventing a couple of phantom women out of his fevered imagination, FOR THE LULZ, because his own reputation/career mean nothing to him.
Your skepticalism is totes awesome, dude!
In the end, we’re all just PZ’s sockpuppets. It’s sockpuppets all the way down.
No, (to hopefully brighten PZ’s day), we are all part of the Hershey Collective.*
________________________________________________________________
*Ya had to be back in the day at talk.origins!
I was gonna write “confirmed eaten kittens,” then I realized some silly child somewhere probably took a nibble or two. Also, there’s some cat delicacies outside WEIRD countries.
ewor84:
Anyone actually believing this blog is a court should wait until they are called to testify, and remain silent otherwise.
If you’re talking without being called, you already know it’s not a court, so stop pretending you think it is – it makes you look both stupid and dishonest.
The Hershey Collective is so secret that nobody knows about the Hershey Collective.
Excellent point.
ewor84 is hereby held in contempt of court and subjected to a gag order for testifying out of turn.
*gavel bang*
Martin:
Yeah, this is what I’ve thought. What the hell kind of irrational hatred of Shermer do they suppose PZ has? I mean, they had a tiff, a back and forth, about some fairly sexist stuff shermer said. And I think PZ came out ahead in that fray. They must think PZ didn’t and want’s “revenge”. HA! PZ could have that in spades with simple words. What the fuck is the point of opening himself up to the “sure-thing” lawsuit they think is in the works? If PZ was bullshitting he’d put everything on the line to get back at a dude he already demolished in arguments… But that’s just the way the pitters and their ilk and the general anti-PZ crowd presume is the way people act, because that’s what THEY ALREADY do!
Ah, I see now. And the asshole brigade is already all over twitter, taking time off their busy schedule to advance skepticism and rational thinking and making the world a better place, to be gushing all over this C&D thing against PZ. How sad and pathetic these people’s lives are.
I’ve said it before, but if Myers ever sets up a legal defense fund I’ll be one of the first in line. Good luck, sir, and I’ll help when I can with the counter-trolling!
Portia:
Also: A highly specific sub-genre of erotic fiction.
Alexandra:
*snorfle* The mental pictures I just had.
I think with all the authority of the bench, it’d have to be dom/sub stuff.
—
tonyinbatavia and Pete:
thanks :)
Martin @142:
Adding to that, not only did PZ invent this whole thing, he did so because he has a grudge against Shermer, or so the pseudoskeptics believe. Of course they disregard the comments PZ made stating otherwise.
(Hell, I cant figure out what PZ would stand to achieve by making this up…)
TW.
.
.
And another handy reminder (previous tips) to all those would-be-rapists out there from the skeptical community:
If they can’t present the bloodied sheets, there’s no proof! You’re in the clear! Have fun and enjoy the drinks at TAM!
Alexandra:
The insertion of humor is much appreciated!
So, we’re evil reptilian kitten-eaters from another planet?
“Sir!” Judge Fire said as she whipped off her ruby red glasses, “I’m going to have to find you in cumtempt of court!”
“Hell, I cant figure out what PZ would stand to achieve by making this up…)
It’s all about teh paige hitz!
Ing:
Not only did I laugh out loud, but I’m a little convinced you’re psychic…how else could you know my first pair of glasses were giant, plastic, and ruby red?
153:
Right, because the thing all sensible people do when they have “grudges” is libel the living fuck out of that person without giving a damn that they’re setting themselves up for thousands upon thousands in damages, job loss, career self-destruction, and so on…
@160
To be fair, some people ARE that dumb to think that’s a good idea and some are wealthy enough to pull it off :/
The interesting thing is that those who argue PZ did the wrong thing, are actually ensuring that the information is widely available. Search for “Michael Shermer rape allegations” and the first page is entirely those on the ‘anti-pz’ war path, and many have reproduce the claims in great detail. Getting PZ to take the original post down wouldn’t even help as it didn’t even come up in the search, but the ranters are certainly getting the message out.
Denialists can’t think anything through; why would they expect anyone else to?
Just so we’re clear: threatening law suits over rape allegations counts as DEEP RIFTS right?
In the context of the last several comments, DEEP RIFTS sounds like a sequel to GAVEL BANG.
@Portia
Or the classier porn version of Pacific Rim. For when you want a porn version of pacific Rim but don’t want the vulgar Pacific Rimjob.
Ref: The Legalism (And thanks for the link @106, Jadehawk.) I’m not a lawyer and do not know (i.e. cannot prove/supply evidence/blah-blah-blah) that PZ printed true/factual allegations about a sexual assault or assaults.
However, bottom line: It is easier to threaten someone with a lawsuit than it is to win the aforementioned lawsuit. (Anyone requesting evidence to support this claim is invited to jump head-first into a wood chipper.) I suspect (please see the caveats above) that—even if PZ was lied to—obtaining a lawyer is a better course of action than backing down at this point.
Portia/Alexandra/Gavel Bang Genre/Etc.: Well done. ‘Nuff said.
“I’ll have you know” Councilor Honey said as she started popping the buttons of her tight fitting blouse “That I’l willing to do anything to keep this law-firm in one piece.”
A loud THWACK fills the room as ace attorney Lance Johnson soon finds a stiletto heel stabbing into his chair, right in-between his legs.
“Now, show me your briefs” Councilor Honey barked with a crack of a riding crop
…wait, since when is porn interested in SMALL hammers?
“It’s my ruling,” declared Judge Fire, “that there exists sufficient horizontal privity to require a finding of naughtiness per se. Lock them all up, Bailiff Woody.”
Bailiff Woody salaciously slapped the handcuffs on the defendants, and Judge Fire looked on, with an odd rustling under her robes.
Gavel Bang is worth buying just for the beautifully shot “Deliberation” twelve way scene
Ing: You win, I’m dying of laughter over here.
Wait, what were we talking about?
This is better.
(I’m not suited to threads with actual topics).
Portia & Ing,
You just made my night. Thanks very, very much.
Oh indeed. The Quran has that sorted for us. I believe a woman claiming to be raped needs independent verification from four males or she’s a lying bitch and gets punished. Not even bloody sheets suffice.
Do I know for a fact that Shermer is guilty of the alleged behaviour? No, I’ve never met the man or been to the same events. Do I believe that on the balance of probabilities Shermer may be guilty of at least some skeevy and manipulative behaviour. If he got a woman so drunk she could not give proper consent that meets my definition of rape regardless of what the law says (and in my country that would be rape). Yes, that seems a possibility. Would I blacklist him? No. Would I warn my female friends to avoid drinking with him? Hell yes. Would I keep a close eye on him at future events? Hell yes. See, I’m exercising my scepticism, as is pretty much everyone else here.
Lentes posts at the slymepit. Enough said.
Robert Gross of Blind Labyrinth
Well, these are the sorts of people who post violently detailed revenge fantasies like (TRIGGER WARNING: graphic bloody violence) this about… who? Would it be Greta Christina? Or Ophelia Benson? One of the more prominent, active women speaking out about these issues? No, it’s our own Jadehawk, the pseudonymous blogger working on her degree and occasionally updating her site with intellectual social science stuff about sexism and the link between rape jokes and sexist attitudes.
So, I’m going to guess “the same kind of irrational hatred they themselves have for anyone they perceive as threatening their privilege,” or something along those lines.
With many apologies to the judges, lawyers, and (especially) writers out there:
P.S.: All resemblance to any real persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental and hopefully impossible.
The oral, how could I forget about the oral?
“In Baysian terms it’s a belief. Based on previous interactions, the updated conclusion is that PZ telling the truth. It’s sort of how science works. Now, you reject anything PZ says, 100% out of hand. You can’t update your priors. So, you’re actually being extremely dogmatic. Also, genetic fallacy.”
Okay, now we know Brian E. is a member of the Yudkowsky-worshipping Lesswrong cult.
You know, you people with connections to rather unsavory corners of the skeptical blogosphere… you really should consider, I don’t know, camouflaging your tracks a little more.
If PZ’s only interest was smearing Shermer he could have done it in a much safer way than this. He could have easily written a post that wouldn’t have specifically named Shermer, but contained enough hints so anyone familiar with him would assume “Badguy X” was Shermer. Requests to name names could equally have been met with responses implying it was Shermer without actually naming him.
I would love to see your evidence for the implied assertion that it’s impossible to learn about Bayesian probabilities without accessing the Less Wrong site. For instance, there are surely zero actual books on the subject, right??
/dying of laughter
“believerskeptic” is forcing me to update my Bayesian probabilities in support of the hypothesis that anyone with “skeptic” in their username is a colossal idiot. The continuation of a long-observed trend.
Sally:
Ugh, that link. I interacted with that pitstain the other day on twitter. Him and noelplum. slow tried to analogize by using Michael Jackson’s settled suits as something which besmirched his character and caused the ‘pedophile’ tag to be unfairly associated with him (the presumption, as always, that the accusation from the victims were false, and the belittling of them, well, they were children so that probably runs the same risks of belittling their witness credibility as women have). And noel plumbed the depths of pedestrianity with his observation that “it would have been better to take it to officials”.
**note to any Shermer defenders**
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/08/12/harassment-rape-skepticism-denialism/
The above post is required reading before commenting.
PZ, I’m poorer than a priest ought to be, but if this ends up in fees, say so, and I’ll scrape together whatever fucking pennies I’ve got, shave my head, smear fresh bibble ashes on my face, and wear my very best potato bag (the one with only two extra holes in!) to raise money for it. It’s Canadian money, so, y’know, colourful and plastic, but it still spends perfectly well.
Fuck the denialists, fuck the apologists.
Someone has to start standing up somewhere, and I’ll sure as hell be standing up with.
PZ and Jane, allow me to unleash my inner Doc Halliday: I’ve two funds here – one for each of ya. Count me in should a legal fund for either or both be required.
To those of you contributing to the courtroom erotica: you’ve no idea how much I adore you, and I offer my services as editor. Say 10% of profits to the legal defense fund and the rest toward a Den o’ Pleasure?
sounds like a great name for the next FTB portal!
It would be reviewing all the skeezy skeptic sites… like the ‘pit.
kind of like what Ed does with his constant reviews of Worldnut daily.
Would drunken testimony be “proof?”
Could the lawyers on the thread answer a question?
I’m not sure if it would impact a libel case, but would the comment section also be considered in a libel case? Because I’m noticing the ones on FtB tend to be much more thoughtful and mature than the ones on the other sites. Would comments be used to show the impact of the blog post? Would the fact that Shermer’s supporters seem to be the ones blowing things out of proportion and causing the most Google hits hurt any case he has?
Personally I doubt it will ever make its way to court, particularly if PZ has the services of a good lawyer. I’ve seen a lot of C & D and libel cases simply go away when the bully realizes the victim isn’t going to play nice or run away and hide.
Well, Shermer has enlisted a heavy hitter, and not some mall lawyer-in-a-box or anything (though curiously, Neufeld’s metier appears to be business law and not libel or defamation), so if he chooses to take this all the way, it could be a real fight.
lentes @ 37:
If the article had no evidence, then how was it anything at all? How was it morally wrong to post an evidence-free piece of puffery out into cyberspace?
Lentes, do you think that everybody but you is going to be utterly convinced, so much that Shermer is doomed, doomed, by just nothing? Are you the only one that sees past the piece’s surface to the “fact” it had no evidence? Are you here to tell us little people how to judge merit?
Jesus Frakking Christ, dude, we can think. If it had no evidence, it’ll blow over. If it has an effect, enough to claim it was wrong to post it, it must have had some power to it. Or do you live in a place where a few unsubstantial words can warp everyone else’s perceptions, and only you can see the truth?
Can you see the matrix?
chrispollard @ 59:
Which claim? PZ’s claim that someone talked with him? Why would he need to report that to the police? And wouldn’t the Gestapo be better to report conversations to?
Seriously, it’s been covered, but once again: How are the police supposed to differentiate between sex that took place while the woman was too drunk to consent, and sex that is normal American drunken sex? And how do the police determine after the fact that he got her to drink more than she intended?
It’s simple, really—-they ask her. Her word is all there is. Her testimony, if it got to court.
If the police were to take a DNA sample, what good would it do? Either way, there’d be DNA there. And, as has been said, there are warehouses full of unprocessed DNA samples.
And again, why do you think everyone here is to stupid to know something that obvious without your helpful help? Where would we fucking be without you?
ewor84 @ 70:
It’s good that the law only requires something past reasonable doubt, then, ain’t it?
Tell that to the religious folks, then.
In court, almost all physical evidence needs someone’s testimony that it was properly collected and handled. The lawyers then get up and testify as to what it means.
So are you 50/50, or what? Of course a thing is either possible one way or possible another—true or false—you aren’t really saying anything there.
Folks here are just reasonably certain that it’s true, not hammer-and-tongs guaranteed, gold-plated certain. They aren’t like you. They aren’t stupid.
Skepticism is getting a really bad name, thanks to folks like you. You need to be a lot more skeptical about your legal acumen and your grasp on reality.
—
Sorry to go back at the old stuff, but damn these goobers think they are so much smarter than they are. Shit.
Anyhow, the dog is unplugging parts of my computer, so I’m gonna post this and leave you capable folks to cover it as you do so well.
Good luck, PZ. You are a good person.
Martin Wagner @193
Shermer has enlisted a heavy hitter
That’s actually a good sign. A “heavy hitter” is unlikly to be trying to chivvy Shermer into a suit just to collect fees but will be warning him about unintended consequences of picking this sort of fight. Shermer, as a much better known author/personality/media darling with multiple sources of income that PZ (I’m guessing) doesn’t have, has much more to lose in this kind of pissing match. Even if Shermer “wins” such a suit (which wouldn’t win him much monetarily, if I know my college proffessors) he will likely lose the publicity war, especially among his wider audience.
It is better to be suspect among the (relatively) few than to face moral questions by the public at large … especially when your income depends on the latter.
Ahhh… the courtroom erotica was exactly what I needed, after arguing with someone who was reduced to blubbering “testimony isn’t evidence” repeatedly. Thanks, Horde!
Another you can count on for a few quid for a legal fund if needed. Hang tough poopyhead.
Might as well contribute a laugh myself. From Him (it’s almost always a “him,” isn’t it?):
Me:
Him:
PZ, best of luck dealing with this!
——-
Seconded
@John Pieret – The Hershey Collective remark made my night. And I’m in to lend assistance if needed, too. I don’t have experience or a license, but I do have a law student’s access to research sources. And I’m in for a defense fund if needed.
I’m in a pretty sketchy financial situation, and I don’t think I’ve ever really donated to any sort of online thing before, but if it looks like this will need funding, I’ll do what I can to contribute a bit.
If it weren’t for the fact that people have been harmed by this, I would be tempted to say part of this exchange (the sexist, hyperskeptical, fallacious part) is patently ridiculous. Unfortunately, people have been harmed by this ‘reasoning’, and will continue to be harmed by this mindset. Although I don’t have a personal stake in this fight (aside from wanting people to be able to exist relatively free of harassment, etc.), I’m glad that PZ is standing up for what’s right, and I hope it makes a greater influence in the community/world in general.
Imagine what the world would be like if truth, equality and justice was rated higher then money, influence, and power.
:/
Another support message for you (and your unknown correspondents again)
If a legal defense fund is needed another small donor here.
http://creativepooping.tumblr.com/post/58134765976/note
That is all.
Not a surprising turn of events really.
I’ve notified the Sarasota Police about Dallas. I’m taking the suicide note thing seriously.
I claim plagiarism and stare sternly in your general direction
I will also contribute to a legal defense fund, should the need arise.
206:
Yeah, stoopid women with their stoopid pink ladybrains. How would they know what rape is? Especially the ones it’s happened to.
@Rope Avenger
So, you think that for years an organized group of people have been conspiring to ruin Shermer’s reputation, such that when they finally dropped the accusation, it would seem more believable?
Yes, that sounds completely reasonable. I can’t find any reason to doubt that.
@Rope Avenger:
After reading your post, I cannot possibly comprehend why a woman who has been victimized might want to maintain some privacy rather than deal with people like you.
One more willing to contribute to a legal fund if necessary.
@206
You forgot one:
5. What is being said is true and PZ and Jane Doe, both being actually engaged with reality, opt to keep the details to themselves in the interest of avoiding further trauma to a rape victim because they’ve adopted the (apparently controversial)stance that women are people who don’t deserve to be raped.
Martin, thanks for contacting the P.D.
The blog post sounds really strange, but I think it was the right thing to do.
If it’s real, I hope Dallas can find help and stability.
Last word? *checks archives* I can’t find a first word on this subject! I assume Shermer has decided to sue, then? When was this legal challenge issued?
@Rope Avenger
Given the situation, please explain how one would go about substantiating the claim?
214:
Seeing as how you openly suggested that a woman who has claimed that a man forced her into non-consensual sex — which is pretty much the definition of rape — might not know what rape is, I’m thinking the old “I don’t think that word (strawman) means what you think it means” line applies here.
I am hopeful this might help you out some.
@Rope Avenger
Yes, thank you for defining “substantiate”. Now answer the question and tell me how you would go about doing that. What evidence could be presented to convince you, beyond reasonable doubt, that Shermer really did rape Jane Doe while she was drunk?
@214
Oh this is just classic. When it’s about what the rape victim would have to face by going to the police or divulging more details online, comments on an internet blog ain’t no thang. But when it’s Michael Shermer’s reputation that’s a whole ‘nother story, isn’t it? Now, we have a problem, don’t we? Now that a big important dudely dudebro stands to maybe incur some minimal damage to his reputation, NOW comments on an internet blog are an issue.
GTFO.
Hey Rope Avenger there is a thread with 4000 comments addressing anything you could come up with:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/08/what-do-you-do-when-someone-pulls-the-pin-and-hands-you-a-grenade/
Please go read at least some of it.
Like others have said: Please don’t hesitate to put up a call for funds if needed PZ. I will certainly chip in something.
Rope Avenger @218:
Actually, the standard in a civil case is “preponderance of the evidence,” not “reasonable doubt.”
Martin Wagner @217:
“Consent” is one of those everyday words that is also a legal term of art. There are some situations where reprehensible and immoral conduct that would not fit a lot of our personal definitions of “consent” still qualifies as legal consent. That makes me a little cautious about using the word “rape” here.
Rope Avenger,
Extraordinary is not the opposite of ordinary.
But I think you know this already and are simply a lying bucket of shit.
No, that’s not the point. The point is that no one here finds your arguments compelling, evidence to be found in that thread.
@225
And your misuse of the term “ad hominem” is further evidence that you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about.
Shermer, with a move right out of the Chiropractor playbook.
*sigh*
Seriously, you have nothing to offer that has not already been discussed there.
Why is it that these people, who are supposedly oh so skeptical, don’t know their logical fallacies? Isn’t this mandatory reading in the skeptical community? I thought it was. It was for me.
It’s worth noting here, or perhaps even frequently and loudly, that an actual defamation case seems hopeless here under US law.
Not only does the burden of proof rest with the Plaintiff, but the things that must be shown (especially for a public person like Shermer) are virtually impossible to prove, even to the lax legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence.”
We’re not like some countries where libel laws are for silencing the critics of your dubious enterprises.
Rope Avenger, why is it you feel that you have not only the obligation but the right to moderate the comments on someone else’s blog?
@231
You’d have a point if I’d said that the reason I believe the accuser had anything to do with my opinions on Michael Shermer as a person. Grats on a total lack of reading comprehension.
So, now what you’ve done is show that you:
1) know what the correct usage of ad hominem is and
2) have no problem deliberately misusing it.
Well played.
yes
womanizing dudebro != rapist
if I’ve been saying nasty things about someone for a long time, and then I accuse them of an actual crime, they must be regarded as guilty because they have a “skeevy” reputation (people with such reputations must be guilty of something). How do I know they have a “skeevy” reputation? Simple, I gave it to them by saying nasty things about them.
Except of course, this isn’t the situation. Unless you believe it’s all a massive conspiracy, Shermer’s skeevy reputation has, until PZ’s post, been something passed around in private, by women warning other women of the way he behaves.
Unfortunately, yes, rape is ordinary. It is orders of magnitude more common than murder. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey gives the following figures for the USA:
The lifetime prevalence of rape by any perpetrator [that is, the proportion of people raped at any time in their lives] was:
For women:
Lesbian – 13.1%
Bisexual – 46.1%
Heterosexual – 17.4%
For men:
Gay – numbers too small to estimate
Bisexual – numbers too small to estimate
Heterosexual – 0.7%
That comes to over 20,000,000 American women raped at some time in their lives. (Most of the much smaller number of men raped will have been raped in prison – often repeatedly, so total numbers of rape instances are much closer for men and women than total number of victims over a lifetime. If you look at forms of sexual violence, coercion and “non-contact unwanted sexual experiences” other than rape as currently legally defined, the numbers rise to over 50,000,000 women and over 20,000,000 men.) I can’t find figures for lifetime risk of homicide (which of course includes more than murder), but risk during 2007 was 6.1 per 100,000.
@Rope Avenger
So still not going to answer my question, then?
What evidence would be needed to convince you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this situation occurred as described?
See, I ask because I have the sneaking suspicion that you have already decided that the allegations are untrue, and that all the noise about there being no evidence is merely ad hoc rationalisations for your prima facie disbelief in the allegations. My suspicions are somewhat bolstered by the fact that you either cannot or simply will not name any specific examples of what you would consider proof of the allegations.
Sorry, blockquote and link fail. Reposting:
Except of course, this isn’t the situation. Unless you believe it’s all a massive conspiracy, Shermer’s skeevy reputation has, until PZ’s post, been something passed around in private, by women warning other women of the way he behaves.
Unfortunately, yes, rape is ordinary. It is orders of magnitude more common than murder. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey gives the following figures for the USA:
The lifetime prevalence of rape by any perpetrator [that is, the proportion of people raped at any time in their lives] was:
For women:
Lesbian – 13.1%
Bisexual – 46.1%
Heterosexual – 17.4%
For men:
Gay – numbers too small to estimate
Bisexual – numbers too small to estimate
Heterosexual – 0.7%
That comes to over 20,000,000 American women raped at some time in their lives. (Most of the much smaller number of men raped will have been raped in prison – often repeatedly, so total numbers of rape instances are much closer for men and women than total number of victims over a lifetime. If you look at forms of sexual violence, coercion and “non-contact unwanted sexual experiences” other than rape as currently legally defined, the numbers rise to over 50,000,000 women and over 20,000,000 men.) I can’t find figures for lifetime risk of homicide (which of course includes more than murder), but risk during 2007 was 6.1 per 100,000.
What are you doing here? What do you hope to accomplish by commenting here?
A bare-faced lie of course. It would only be true if there were nowhere else these “critics” could make their views known.
Well, let’s see. Comments Shermer has made in the past led me to the conclusion that he is sexist. And I believe the accuser. That doesn’t mean I believe the accuser because I think Michael Shermer is sexist. Any more logical fallacies you’d like to abuse?
@Rope Avenger
That depends what you mean by ordinary. Is it extraordinary? No. Is it common? Certainly.
When you hear a story on the News about someone being raped, you are presumably (and hopefully) disgusted at the perpetrator, and feel sympathy for the victim… but are you suprised that a rape has occurred?
Oh goody, another freeze peach adocate who doesn’t understand what freedom of speech means…
In the context of people stating that “Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence” then, in ordewr to be honest, you need to ask “Is rape extraordinary?”.
People have already answered you that rape is in fact ordinary.
I ask you – Is rape extraordinary?
Again, you’re missing the point. It’s not about what you find satisfactory. It’s that your comments are not satisfactory to us, because we’re pretty convinced that everything you said has been discussed to death already. And you’re doing a piss-poor job of trying to come up with any excuse for why it hasn’t been discussed “satisfactorily” to you, given that you haven’t said a single new thing yet.
@Rope Avenger
What do you hope to accomplish by commenting here?
Rope Avenger,
Thankyou for having the decency to admit you were incorrect on this point.
I retract my conclusion that you were a liar.
Then you would have a bizarre notion of what “ordinary” means. “Ordinary” here was contrasted with “extraordinary”, so by denying that depression is “ordinary”, you imply that if someone told you they were being treated for depression, you would require extraordinary evidence before accepting it.
Conclusion: you’re a lying bag of shit.
“WERE YOU THERE”
In fact, Jane Doe *was* there.
So do you also disbelieve evolution?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/08/12/harassment-rape-skepticism-denialism/
We’re all painfully clear on that by now, which is why you’re being asked what would be enough? It’s right there in the bit you’re responding to. You’ve even quoted it. Yet, you ignore the question.
You’re asked what evidence would be necessary and your answer apparently is “the necessary evidence.”
“Ordinary” doesn’t mean “more than 50%”. It means common. 10% is common.
Seriously, other people have written about this, extensively. You are not saying anything new. Those nuggets of wisdom you think you have are actually globs of clay that have been trodden all over. Go read Greta’s explanation of evidence before posting anything else embarrassing to you. Go ahead and refute it if you want, but you won’t get away with “I don’t agree” or “she misses the point”. You have to be specific in why you reject her arguments of what constitutes evidence when it comes to rape reports. Go ahead. The thread would rather wait awhile for you to write something informed than deal with you spouting off more shit in the meantime.
@Rope Avenger
So a court case would convince you? I think it’s been made perfectly clear that this case will never go to court, not leat because Jane Doe wishes to remain anonymous. I asked what specific evidence would convince you.
Clearly the many stories describing Shermer’s past sleaziness do not convince you, so would a first hand account of the night in question be required, which corroborates Jane Doe’s story? For example, if someone were to come forward and say that they saw Jane Doe and Michael Shermer together, and that Jane Doe appeared quite drunk, would that do it? Or if someone said that Jane Doe was drunk, and they saw the pair leave together? Or are you going to demand forensic evidence? Is there anything which could convince you without breaking Jane Doe’s condition of anonymity?
Or are you really saying that you are firmly on the fence, and the only way you would be convinced one way or the other is for 12 people to come to a decision, and you will simply abide by whatever decision they come to without complaint?
It’s coming to light now because Jane Doe and PZ have had the courage to make it public – and scads of pseudosceptics such as you have popped up to denounce it, along with threats of legal action from Shermer. So we know why it was passed around in private (that’s not the same as being “kept a secret”). Fuck me, no-one could really be as stupid as you are appearing to be and still be able to comment on a blog, so clearly, you’re a lying sack of shit.
No, Koshka, Rope Avenger was failing to block quote me – look at what follows:
See, these millions of bitchez lyingly claim to have been raped even in response to surveys conducted by social scientists and run by the Centers for Disease Control. They are just that determined to prove that rape is a serious problem when in fact, as Rope Avenger knows, it is extraordinary.
@Rope Avenger
And yet if someone told you they were suffering from depression, I doubt very much that you would demand any evidence at all, let alone extraordinary evidence, before accepting their claim. Funny, that.
Your lie, to which I responded, was that critics are being “silenced”. They are not, as you have now admitted, you lying sack of shit.
Rape is a felony. When one accuses another of a felony the burden of proof flips. It doesn’t matter if it’s a blog post, a dinner party, or some idiot on a soapbox in Tomkin Square.
This is one of the only cases where a public figure can win a case. Public figures are fair game for malevolent free-speech, but an accusation of a felony is not protected by the first amendment..
If it goes to court, it is an automatic win for the plaintiff unless the accuser cam prove that the accusation is true.
This is basic fundamentals of libel law.
You can learn this in Journalism 101 at any community college.
If Shermer wants to press this, and Jane Doe refuses to uncloak, PZ will swing in the wind, it’s an automatic win for Shermer.
… Yes, yes I am. If something is very likely to happen, then it is normal. We evaluate the normality of something by evaluating the probability of it happening. This is perfectly ordinary… one could even say it was normal.
The CDC estimates that 20,000,000 American women have been raped. You made the claim that rape was extraordinary, and that it therefore required extraordinary evidence before we should be believe it. So your continued quibbling about exactly what constitutes “ordinary” is just further evidence that you are a lying sack of shit.
The points you are trying to make have been made by commenters in the linked thread by people smarter than you. They were also addressed in the linked thread by people smarter than you.
Bring something new to ‘the argument’ or shut the fuck up.
Actually, victim surveys (like the National Crime Victimization Survey and the British Crime Survey) are a very common tool in criminological research, and an important source of data about crime and victimization. If we relied solely on police statistics or numbers of convictions to identify the prevalence of crime, we’d be undercounting considerably, because all crimes are significantly underreported. (And the underreporting is non-random, in that some kinds of criminal activity are less likely to be reported than others, and some demographic categories of victims are less likely to report than others.) So Nick Gotts is using the best empirical data available.
All those undetected rapists who will admit to holding a woman down, threatening her, et cetera, also must be lying about the prevalence of what they did that totally wasn’t “rape rape” from their point of view. Even though legally it is.
Meet the Predators
Predator Theory
Synonyms: how the fuck do they work?
“Synonyms: how the fuck do they work?”
I just snorted my cup of tea and the puppetmistress is laughing hysterically !
Nick Gotts. I think your estimate of 20 million might be low.
Yes, because the only alternative to millions of bitchez lying about being raped is nobody has lied on a survey in the entire history of ever. Are you even convincing yourself at this point?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/entequilaesverdad/2013/08/13/sexism-skeptics-and-the-burden-of-proof/
From the citation: (bolds mine)
Whoa, whoa. You are conflating terms in a terrible way. “Ordinary” and “common” and “the norm” are NOT SYNONYMS. And seriously, you just said that having a cold isn’t “ordinary”. Really. Try saying that in February in the northeast corridor.
Oh, do find us boring. Please.
My god. Do you even know what social science is? We’re not talking internet polls here.
Rope Avenger, are you seriously suggesting that being falsely accused of rape is as bad as being raped? If so, fuck you.
Rope Avenger, have you read Greta’s post yet?
I have a large port wine stain birthmark on my face.
Is that an extraordinary claim, therefore requiring extraordinary evidence? After all, they’re found in only .3% of the population.
If you need evidence, what evidence would you accept?
Once again you deliberately mix the 2 words extraordinary and ordinary.
Once again you show yourself to be a lying bucket of shit.
yes. “ordinary” means commonplace, standard, or unexceptional. rape is all these things, unfortunately
278
I’ve been raped and being falsely accused of rape would be a worse experience.
Funny. Questions like
What evidence would be needed to convince you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this situation occurred as described?
are surprisingly similar to
What evidence would convince you that a god exists?
Mmm … a blog post maybe? Local pastor said he is talking to god and my favorite blogger said it is true.
Like it or not it is our legal system in our society that determines such claims – well of course some prefer pastors and bloggers .. and not a long ago people were prepared to burn someone at stake if a local pastor said so.
Oh and by the way, include me in for a defence fund if one is needed. And I’ve also pre-ordered a copy of The Happy Atheist as a token of support for PZ.
@Rope Avenger
There is no disconnect. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”; the obvious corollary to that being that the less extraordinary a claim is, the less stringent your standards of evidence have to be in order to reasonably believe it.. The claims in the Bible are extraordinary, ridiculous, and in the vast majority of cases in defiance of the known laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and plain old common sense. The claim that someone was raped while drunk at a conference, on the other hand? Not extraordinary at all. When taking into account that the accused has a history of sleazy behaviour towards women, to the point where women in the know feel the need to warn any newcomers to the conference to be on your guard around him; the claim becomes yet less extraordinary. As such, I require less stringent standards of evidence to believe the claim.
So when a blogger I respect and trust says that someone he respects and trusts has come forward and admitted to being raped by a man with a past history of sleazy behaviour towards women, that scenario, to me, seems very likely to have happened. When I examine the situation and find that there is no benefit whatsoever that PZ could gain by lying, or that the anonymous victim could gain by lying, the only reasonable conclusion to come to is that the claims are true.
aside: Wow, it seems Predator Theory’s getting so many hits that Feministe went down. How safe does that “drunken slut” myth feel nowadays, rape deniers?
Earlier I made a pretty big assumption that Rope Avenger’s points had been dealt with by smarter people.
I know, my bad…
Thankfully Rope Avenger has shown this to be true so I feel off the hook now.
scooterskutre, have you had both happen? If not, you can’t compare. And in any case, you speak only for yourself, not anyone else.
@revision, #285
I direct you to my above post, originally directed at Rope Avenger.
ROPE AVENGER, HAVE YOU READ GRETA’S POST YET? YOU WON’T ANSWER.
Ah, nothing like a fuckwitted idjit being a rape apologist, because they refuse to define the evidence that would convince them outside of a court a law. If they can’t co that, they have nothing cogent to say, and are just JAQing off.
@gobi’s sockpuppet’s meatpuppet
*bows*
Glad to be of service :)
Nope… That’s the way I roll.
“I am, but when that’s what they are, I see no reason why I should, you lying bag of shit.”
Dammit! That’s my second cup of tea tonight!
Women who have been raped are, as a matter of course, nearly always falsely accused of lying about their rape. Yet somehow that doesn’t count as a bad thing ?
@ gobi’s sockpuppet’s meatpuppet
PfffHahahaha! Consider us even :)
Rope Avenger:
You’re a critic and you are posting comments here — do you dispute that?
(PZ’s comment policy has been around a fair while)
If it lacks credibility to that degree, then why is Shermer using lawyers to represent himself?
Carlie. I’m a public figure.. I’m fair game, I’ve been accused of raping my children on blogs and elsewhere. The only reason I didn’t push it was that the accusers were losers and had no ,money nor property to collect.
The answer to your question is yes. Do you have anymore sophomoric middle class inquiries?
*wipes water and spittle off monitor*
Dammit, Nick, this is a work computer…
What on earth does “middle class” have to do with rape in this discussion?
And again, your experience is not everyone’s experience.
Rope avenger, nobody cares if you are personally convinced or not. If this doesn’t meet your standard of evidence then fine, go ahead and disbelieve it.
Along the evidence pointed at in this thread to show rape isn’t an extraordinary event, one of the main things that convinces me that the claim is probably true is how insistent quite a few people have been that what was described wasn’t rape. If you really think it’s more far fetched that the claim is true than that the claim is false, explain why there are so many people on his side arguing that that wouldn’t have really been rape? (of course this doesn’t prove him guilty, but it shows the general attitude in which he can probably justify his behavior to himself if he is guilty)
Also neither PZ nor the anonymous victim gain anything from this accusation and both stand to lose depending on how the lawsuit plays out, making the idea that the claim is made up more ludicrous.
In any case, the point was to warn people so that they could make their own informed judgements, it wasn’t telling people what PZ thinks we should believe.
Carlie, if you have any experiences you’d like to share, other than going to the mall or getting your belly button pierced, please share.
@scooterskutre
Presumably, that last pop at Carlie is supposed to suggest that she is in her teens. Leaving aside for a moment the inherent ageism of using that as an insult, on what evidence are you basing this attempted pejorative?
So! Scooterskute with a single sentence (305) proves beyond reasonable doubt that he is a misogynist, a patronising little git and not very bright.
That’s his credibility shot then. Take him away, please.
More JAQing of by a proven liar and bullshitter.
No. I take issue with your blatantly false dichotomy, you lying sack of shit (to coin a phrase >.>).
I am saddened to hear you have been raped, but that is a very subjective statement. Please understand that others may not share your sentiment.
Rope Avenger:
It is a mundane thing, much like clowns — yet you don’t expect to see clowns whenever you step out of your door and begin your daily adventure, do ya?
(If the claim were that Shermer levitates after a few drinks, then that would be an extraordinary claim)
Since you’re not being silenced and the claim is sockpuppets are, clearly you’re not being accused of it.
(Suddenly, your enquiry looks farcical)
You finding your little misapprehension funny is sad.
Yep, could not have said it better!
Never said I wasn’t mean.
You still haven’t really added anything that wasn’t dealt with in the linked thread though…
I am unemployed and poor and never give to charity, but I’ll put a hundred bucks into this when the time comes. Keep us apprised.
Rope Avenger:
Fair enough to let you criticise and to show your claim that he silences criticism to be (ahem) extraordinary in light of itself.
You can’t imagine there were other possibilities no less reasonable?
PZ’s commenting policy is plenty fair. Not that it has to be, since you’re, you know, on his website.
Not if you haven’t suffered harm.
Have you… actually looked at police processes for investigating rape at some point in the last ever?
Respect has to be earned.
See, Rope Avenger is confused. He thinks this is the slymepit, where he expects nothing but very masculine high fives for his every echo-chambered utterance. Instead, he fails to realize this is freethoughtblogs, where the uppity lippy wimmin and their male allies are actually allowed to talk back.
I’m… quite in awe of this argument, since it appears to imply a conspiracy theory going back well over a decade and perpetuated by a HUGE number of people.
either that, or time traveling.
Rope Avenger:
So, you think the claim that it’s almost certain that at least one woman you know has been raped is an extraordinary one, right?
Farcical because you imagined you were being accused of it, so that you wondered about its motivation.
@Rope Avenger
You have indeed been the recipient of many perjoratives, but the pejoratives directed at you are motivated by your objectionable behaviour. They are to be expected. Carlie did not do anything immature, and yet is the recipient of ageist pejoratives. You will also note that none of the pejoratives directed at you are ageist, or indeed any other -ist, and have no potential for splashback. The pejoratives directed at you are directed specifically at you, are motivated by your behaviour, and those motivations are generally explained in the same post.
What makes you think it wasn’t? And who are you to make that assertion?
What outcomes, here in this thread, would satisfy you?
Martin @142
Yes, because the more plausible scenario is that PZ, in reckless disregard of the fact that libel and slander are even things, just decided to troll Michael Shermer by inventing a couple of phantom women out of his fevered imagination, FOR THE LULZ, because his own reputation/career mean nothing to him.
Throw-away @ 148
If PZ was bullshitting he’d put everything on the line to get back at a dude he already demolished in arguments….
timgueguen @183
If PZ’s only interest was smearing Shermer he could have done it in a much safer way than this. He could have easily written a post that wouldn’t have specifically named Shermer, but contained enough hints so anyone familiar with him would assume “Badguy X” was Shermer. Requests to name names could equally have been met with responses implying it was Shermer without actually naming him.
Yeah, and if the twelve apostles all knew jesus was a fraud, why would they die for a lie?
By the way, before someone accuses me of it –
I’m NOT saying the accusation is false – I don’t have an opinion on that yet. Hell, it could be true. Probably is.
I’m also NOT saying that PZ made it up. The way things have unfolded, it seems the most likely scenario is that the accusations were told to PZ, and he genuinely believes them.
But that doesn’t mean that the accusations must be 100% correct because PZ believes they are and was risking a lot to bring them, any more than “die for a lie” makes jesus real.
If you can answer why “why would they die for a lie”, then you can answer “why would PZ sacrifice his career for a lie”.
Freethoughtblogs is not a personal blog with a couple of readers. It is a commercial blog network, one of the premiere blog networks for skeptical thought, with a large readership. And Pharyngula is the biggest blog on the network.
It should be, must be held to some sort of journalistic integrity (by the way I work in a newsroom, so whilst I’m not the be all and end all of that topic, I have learnt a thing or two about it).
PZ himself admitted that he did not pay due diligence to a balanced report here. He flat-out admitted that he did not approach Michael Shermer because “of course he would say he didn’t do it”. He was never given a chance to present a counter argument, never given a chance to defend the accusations. Perhaps he knew the lady. Perhaps she had come to him and threatened to out him as a rapist if he didn’t pay her money, and he happened to have it on video.
(PLEASE NOTE I’M NOT SAYING THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED, OR DEFENDING MR. SHERMER, MERELY POINTING OUT A VAGUELY POSSIBLE HYPOTHETICAL AS TO WHY IT IS DUE DILIGENCE TO GIVE THE ACCUSED A CHANCE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES BEFORE REPORTING).
THe fact is he blatantly didn’t do it, didn’t care. And if he didn’t bother with that, we don’t know what else he didn’t bother with. Did he look into her past at all? See if she had a history of false accusations? I don’t know, I don’t think it has been revealed. All we know is he says HE trusts her, and someone else HE trusts says they trust her. Fine. I’ve met shady characters that more than one person would say they trust.
My point being, everything I’ve seen so far on this is not enough. For a major commercial blog network to posit accusations like this about a major figure in the “genre” (for lack of a better word) without even approaching said figure before-hand is irresponsible, regardless of if they think it’s true or not, or even if it IS true or not.
And to say “it must be true because why would PZ risk so much” is no better than saying “jesus is real because why would they die for a lie?”
Come on, I thought we were skeptics here.
(Now watch someone try to special-plead that “yeah, but this is different because…..”)
lolwut. do you not understand how the internet works?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/feb/25/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation
(bolds mine)
PDF link to research
Rope Avenger:
“I’m blond.”
“I’m gay.”
“I’m African-American.”
“I’m an atheist.”
–
“Well, you can’t expect me to just take your word for that, can you? Quit claiming to be extraordinary like that!”
Sheesh.
getting banned, then coming back with a different name/e-mail, but no pretense of being a different person = morphing
creating multiple accounts to pretend to be different people = sockpuppeting
the latter MAY involve creating those “new” people after getting banned, but by no stretch of the imagination is banning a prerequisite for sockpuppeting.
@Rope Avenger
I see someone does not understand what a sockpuppet is. A sockpuppet account can be created at any time. The most common reason is because some objectionable little shite has been banned and is upset because they didn’t get the last word; this is true. However they are quite often created by people who realise they are outnumbered and wish to give the false impression that more people agree with them than actually do. “Sockpuppetry” is merely using more than one account for the purposes of dishonesty, whatever the specific reason.
Rope Avenger:
Again: PZ’s comment policy has been around a fair while.
(More to the point: you are here now, complaining to your heart’s content)
Not really; I suppose that was a possibility, but I’d have thought you’d consider that less reasonable.
(I meant other possibilities no less reasonable; is the challenge too great?)
Gee, why do I smell duplicity, lies and bullshit in that statement. Because it is a typical claim of an MRA, when they don’t even subscribe to a newspaper.
You’re being to skepitcal. I’ve been a skeptic for thirty years. There is enough supporting and overall evidence to convince me Jane Doe is right and PZ did the right thing to protect other women. So, why are you so skeptical if you don’t have an agenda?
Well, since we’re obviously not supposed to accept PZ at his word, why are we supposed to accept yours?
I read the posts one after another and this sentence comes to mind: I am a skeptic except …. when I am not.
@mikej
Yes, we all understand that argument and I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t originally concerned with journalistic integrity too. However, I believe PZ, and have presented my reasons for doing so in comment #287, should you wish to review them. It may help you to understand why people believe the accusation.
@revision
Do you have anything to add to the discussion, or…?
There is a statement that is likely 8% false. Should a skeptic believe it?
ordinary things with a probability of less than 1 in 6:
being born gay (~4% of the population)
being left-handed (~10%)
appendicitis (lifetime risk is 8.6% for men, 6.7% for women)
in any case though, that’s being disingenuous. the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” line has always referred to paranormal claims; claims for which there is no evidence of existing at all. compared to that, being struck by lightning is ordinary.
mikej:
1. Fine, you think PZ acted irresponsibly and think he should not have made the claim public. Presumably, in his position you’d have done differently.
2. Thank you for stating the bleeding obvious.
3. Sceptics don’t disdain context when establishing provisional beliefs.
from this I have to conclude that you’d require “extraordinary evidence” before you believe someone when they say they have a cold.
THAT I find to be an extraordinary claim.
@ Thumper
“Yes, we all understand that argument and I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t originally concerned with journalistic integrity too. However, I believe PZ, and have presented my reasons for doing so in comment #287, should you wish to review them. It may help you to understand why people believe the accusation.”
I read them, and that’s fair enough. The “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” refrain came to my mind too when thinking about the differences. And whilst this is not an “extraordinary claim” in the same vane, you can’t deny that the claim is extreme.
If it’s true, it’s lifting the lid on a serial sex-offender. If it’s false, it’s ruining the name of the accused. It’s an extreme claim regardless it’s outcome. And to borrow that refrain from before – “extreme claims require extreme evidence”.
I still think that without having done the proper leg-work beyond finding one other person to corroborate – and not bothering to check if there are possible situations that could be influencing their corroboration – is extremely irresponsible. Whilst I understand the need for anonymity for the claimants, and support that even – it means that we can’t know how much evidence and how valid it all really is. We merely have to “take their word for it”.
I’m glad you trust PZ like that – I don’t (sorry, not meant to be a slur at the man himself, or anyone that does – just means I am not an avid follower of the blog, only popping in from time to time to read things when the title intrigues me).
@Jadehawk
It has already been firmly established that Rope Avenger does not understand probability, or the English language. You may want to use smaller words :)
me believing Shermer raped someone won’t affect him much at all; at worst, he won’t be able to get any alone-time with any woman I chose to share my belief with and who in turn chooses to believe me.
I’m not comparing it with rape at all. I’m using it to illustrate that not all uncommon things require extraordinary evidence. You haven’t been arguing that the severity of the accusation is what’s holding you back, but rather the uncommonness of the event.
But they are the arbiters of the truth of their own personal experience. Notice I didn’t say that it wasn’t true in his case, just that it wouldn’t be in all cases. You can’t use that to claim that Jane Doe’s experience isn’t truthful just because it is hers alone. You’re pretty bad at argumentation.
Did a guy named “scooter” say something about me? I was too busy popping my gum and doodling hearts in my notebook to notice.
And here I thought I was showing restraint by not questioning his account, not questioning which one was worse for him, just pointing out that his life is not everyone’s life. I didn’t realize that was a sign of immaturity.
that would imply i’m trying to talk to RA, rather than simply having my SIWOTI Syndrome triggered.
Anyway, I’m deeply amused at the image of RA requiring court-level evidence for anything that is a deviance from an optimal working condition. And secondarily, I would like to introduce a much more entertaining definition of “ordinary” to the conversation. If extraordinary evidence is required for everything not ordinary, and ordinary means “deficient in quality”…. then everything that doesn’t suck would require court-level, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence :-D
As I and others have stated too many times here; this is not a court of law. PZ’s post was not about proving guilt or otherwise – it was a warning. If you are not a woman, likely to meet this person at a con, you are not the intended recipient for the warning.
@mikej
I’m not sure what you mean by “extreme” claim… it’s an inflammatory claim, certainly, with potentially very serious consequences fo Shermer. However I’m not sure what bearing that has on the truth of the matter.I think you are saying that the potentially negative consequences for Shermer merit stricter evidential standards? What about the potentially negative consequences for Dog-knows-how-many-women if the allegations are true and not believed? I would say those are more serious, no?
“Did a guy named “scooter” say something about me? I was too busy popping my gum and doodling hearts in my notebook to notice.”
*snarf*
:)
Prima facie evidence you DIDN”T read the post. There IS corroborating testimony. Which is why I believe Jane Doe, and not you. You have nothing but hyperskepticism. Your comments don’t make sense, since they are out of context.
Up at @284 scooterskutre said that they had been raped but being falsley accused of rape would be worse.
At @301 they say that they have been falsely accused.
The use of the word “would” exposes a lie.
Asserting with certitude what most find as likelihood in order to construct a false analogy. Fail.
It’s also not taken in evidence alone, and is not the only bit of corroborating evidence. So you’ll have to do better than to focus on that as if it were the sole line of reasoning behind whether people believe PZ or not.
Well, of course. It takes four, all male.
lol Lets try s similar exercise.
The probability that God exists is 97.6%. Should a skeptic believe in God?
I noticed that, too.
@355: If that was the actual probability, yes. But as it is, it’s not and most skeptics don’t. Your point?
I hate to normally judge by one’s nyme, but sometimes people do reveal smug jokes or tells in them.
Isn’t “Rope Avenger” another way of saying “lyncher”
….yeah, I found Rope Avenger‘s name…strange..as well.
Are you laboring under the delusion that this question does anything other than make you look stupid?
That’s funny; “stones and glass houses” comes to my mind.
‘Isn’t “Rope Avenger” another way of saying “lyncher”’
Maybe Rope Avenger is using an iPhone and mistyped ‘lone’. That autocorrect can be a real pain sometimes…
I also find the argument that PZ was suckered into reporting something falsely is contrary to known facts about PZ’s capabilities as a rational thinker. The likelihood of that is vanishingly small though not nil. It really only holds weight depending, I guess, on bias. I’d like to think that if people were given a random sample of PZ’s writing they would each rate him at least below 50% on how likely he was to be gullible with regard to accepting a story from a trusted acquaintance. If they were honest, anyway.
The skeptic should question the methodology for arriving at such a probability – unless we’re to take it as a signification that there is evidence in existence and that number was arrived at fairly in your hypothetical, then it would not be skeptical to disbelieve given those probabilities.
From the most recent movie that’s not much better
Wow… Just looked up about Len Lawson , the creator of the Lone Avenger.
WARNING! LINK COULD BE A TRIGGER!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Len_Lawson
If Shermer is a rationalist and believes PZ to be one as such, why didn’t he contract PZ to personally smooth this whole thing over? If it’s a misunderstanding then surely Shermer believes two civilized people, especially those who are aligned on most intellectual and possibly ethical issues, can surely settle it reasonably?
Did I miss Shermer trying to reach out to PZ? Even with a “what the hell dude!?” e-mail or did he just go for the big guns right away?
@Jade Hawk
… so proving the existence of Rope Avenger, for example, requires no extraordinary evidence?
@gobi
Jesus fuck! Given that history why the fuck would Hollywood even TOUCH the property with a ten foot pole? It’s clearly cursed
@revision
Please explain the mothod you used to arrive at that number.
“Rope Avenger” was previously known as “A Bridge” and before that “Cold”. He tried to post as “NostalgiaForInfinity Last” but the spam filter caught him, so he found another IP and reposted. Cleanup in progress.
He really is a major asshole. If you see more comments with that tone of callous pomposity, let me know, and don’t bother to respond to him — I’ll delete everything he does.
mothodmethod.Sorry. I shouldn’t talk with my mouth full.
And here I was, naively thinking it was a bit like a soap on a rope.
Forgive my ignorance but wouldn’t the probability of God be unknown but either be 0/1 or 1/1 because the existence of capital g God would be a unique event and one that either did occur or did not?
@PZ Ah, well that explains a lot; especially his nitpicking about the definition of sockpuppet. Thanks, PZ.
You know, I wondered why the idiot thought being banned was criteria for being a sockpuppet.
Exactly.
oh my fucking god.
Again let’s repeat this
EXTRAORDINARY in the Sagan mantra referred to events that contradict natural law or understanding. Things that would require a great paradigm change in scientific understanding.
Don’t fucking pretend that this counts.
Also ignoring that the rape statistics methodology is freely available and IMO seem pretty good. Hell the male reporting one is a fairly ingenious way of verifying other statistics. Scientific method, it works zomg!
I also have a cold today, so I’m stuck at home and cranky. This is apparently equivalent to saying i have a bigfoot in my pants
@revision
You appear to be one of those people who are able to talk a lot without actually saying anything.
ARGH
mikej:
Please click my link at 187 and read the post in full. Then, hopefully, you will understand why it makes sense to believe Jane Doe. Greta lays it out in an easy to understand manner.
Also, there is nothing extreme about a rape claim. I suspect you and some many pissants mean that it is bc Shermer is involved that it automagically becomes an extreme claim. There is nothing special about Michael fucking Shermer. He, as we can plainly see, is capable of Grade A douchemaggotry as much as any other shitstain.
There is also no reason to believe Shermer will suffer appreciably if the claim is false (Duke Lacrosse team, anyone?)
And carlie gets in on the erotica game, providing sound effects.
Tony, I adore douchemaggotry, thanks for the new word. :)
@Carlie
… you allright?
Bedtime here and the puppetmistress has commanded me to sleep.
It is disturbing that there have been so many sockpuppets and morphers, but at the same time encouraging that there are fewer assholes than previously thought.
Ha – I called that. My eyes started sliding over those comments refusing to read them the same way that they did with the stuff “Cold” wrote. I contemplated saying something but I am just a random lurker who doesn’t post much. Still it makes me feel better that I wasn’t imagining things.
Some people seem to confuse the benefit of the doubt with silencing victims. It means we should not declare Shermer guilty without convincing evidence. It does NOT mean immunity from accusations and it certainly does not restrict a victim’s right to speak out. No matter how much someone hates PZ, how can he assume that he fabricated this incident from thin air and that this woman, that he apparently knows personally, doesn’t exist?
<doucemaggot>Because bitchez lie, and PZ is a bitch-by-association, ergo: PZ lies.
</douchemaggot>
Hee.
No, I was just mad that I wasted any time at all on a banned sockpuppet.
@PHred
For what it’s worth, I haven’t seen anything from you yet I disagreed with.
Oh, I remember Cold. He’s a shithead.
I bet the conversation Shermer had with his lawyers was really really instructive for him. That is, if they’re good lawyers and not clockpunchers who just wrote the letter and didn’t ask about the broader context of the allegations.
No matter how things go down from here, unless Shermer is an utter fool, his tactics for getting sex are going to change for the better.
You mean, he’ll hopefully stop raping people? Because that’s different from “getting sex.”
You mean, he’ll hopefully stop raping people? Because that’s different from “getting sex.”
Thanks for that, Portia, I was trying to decide whether to mention that ‘getting sex’ is a rape culture-based view of the concept, that sex is something to be “achieved” by men, which places people those men have sex with in the role of trophy/obstacle. I’m not suggesting this is what Marcus specifically meant by it, but it’s a construct I hate. Women Are Not Puzzle Boxes.
CaitieCat,
Yeah, I completely agree. My first thought was that rape≠sex, but your analysis is entirely on point. I also agree that I don’t think Marcus intended to repeat the trope, but it’s so pervasive in our culture that the brain (and thus speech) patterns are there, and it’s important in these contexts to be careful how we talk about things.
Let me know if I can help. I’m licensed in Florida, Illinois, and Indiana. I’m assuming you have access to my email through the comment form.
That could be a lot of people, unfortunately.
This is the part where I should say I’m not licensed in what are probably the right states but I’m happy to contribute whatever talents I can to the defense effort if necessary. I hope PZ is getting solid advice from an attorney who is getting all the relevant information.
CaitieCat:
Heh. Sure thing. Over the time I have posted here, I have gradually excised many slurs that I previously used (one of the last remaining is sonofabitch, but even this has been reduced to being said mentally and quickly corrected). As a result, I have learned to create fun, new insults that lack any splash damage. It has become kinda fun.
@Thumper; Atheist mate
Gee, thanks
I think Thumper meant that your contributions are appreciated.
That was a strange way of putting it, though.
“….yeah, I found Rope Avenger‘s name…strange..as well.”
There’s a pitter called Rope Apologist. Charming, no?
See, I’m relatively new here, but I’m sort of getting lost at the part where skeptics are somehow no longer allowed to be swayed by evidence and come to their own conclusions. I guess being a “skeptic” means believing Everything Is False. Or something.
TW.
Here’s a little thought experiment:
You a skeptical male, have won a contest! You get a one on one discussion and dinner at a con with a woman who is fairly famous, lets call her Michelle Sherman. Before the dinner, someone gives you a heads up, she is rumored to get men drunk then sodomize them with a huge strap on.
Would you drink the wine offered as part of the meal? Or would you stick to water?
Imagine no one gave you the heads up, and you were sodomized by this hypothetical woman, and afterwards people said, “Oh yeah, sorry, she does that a lot, but no cops ever believed anyone who complained.”
How would you feel?
Back to the real world, the grenade post was simply a more widely cast version of the heads up.
$10 on this one being another puppet. In fact, I’d bet it’s Cold/A Bridge/Rope Avenger again. I admit, it’s a bit intuitive, but the name smells like the same person.
A Feel @386
**headdesk, headdesk headdesk**
Yeah, I likely should have expected an asshole like you.
So much for rephrasing thing is a way hyperskeptical dude-bros could understand.
Uh……. I’ll put another $10 with LykeX.
LykeX:
Ha! Alert sent before you posted.
In the spirit of policing this thread for slymepit trolls, we should definitely cop A Feel.
believerskeptic, that’s not any funnier than ‘A Feel’s’ shit. Knock it off. Now.
Well played, believer. I tip my clown fright wig to you.
Yeah, no. You realize “cop a feel” implies nonconsensual groping, right? Yeah. No.
Comment by A Feel blocked. [unhush][show comment]
Not going to bother with further engagement with someone likely to go bye bye soon.
The pointless condescension speaks otherwise.
Anybody else notice that so many people can’t tell the difference between exageration and outright lying when the try “satire”?
A Feel, you’re not even being a very good troll. You could at least try to make some sense, instead of posting Tumblr-esque word salad.
Holy shit, I might have an unfairly negative opinion of him.
How the hell can he cope with this?
Can he sue me? Seems like the only fair thing, someone going and judging someone and coming to a conclusion – how DARE they?
Yeah, I spend five days posting links to my song that has Karen Stollznow’s back—
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy5xEipjKQc
— to anyone who will listen on these blogs, and I don’t get one word of appreciation for the effort.
But crack one joke whose intent is to frame the fact that a slymepit troll has a misogynist moniker? And I get crapped on.
Fuck all of you. Maybe (that otherwise patronising asshat) Ron Lindsay *does* have a point about how quick some of you are to alienate your potential allies.
Jacob Schmidt
Many of the Skeptic Dudebros only invested a couple ranks into Witty Commentary, and with their low Intelligence and Wisdom scores, there is no way they can make the DC to write satire.
I chuckled at believer’s joke without thinking about what it really meant, sorry. Guess I’m a little rusty at this.
If you can’t take some relatively mild criticism, I don’t want you as ally. And I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in that…
Jesus fuck, WHAT?
And since you’re baiting for them, here are the tired lines that must be trotted out for the likes of you:
Intent is not magic.
You get no cookies for being decent.
Cry about it. That’ll help
If someone pointing out that you made a sexist joke and asking you to knock it off is all it takes to turn you off. You are not much of an ally.
believerskeptic:
Oh, pardon me, I didn’t realize this was all about you. If all you wish to do is whine, I suggest you take it elsewhere. If you plan on continuing your whine, I’d be happy to send an alert to PZ so you can get some personal attention.
Crack one joke? Yeah, a shitty, sexist, rapey “joke”. Maybe, just maybe, those of us who have been up to our necks in flaming doucheweasel rape apologists for the last 6 fucking days don’t find that kind of thing amusing, whether it’s coming from another apologist or you. If two posts signaling disapproval of that sort of thing are just more than you can take, you are in the wrong place.
Right back atcha, Cupcake. We do expect new hordelings to exhibit intelligence, even in their wit. Your “joke” betrayed some ugly attitudes. You’re supposed to have enough awareness to examine that, and realize you fucked up a a tiny bit. That would have worked something like this: “Yeah, it was a stupid thing to say, sorry about that, I’ll think more next time.” That would have gotten you words of appreciation, but nooooooooooooo, it’s gotta be all about you.
Arawhon
Never role played, but I gotta give props to a good D&D joke.
believerskeptic
Funny that not being an asshole all the time doesn’t excuse being an asshole this time, eh?
“Crapped on”? You were told to stop. You were not insulted, you were not vilified. You were told to stop, and that is all.
ya, the reaction doesn’t even seem to make sense. agree and change, or disagree or something…
but just blame us for your inability to do one of those options? what?
You didn’t get crapped on. It got pointed out that the pun you made (while clever) is something that happens to women a lot and the *action* that you referenced is bad, especially in light of what this whole thing is about.
@Jadehawk #206:
Whoops, forgot which account I was posting under.
-Polly-O
(Seriously, though, I knew I’d seen that somewhere, just didn’t remember enough to give credit. Thanks for saying something).
@PHred
What Jacob Schmidt said. Sorry if I worded it badly :-/
(By clever, I meant that I read it first as *cop* A Feel… as in report to the police/moderators) Sorry, just woke up. brain not functioning yet.
My name is Rob Gross; I am the co-author of the Blind Labyrinth song “Sick of Talking.” Though I don’t claim my reputation as a composer is an exalted one, it is mine and it means a lot to me.
I wrote that song under my real name, taking a side. I sided with Karen Stollznow. I called out Benjamin Radford and put his mug front and center in my video, and pointed an arrow at him, and asked four times in the lyrics of the song, “Why does this man still have a job?”
So I risked a little. I did it under my real name, unlike many of you armchair warriors and your safe pseudonymity. I’m certainly out as an atheist, and I’m out publicly as a supporter of whistleblowers who confront sexual harassment in the workplace.
Does sexual harassment occur in my professional arena, musical academia? Oh, you bet. Does the idea that I might be an agitator, someone who might confront a lot of crap in the professional world potentially harm my long-term employability? You bet, again.
So those of you who are taking me to task because of my one off color joke, you can all kiss my ass. Go do something real, besides complain on a blog under a pseudonym. Put your real name on it. And then come back here, and [i]kiss my ass again[/i].
Dr. Robert Gross
Hey Rob, are you done with your tantrum?
Didn’t realize you needed us to lather your ego with our tongues at all times least it crack and desiccate.
I have been groped. I didn’t care for the experience, thank you. That you are upset that I, and others, may not care for such jokes is just plain silly.
Just because you do good things doesn’t mean you can’t mess up every now and then. And when you are pointed out on this, the correct response is “oops” not “Kiss my ass”.
Because now I don’t trust you as much.
I’m going to be AFK for most of the day now, so can other monitors pick up, please?
believerskeptic
Handy hint for future interactions with, you know, other human beings:
Step on someone’s foot? Stick your foot in your mouth? Make a “joke” that isn’t well-received? The following is a useful set of phrases, “My bad. I didn’t think before I spoke (typed).” “Sorry, I didn’t mean to be offensive, but I know that intent doesn’t equal impact.” “Sorry, that was a douchecanoe-y thing to do. I apologize.”
It’s quick! It’s easy! We all need to do it sometimes. It beats the hell out of whining and a round of “Goodbye, cruel fora!” It also means people respond with, “Meh. We all say stupid shit sometimes” instead of them responding with prolonged mocking of your response and/or flounce. Just a suggestion.
i got a real name right here.
“””Yeah, no. You realize “cop a feel” implies nonconsensual groping, right? Yeah. No.”””
“””believerskeptic, that’s not any funnier than ‘A Feel’s’ shit. Knock it off. Now.”””
these are the only two things said to you before you lost your shit. that’s what you call “taking to task”?
an ally has to take such light criticism waaay more gracefully. you are the one who turned a molehill into a mountain.
Ok, fine Dr. Robert Gross, My name is Michael Holland, and i repeat, if being asked to cut it out over a sexist joke is enough to get you to pull back from a supposed alliance, you suck as an ally.
Bite me, whiner boy.
“You’re all posers with your internet comments, do something real, like make a youtube video!!!!”
wut.
Again, no cookies for basic decency.
I’ve put you in for a bit of personal attention, doc.
Also Rob, my name is Bed Strangefellow
That’s because you can’t actually bank decent behavior until you have enough to buy a small act of shitty behavior. That is, decent behavior is what’s expected. It does not entitle you to a certain amount of non-decent behavior. I mean, somebody being generally great and all anti-sexism and so forth, for instance, does not give them the right to X number of gropings per month. Shitty behavior is shitty behavior even if coming from someone who hasn’t previously engaged in shitty behavior.
Good, I’m glad you are.
Being a generally good person with good works to your name does not excuse you from criticism. I don’t see why it would or why it should.
@believerskeptic
You think that because you’re generally on our side, we shouldn’t point it out if we disagree on some particular point? You were corrected on a small matter. Take it under advisement and move on. It’s not the end of the the world and if you hadn’t taken exception to it, it would likely already be forgotten.
@believerskeptic
Mate, you made a joke that offended some people. You didn’t mean to, but you did. So when those people say “That’s not cool, knock it off”, you say “Sorry, didn’t mean to offend anyone. My bad”. That’s the end of it, and people respect you for holding your hand up. Whining and acting as if those people don’t have the right to be offended, on the other hand, loses you respect.
So, based on that information, which should have been obvious to you from the start, would you like to retract any of your posts, or…?
Can I also mention that I once did something good under my real name and now want a cookie and a sparkleponyunicorn that fart rainbows. Also, any joke I make is okay because I made it. So there.
Did I mention the cookie?
Louis
P.S. I’m piss sick of all this whiny fuckery about allies. I rather liked Chris Clarke’s idea of not calling yourself a feminist or an ally, but waiting for women feminists to do it. Wish I’d had the maturity and insight to work that out originally. I didn’t. Oh well!
ledasmom
QFFT. Very, very well put. So well put, I may plagiarize that in altered form, if I may.
i’m glad we’re all so distracted that this nonsense is just being ignored.
There’s a reason I use a nym here, Cupcake. I don’t like rape threats or death threats, and I get enough of them as it is. You’re indulging in pure idiotics now. How do you know what activism we do or don’t do AFK? I’m out as an atheist, too, and I live in North Dakota. I also work as an advocate for rape and sexual assault victims (on a part time basis now, the initial 7 years of it burnt me out), so don’t get all righteous, sweetpea.
Example of what people are talking about:
RahXephon said: “I chuckled at believer’s joke without thinking about what it really meant, sorry. Guess I’m a little rusty at this.”
And I, personally, think it was a great response, and I appreciate it.
See? It could all have been over if you just said “sorry”
I’ll be around for the next few hours – not constantly, but I’ll keep an eye open and do a Ctrl-F for “monitor” every now and then.
@LykeX 426
But but, Dr. Gross is an ALLY! Allies are beyond reproach!
Oh wait, no that’s not it… Actual allies take the occasional on target reproach as a learning experience, and try to do better.
Dr. Gross is a special and unique snowflake!
Given the extremely well-documented consequences of claiming to have been raped (regardless of the truth of the claim), I have to call bullshit on this.
Exactly. In feminism, as in politics, as in everything, “ally” is not a unilateral term. You don’t declare yourself an ally. You act like one, then maybe you’re recognized as one.
Wow, it’s like a microcosm. Whether it’s writing books and running magazines or making supportive songs and comments, good deeds do not grant you passes for bad ones. If accused of the latter, instead of getting all huffy and defensive and taking your ball & going home, maybe listen, think, and apologize.
To build on b. – Order of Lagomorpha’s point, if I step on someone’s toes, whether or not I meant to do so, and my entire prior history of not stepping on toes, does nothing to stop their foot pain.
Any response besides “whoops, my bad, I’ll watch better next time,” however, is likely to mark me as a giant asshole.
Sorry, Louis. The best I can do is make you a batch of these. It’s not a pony, per se, but having read Ken White’s fear of ponies on Popehat, I don’t want to scare him off. And hey! Cookies!
You mean, he’ll hopefully stop raping people? Because that’s different from “getting sex.”
I wasn’t trying to minimize his actions. In fact, I put some effort into constructing that sentence because I suppose that if his tactics change then he won’t be raping, anymore. That left me with the problem of a good term to use for whatever that is, and I chose “getting sex” — the idea, however, was that Shermer might change from “raping” to “getting sex” and that’d be a good thing for all involved.
(I don’t like “getting laid” and didn’t want to go with “seduction” because maybe Shermer’ll adopt a less predatory attitude. But he could still be a penis-driven horndog and not be a rapist. That’d be an improvement, of course. He’ll always be an asshole, though.)
From one Dr to another, I think the best course of action for Dr Gross at this point would be to apply some introspection, come of his “I did something great for X once” horse, because this is not a brownie point sum game, and maybe come back tomorrow after re-reading tonight’s points of criticism with a bit of distance.
This butthurt whiney stuff from self-proclaimed allies we get here quite a bit, and we’re all sick and tired of it.
Marcus Ranum:
Do you understand CaitieCat’s objection to the phrase “getting sex” and how your phrasing conflated consensual sex with rape? I don’t think your answer answered the responses to your comment.
“Butthurt” is homophobic. I’d go with “whiney” “obnoxious” “entitled” “insufferable.”
God damn it. It’s 3 years later and this is STILL relevant.
Oy believerskeptic, this may as well have been written with you in mind.
Source: http://scientopia.org/blogs/thusspakezuska/2010/06/02/give-the-witch-hunt-whine-a-rest-already-please/
You stepped in the fucking dogshit and it’s stinking up the place and now you’re throwing a tantrum because people are trying to make you aware of the fact that JESUS H CHRIST, DUDE, you stepped in DOGSHIT, maybe you should just scrape it off. It’s happened to all of us, and will still happen in future, it’s not something to flip your shit out about.
Sorry for being so blunt, rorschach. What I mean is, I think other terms are better suited, especially in the current context.
Also, spacklick,
You have no idea what you’re tlaking about. None. Dunning Kruger strikes again.
Portia, in boots
“Whinging” and “petulant” also work. I’d try and throw in “bellicose” (too angry for whiny, in my book) and “disputatious” (too much akin to simply “argumentative”, ditto) simply for the sound, but they don’t work. *looks sad*
Those are fun words.
@Thumper; Atheist mate
Sorry – my fault – that really was just supposed to be a “thanks” indicating surprise that you noticed me. I have been at home all day with the sprites and I think my vocabulary has gone out the window – unless it starts with “No”, “Put that down” or “Stop picking on your brother/sister”.
So – Thanks :)
Dr Robert Gross: no cookies here, sorry. Don’t expect instant camaraderie either — it takes time to earn people’s trust, especially people who know what betrayal is like and who are currently really, really pissed off at the mob of sock puppets and trolls and genuine assholes who have been flooding in here. If you want to be an ally, one thing you have to learn is patience. Another is that just being helpful doesn’t get you special rewards, and you shouldn’t be doing this for a reward.
…anyone else having an issue with spacklick’s ‘nym?
I say this cautiously, very much aware of the fact that I’ve called something like this out before only to be told it was self-referential :-/
I’m out for a while…got to go elicit some worthless testimony. Some of it will even be eyewitness testimony. I’ll be lucky if I’m not laughed out of court, amirite?
@pHred
O good, I was worried my comment came across badly :) No worries. I enjoy reading your comments, and hope this new higher frequency of commenting is a permanent fixture.
O hai, perpetratorist.
LOL. What planet exactly are you from, that you think the police takes accusations of rape seriously? It’s well documented in the US that that’s not how it works.
*blink*
lolwut
What an enormous own goal!
I knew Meet the Predators and have read it a couple of times, but I didn’t know Predator Theory; apparently I’m not the only one, because it’s still down. “503 Service Temporarily Unavailable”.
WTF. Thousands of people have happily died for lies because they believed those lies were the truth!
So, if you float the possibility that PZ might be in this situation, you imply that Jane Doe could be lying to him.
Why would she? Why would she risk all his trust in her? Why would she risk the wrath of the present shark tank (with frigging lasers on our heads)?
Like a “prime mover” argument, you’ve just shifted the problem by one level instead of solving it.
#Neuland
Thread won.
*practices writing “carlie” in extremely curly handwriting with a heart as the i-dot*
…Are you trying to say “jokes about sexual assault are totally harmless when I make them”?
Seriously?
What kind of scientist are you?
And what kind of scientist are you when you haven’t managed to think through why some people feel forced to use a pseudonym on teh intarwebz?
Friends don’t let friends get away with thoughtlessly doing damage.
Dr. David Marjanović
Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin
Forgot to update this after I read comment 310.
That’s fair enough, I didn’t think of that, sorry. Happens very easily and not with malice. Consultant at work tonight was talking to resident about a female patient with a, err, discharge. Told her(the resident) to think out of the box. Hilarity ensued. I know, I’m bad. But “butthurt” lesson learned, thanks for pointing it out.
b. – Order of Lagomorpha @ currently 429:
I may actually be blushing now. Do feel free to use that in any way that may be useful.
OT. I was hearing the Hybrid’s voice (from BSG: Razor) in my head when reading the tripe from “Rope Avenger”.
_____________
Disclosure – I’ve morphed from “Bonnie” and “BMS” into “Polistes.” I’ve not posted much the past few years (hello and good-bye law school) yet I did read the Grenade post and virtually all comments.
You might want to consider changing the nym too, we’re rather leery of nyms with “skeptic” in them these days.
@324
MTV presents X-TREME EVIDENCE. In today’s episode, our witness gives a deposition in front of our team of lawyers… while blindfolded and snowboarding backwards down an active volcano!
Seriously, though, you’re just making up a category of evidence (“extreme”) and then claiming that it is lacking in this case.
Doc, get over it. I used an inappropriate term here once and got called on it, realized it was not appropriate, apologized and moved on. Mind you, I don’t post here often, mainly because most any contributions I might be inclined to offer are usually better said by others. Still, I occasionally throw out a bon mot. Best thing is to own the fuck-up, apologize and move on. The one thing I’ve noticed the horde despises is doubling down on ass-hattery. See rorschach’s response to his use of the term “butthurt” as an example.
@Rey Fox – Was that for me?
The doc I refer to is the yclept Dr Gross, not D Marjanovic.
For the record—
While I admit that it came off badly, my wisecrack about “cop[ping] A Feel” was intended to use “A Feel’s” profoundly stupid moniker *against him*.
What I think is really sad is that this more benign interpretation of my motive behind the comment I think was reasonably available, but instead, some of you just immediately leapt to a malevolent interpretation instead. Given a choice between a benign or malevolent interpretation of a comment, or someone’s motives behind the comment, and some of you— perhaps many of you— will immediately leap to the malevolent interpretation every time.
I think it’s a sad world to live in in which everybody is assumed an enemy until proven an ally.
*waves to David M*
—
Even more documentation of official procedures that dismiss rape complaints automatically:
— TW for dismissal, obviously —
Until Last Week, The Official Policy Of One Virginia City Was To Assume All Rape Victims Were Lying
and
University of Southern California Mislabels Sexual Assaults As ‘Personal Injuries’
Both thanks to @TimidAtheist on Twitter.
@414, brings up “rumors of killing kittens” just like another troll did earlier in the thread. Excuse me, the first troll mentioned “rumors of eating kittens.”
Sometimes I think it’s the same two or three trolls over and over again. And what’s with the fantasy violence against kittens, FFS?
believerskeptic (#413)
You need to stop putting your real name on everything because the way you’re going about it looks like you want to make everything about you. It’s like you’re mistaking the harsh lights all the rape/harassment-denialist interrogators are casting on Karen and the other women coming forward for limelight and trying to edge into that light to soak up a little recognition for yourself. Highly inappropriate. This is not the time for self-promotion or image management for the great Dr. Robert Gross. If you can’t stay focused on what’s actually important, shut the fuck up and go away.
To add my completely unhelpful assessment:
believerskeptic,
It wasn’t a big mistake, it wasn’t a big deal, you weren’t considered an enemy… you then overreacted as if you’d been told off much more harshly than in reality.
Your overreaction and now excusing what was a bad tasting joke really isn’t helping.
….For the last time, intent is not fucking magic.
You made an unfortunate joke, people called you out on it, and instead of dropping it and moving on, you choose to double down.
Notice that no one has called you a bad person; they’ve just pointed out that you’ve said something that’s kind of punches down, and asked to to retract that statement.
@polistes
I think it was for believerskeptic, a.k.a Dr Robert Gross.
@464 (TW, violence against women, rape)
Infuriating. Consider the fact that the city of Detroit found 21 serial rapists AND ONE SERIAL KILLER after just processing 153 of their backlogged 11,000 untested rape kits. The serial killer went on to murder five women after his first rape victim’s kit was never processed by the police. And there are over 100,000 untested rape kits across the country.
But yeah, we take rape very seriously in this country.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/28/rapists-beware-detroit-prosecutor-ids-21-attackers-in-rape-kit-probe.html?vm=r
Shorter #463:
Intent! It’s fucking magic!
This has nothing to do with your intent. In fact, several people said explicitly that they don’t doubt you didn’t mean any harm. That doesn’t stop it being harmful. But let’s not believe people when they say they know you didn’t mean any harm; let’s just keep bleating on about how boo-fucking-hoo everyone assumed malevolence on your part. Because, as we all know, the important thing here is that believerskeptic receives the cookies due him for being a mostly decent person.
“I think it’s a sad world to live in in which everybody is assumed an enemy until proven an ally.”
no, it’s sad that a simple problem being pointed out makes you short circuit. we all have to deal with this, you are not special. stop imagining that we assume everyone to be an enemy until proven an ally.
I just wanted to say to Rob (aka believerskeptic*) that I watched his (their?) vid (linked from the CFI thread) and thought it was pretty good. Gave it a thumbs up.
I can understand how harsh and uncompromising the environment here might seem to newcomers. That’s cos it is harsh and uncompromising when it comes to sexist (also racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist etc.) language. No one, not first timers, not members of the community of long standing, not even PZ himself, is immune from criticism on this score. We expect that people who are concerned about social justice will sometimes make mistakes. It’s inevitable because we’re all part of a sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist culture and that shit is insidious and impossible to purge completely. So the SOP here is for people to call it out whenever it surfaces. The expected response to that criticism is
1) Shut up. Don’t dig yourself in deeper or make excuses. No apologia please.
2) Listen. Hear why people have called your statement out.
3) Reflect. Does it make sense why people have a problem with what you said? Did it result from an underlying sexist (other -ist) attitude, or was it a naive mistake?
4) Research. If you still don’t get it, go seek out Google (or any links to resources helpfully provided).
5) Acknowledge. Say you understand, you made a mistake and are sorry; say you’ve changed your attitude; say you’ve learned something; even say you don’t get it but out of respect for others you won’t do the same thing again.
It’s really not a big deal. People do make mistakes. People who are feminists do think and say sexist shit. But the only way to make real lasting progress is to keep raising awareness.
*which, I have reason to hope, will prove another exception to the rule about misogynist idiot ubersceptics with “skeptic” or “rational” in their nyms
Yes, by saying we ought to “cop a feel”; otherwise known as sexual assault.
For god sakes. We know you meant well. Your intentions aren’t the problem, your words are. I can, in all good intentions, make a sexist joke. It happens. We fuck up. I’ve fucked up. The “benign” interpretation makes no difference when it’s still an interpretation of a joke telling us to commit sexual assault.
It’s sad to see a (presumably) otherwise reasonable person think they are so god damn persecuted when all they recieved was two corrections.
@Thumper; Atheist Mate – Ah, of course. Thank you.
“this more benign interpretation of my motive behind the comment I think was reasonably available”
i’m still not sure what benign interpretation you mean. groping an awful person is still wrong. ?
Hey, Doc: might want to lay the shovel down for a bit, cancel the call to the backhoe rental agency, and read this.
Toot-toot.
/my own horn.
@believerskeptic
That’s not what’s happening. Even allies say stupid or insulting or hurtful things sometimes. No one’s perfect. See the reaction to rorschach using “butthurt” above (rorschach is a regular commenter here). I know what you were trying to do, but some people found your referencing to sexual assault insulting. Presumably you do not want to hurt those people, so when they say they are insulted, why not simply apologise? We all put our foot in it sometimes; that’s no longer the issue here. What is the issue is the way you responded to mild criticism (hint: it did not come off well). If you’d just held your hand up and apologised, we’d have all forgotten about it by now.
Ahh. Crap. Emphasis fail. The only thing that ought to have been in italics is the “is” in the second sentence of the second paragraph.
You misunderstand. I think everyone pretty much assumed that your intention was benign. The problem wasn’t your intention, but that jokes about sexual assault, even if properly aimed and directed, are prone to cause unintentional splash damage.* You are not being classed as an enemy. You are being classed as a provisional ally with a problem. The more you make it about you, the less patience people will have.
*if you’re unsure about why this is, or why your joke in particular did this, follow my advice above and do some research
Adding to the evidence pile – here’s research cited in the Norfolk VA link above.
That 60-page report from 2012 is here: PDF link
and it covers rape myths, misclassifying cases as unfounded, being alert to recantations due to coercion, DNA testing in both stranger and acquaintance assaults, problems with on-campus reporting and more. It even discusses going public with allegations, thus encouraging more victims to come forward, as an additional investigative tool. And the report concludes with an entire section on external review by advocacy groups to ensure police departments aren’t mishandling rape cases.
Of particular relevance: (bolds mine)
I haven’t read through all 477 posts, so maybe this has been covered, but…
Hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement offered for proof of the matter asserted. IOW, hearsay only comes into existence after, “All rise.” Beyond that, testimony — that is, sitting in the witness chair and answering questions about what happened — absolutely is evidence. The question is whether Sh… the complainant… can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that PZ’s statements were false (the burden is on the plaintiff).
(BTW, there are exceptions to the rule that hearsay is inadmissible. Those exceptions are unlikely to matter, however, since I’m confident PZ won’t have any problems coming up with one or two witnesses who will testify about their personal experiences.)
Cheers!
@Polistes
No problem :)
I realize that this is probably going to go over well-trod ground, but seeing as how we get endless trolls reiterating it, I have to wonder:
Exactly what are the negative consequences for Michael Schermer. I mean, it’s clear that the douchebros consider what is happening to him something far and above even the PTSD-trauma hell that is rape, so what exactly is that.
I mean, let’s look at the most likely situation first. That he is a rapist (or at least a firm believer in playing dangerously close to the rape line due to general rape culture ideology on how one “picks up chicks”). This is strongly supported both by the volume and similarity of corroborating stories and his response to them.
So what does he lose in this the most likely of situtations? Well, he’s not facing any criminal charges and has zero chance of serving jail time despite violating another human being (so far, he’s received a major reward, not a negative).
But hey, let’s throw a bone to the “super totally skeptic, not at all a meager thinker counting on unearned social regard to pull them through”s out there and assume the least likely conclusion. There is a mass confederacy of PZ Myers brainwashed vixens who decided making up some rape accusations and warn each other of nonexistent behavior for years were a fun way to spend an afternoon… many afternoons. Okay, it doesn’t make a goddamn bit of sense, but let’s throw them the bone.
There is the “smearing of his name”, but society has shown us again and again that being a rapist, even a convicted rapist hasn’t stopped people receiving work or protection from other powerful people (Polanski for instance). Additionally, his name is most “smeared” by his actions with the population who was already getting wary with him due to some repeated sexist incidents in the past. Additionally, he’s established enough in his position and has enough credentials and money that he’s unlike to be eliminated from his job (unlike what often happens to women who report sexual harassment or minorities who simply try and exist). As a male he’s unlikely to receive rape and death threats (so, so far, he’s “suffering” less than Adria Richards did for trying to stop sexist jokes during a women in her field panel or Rebecca Watson did for saying “guys, don’t do that”).
So let’s go back to what the “name smear” might do. As I said, it might hurt his book sales and appearances, but that’s only with a population that already has been souring on him because of unrelated previous actions wherein he acted like a sexist tool. And that will, sadly (which is a condemnation on our society), be rewarded as well. Those who are extremely invested in a sexist atheist culture are more likely to consider him a God and buy his books and support him because he was attacked by “those lying bitches trying to take him down for being a truthteller”. Already we see the usual suspects crawling out of their holes to support him and offer their aid.
So, so far, pretty minimal impact. There’s the fact that people will think he’s a douchebag on the internet and possibly at conferences, but pretty much anybody who is even semi-involved on the internet has that (whether it’s because of genuinely douchebag behavior or because they have pissed off douchebags by emphatically not being a douchebag). And again, there’s going to be the hero worship from the sexist asshole brigade, which he was already dipping a toe into recruiting in the past. So again, not really a great big loss and certainly not even remotely close to what rape victims and even women who relate their experiences face. Heck, we haven’t even gotten to the “male allies who support women” level of pushback and consequence.
So what is the thing that these douchebags are really focused on Schermer losing? What is the only true “loss” that he’ll be suffering.
It’s this: No matter whether he’s a rapist or a really creepy flirter, his access to women at conventions is probably going to dry up a bit and more women are going to be less likely to go along with his tactics and more willing to stand up for someone else being assaulted by them.
And that’s the thing they really think is beyond the pale. That a man should be deprived of his access to “sex” of his choosing. That he should ever have his prey warned or be denied the ability to get his dick wet.
This is what the douchebags view as several layers worse than rape, worse than the harassment and death threats that women who speak about their experiences receive.
A guy not getting “laid” when he wanted to. A guy not being able to rape women and so increase their “hit count” and their ability to brag homosocially to their friends and look like a “big man”.
Whether his crimes are true or not, this is the thing that has been most “lost” and what is most lamented.
And right there you can see just how much they care about rape victims, women in general, or even the very action of sex.
So I say, in our broken ass rape culture, fuck what Michael Schermer has “lost”.
Speaking as someone who has actually lost things, all that horseshit can go to the happy fire spike kingdom. And as someone who was raped and didn’t report it and someone dating two people who were raped and didn’t report it. One of whom is dating someone who was raped and reported it, but was treated like shit by the cops for reporting it before they promptly told her they weren’t even going to bother to investigate… Well, fuck all you rape apologizing motherfuckers happily perpetuating a system that makes it frightening and fraught to report rapes or even speak out about what has happened.
I was raped at a conference. My partners were raped at parties. Jane Doe was raped at a conference. At such public venues, if rape was really something we took seriously as a society, it shouldn’t be that easy for a rapist to rape someone and not even worry about facing consequences. And yet it is.
So fuck all the whining about what TEH POOR MENZ (only rapist men included, male rape victims, I have no interest in adding to your trauma) are suffering because of the unthinkable notion of women speaking about their experiences in a forum wherein you’ll suffer no actual consequences.
You got off easy, thanks to a poisonous rape culture. Be happy with that. For once in your sick twisted lives.
Hey, the song just passed 300 hits! At last.
Thanks for your support, everyone.
You certainly are a group that knows how to make a well-meaning newcomer feel welcome.
/sarcasm
You’re all missing my essential point.
I’m just asking you to see it for just a moment from my perspective.
I’ve been on here up and down begging people to take a look at something I think could actually make a difference in the court of public opinion— not another screed, not another verbose diatribe, not another dissertation laced with postmodernist university-educated feminist academic lingo which turns the word “other” into a verb, but rather, a song, a tune, something with a groove that ordinary people can wrap their heads around.
And met with nothing but indifference by you, who are also *to me* provisional allies. I’m judging you just as much as you’re judging me. I’m a whirlwind of potential creative activity and I’m looking for a place to hang my hat. Are you the place where I’ll hang my hat?
Apparently not. Because one ill-chosen comment that [i]actually has a benign interpretation when you stop and actually think about it[/i] is all it takes to mark one as unworthy around here.
My point is that you weren’t there when I tried to do something positive. And you were all over me like a cheap suit when I made a mistake.
That’s who you are, apparently. Slow as molasses with the praise, quick as a viper with the rebuke.
Maybe I’ll find another place to hang my creative hat. Believe it or not, you’re not the only progressive skeptics in the blogosphere.
RG
You know, I was thinking of this and of the troll-whine of “Shermer is now unpopular in the FTB court of popular opinion,” and it all goes back to entitlement, doesn’t it?
MICHAEL SHERMER IS NOT ENTITLED TO MY GOOD OPINION. He wasn’t entitled to it before this happened. I have the right, FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NONE AT ALL, to not like him, not buy his books, not attend his speaking engagements, etc. I am not, as a woman, obligated to like everyone, or to “keep an open mind’ or to have a default setting of “Everyone’s Nice Unless Proven Otherwise.” (In fact, long experience tells me that the opposite is often true.)
I am not obligated to exist in a state of openness towards every goddamn person.
THat one comment didn’t mark you as anything, the follow-up whinging marked you as an ass.
Oh good grief, could you *possibly* whine any more about yourself?
You sound like my foster kittens: mee! Meee! MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
We’re going to miss out on YOU and YOUR creativity because YOU won’t hang YOUR hat here and we didn’t give YOU enough leeway (2 comments, how cruel we are) when YOU made what YOU thought was an innocuous comment.
I’m penniless, but I’d willingly contribute to a legal defense fund. I’m guessing the threat of legal action is all bluster, intended to silence the loudest & most obvious critics.
Only the lawyers really stand to benefit if it goes beyond letter writing & threats. Suppose it goes to court, witnesses materialize where they might have otherwise stayed anonymous, Shermer might end up with an extended legal battle with them AFTER everything is settled with PZ. And even if Shermer does win in court, what does he get? He doesn’t get his reputation back nor the widespread support of the women who he’s alienated. I hazard that most of the bloggers here aren’t exactly rich. And nothing would stop most of the other contributors from believing as they currently believe.
Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Wow, what a spectacular flameout. You really do think that being decent most of the time obligate us to shield you from criticism when you act badly, don’t you? What a charmingly entitled notion that is. What a terrific ally you are!
Oh, and there’s a reason that many of us don’t post here under our public names. It doesn’t mean that we don’t do activism work in real life, and it certainly doesn’t mean that we don’t deal with, confront or write about sexism and sexual harassment in our daily lives. Hell, I teach a class about it!
See, here’s the thing–allies point out when other allies have failed. We all do it. Sometimes sexist shit comes out of my mouth, and I’m a woman and an educator. It happens. And the correct response to such criticism is to shelf your pride and say, “Oh wow, sorry about that!” That is what you should have done here. Instead, you’ve Red Herringed about anons and insulted everyone who tried to help you (and, make no mistake, such criticism IS HELPING YOU). And you did it under your ~~real name.~~ So yay you, I guess.
What’s that annoying whine?
Cerberus von Snarkmistress, I really like what you wrote. I’ve been thinking along similar lines, and add that the menz are upset that a man, PZ, has conspired with women to block a man’s access to his sexual rights.
I’ll post what I wrote, sometime.
—
believerskeptic, this thread is about rape, and the damage that it does to victims. You are on it screaming about your hurt feelings about a remark and video views. I realize that to you, a percieved insult to you is more important than the rape of any number of women, but we are trying to discuss their hurt, their pain, and ways to prevent more people from being raped.
believerskeptic, go away. Go away now.
Take your hurt feelings outside, and talk them over somewhere else.
This thread is about rape, not about you.
Go away.
Now.
@484 believerskeptic
Actually nobody missed your point. You tried to help, you made a well-meaning but misguided joke. A couple people said variations of “hey dude, that’s not cool” and then what happened? What happened is you lost your shit. And then people piled on.
So already. Don’t do us any favors by sticking around if you’re going to go full nuclear at the merest suggestion that you did or said something you maybe shouldn’t.
The 2nd to last line in 493 should start “So go already”. Oops.
Cyranothe2nd: I think you’re going to have to speak louder. I don’t think Dr. Gross can hear you from all the way up there on that cross.
Jesus Christ, it was two (2) comments!
believerskeptic @484: I for one was being polite. Yes, I saw your youtube link on half a dozen different blog conversations. I didn’t say anything, and neither did anyone else, and maybe that should have been a clue to you. But now that you’ve said all of this:
…Have you actually considered the possibility that your video, regardless of subject matter, was not very good? You spent a lot of effort on it, definitely, and your heart was in the right place. But hard work is no guarantee of quality either.
Want to guess why I haven’t recommended it nor passed it along to friends? Hint: I tried, ONE time, just to confirm it wasn’t just me. Trust me on this: while you seem to find indifference an insult and some sort of deprivation of your rights, IMHO it’s been doing you a favor.
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/wonder_and_skepticism ironically.
I don’t like scientists, skeptics, allies OR artists who can’t handle honest criticism without counterattacking.
Note: BBCode doesn’t work here. Use the html tags shown at the bottom, underneath the comment box.
Tell me, ye who has nailed thyself to a cross, of the two comments that you recieved before this whole spiel, which said that your were “unworthy”?
@believerskeptic
Jesus fuck… listen carefully.
It is not what you said that marked you as unworthy. It was your reaction to criticism.
Everyone slips up, and no one doubts that you did not intend to insult anyone. But intent isn’t fucking magic, and you did insult people. When that was pointed out to you, you should have apologised like a fucking adult. What you did instead was whine and equivocate and generally make yourself look like an idiot.
You could have apologised even after some of the whining. It wasn’t too late. Now, as far as I’m concerned, it is. Fuck off.
Ooooo, so now we come to the real issue. You’re mad that we didn’t immediately run over to your video and praise you for it.
WOW.
Just sit with that hubris for a second.
believerskeptic (#484)
This is just what I mean. You’ve somehow mistaken the outing of sexual harassers, assaulters and rapists in the skeptic community for a hatrack. Fuck off.