I can’t explain how things are going except to say…it’s complicated. Do try to keep up with others — I can’t. I worry that this is the end of a lot of good things, or rather, things that had to be the potential to be good, and that without many changes, we’re going to lose too many great people, and that conditions have become intolerable. Let me tell you that when I pressed “publish” on a certain post the other day, I knew that no matter how it turns out, the one thing I could be certain of is that I would be persona non grata in a large segment of the movement, and that I’d be spending many more quiet weekends at home in Morris in the future (which is OK, this is a nice place, and my day job is ramping up the responsibilities, and I’ll always have the blog).
But even if I’m squeezed out, it’s time to pick a side and build a better secular movement. You can’t do it by simply accepting what is and looking the other way. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. It’s especially important that you don’t walk past the standard set by the powerful men in the movement.
pHred
-What’s it to ya?
-‘gonna school ya.
-couldn’t fool ya.
…and so on. Not perfect rhymes but close enough for pop.
Whoa, now that’s going to look weird all on its lonesome on the top of the page.
@ pHred:
You’re in luck! In the original song lyrics they don’t actually rhyme anything with Hallelujah!
But just in case you want to, the standard is apparently not high. This site suggests the following “near-rhymes” for Hallelujah:
bologna
melanoma
bazooka
casanova
medusa
california
Obviously, you don’t have to try very hard. ;)
If you missed the answers, you are on dumbshit fuckwit.
Time for this kitty to head out for the night.
Have fun
stormingdefending the castle!It’s raining jerks
hit them with tuna
It’s raining jerks
or peahen
It’s raining jerks
attack them with puma
It’s raining jerks
call an rn ?
Okay – that is amazingly lame. Clearly I have to go to bed.
May I offer a cute vicuña as an apology ?
@PatrickG
california? casanova?? I can’t make that parse at all. That one made me laugh so hard I had tears in my eyes.
Sorry for the derail – I don’t know if this is making any one else smile but I sure hope so.
and FossilFishy, I think it makes more sense than most of the gibberish being offered by the invasion force.
They forgot numa numa.
And “You’re a goomba“.
Here’s a Roomba.
Lara’s tomb-a.
What a loofa!
And that’s the truth-a.
Here’s a Roomba! Bwhahahaha! carlie wins everything everywhere!
Lots of moolah?
Ok, I’ll stop now.
Rhymes with hallelujah in a song about jerks?
Come on…
Lets play Guess Who-
Last name ends in ‘a’; should be a close rhyme.
No?
Online harasser.
No?
went to WiS with K.P.
No?
Sat in back.
Geez, you guys suck at this.
Last clue…
First name begins with J
Oooh, Carlie, undisputed champion of the hallelujah rhyming stakes!
Tony:
Yeah, got it, but eeuuw at the thought of singing his name. On the other hand, one could make a case for vacuous. . .sort of.
Wait wait one more – Pascagoula.
Hypotheticals are an MRA non-sequitur technique to avoid having to look at situation. A warning to women, not a criminal charge. The evidence is clear and compeling to anybody who isn’t dismissing the women’s word. Why are you dismissing their word?
I figured it out! Call me slow, but here’s how it goes.
1. PZ claims it’s a warning to women, but bitchez aint shit so who cares for them. Why would anyone even talk to the furniture like they’re human?
2. Therefore PZ is talking to the only conceivable audience: men.
3. Men are NEVER sexually assaulted, so it can’t be a warning. So it must be something else.
4. The only effect on a Real Human is between Schermer & PZ. PZ started it by saying a Mean Thing like Schermer kicks puppies or something, so it must be an attack on Schermer, for reasons unknown. Probably blog hits. Maybe a grudge.
5. Since that’s the only possible motive or posting, whether the Mean Thing is true or not is trivially unimportant to the real participants.
6. Why is the furniture even talking about trivia?
Damn blockquote bork. Mine starts at “I figured it out”. The other suposed-to-be-quoted bit is Nerd.
Alethea:
Yep, that’s pretty much how every one of these threads has gone.
Aaaaand I should have reloaded more, since we’re waaaay past this. Forgot I last reloaded an hour ago and went to do laundry. I can’t do these threads. Sorry.
Alethea, I think you’ve got it down cold.
Julia Goolia
In the pool, yeah
She will fool ya
Into saying boo-yah
Aw, man. I was going to settle in with a nice snack, have some cheese and crackers to go along with reading all the new whining that’s been going on on all the abuse threads since the last time I checked, but now I find I can’t.
I lost my gouda.
I don’t generally like Adam sandler, but I love the crap out of that movie.
Alethea
yep
That seems spot on.
Carlie:
:falls over laughing: All the love, Carlie. You never fail to bring smiles and laughter when they are most needed.
Caine – I try. :) Sometimes pratfalls are the only thing I have left in my arsenal.
@Alethea(#521):
No worries. It is a very good summary of how they react. Although I’d say that you’d get complaints saying you are slandering them seeing that they don’t treat women as furniture.
I do understand that it’s libel when it’s written just have to stay in character after reading so many of them not understanding what is what.
@Caine, Fleur du mal:
Thanks for once again posting those links, a little past the #200 mark. I remember reading those before, when I asked for clarification months ago and exasperated you, and they are real gems and truly education for the clueless, in which category I admit myself. I went and read some of them again now, because I remembered that they were good selections.
Perhaps to save time in the future, you (or anyone else monitoring) could just immediately put in a comment near the top either giving the links outright or else saying “This post touches on rape and/or male privilege. If you aren’t sure what we’re talking about, please read some or all of the following sections in the ‘Social Justice Link Roundup’ section in the sidebar.” (Or PZ could add it to the end of the post?) 200 comments into the discussion is a fair ways to go. Not all the clueless are deliberately annoying.
Delurking to say:
PZ, you’re doing the right thing. Jane Doe, thank you. The Horde, thank you too.
The Vicar:
Yes, you’re right, all the clueless are not automagically horrible peoples. Sometimes, they are just clueless, and in those cases, providing help is the way to go. Thank you for that timely reminder. I have now saved all those links and have them set up for multi-posts as to future use. I will take your advice, and post them as quickly as I can from now on. That said, I’m not always around at the beginning of a thread, so the more people who save those links and can post them, the better. I know Pteryxx always does, but if a whole bunch of people save them for future posting, maybe we can get to the clueless sooner and avoid unnecessary hassle all the way around.
now I have dreams of an automated response where every anti-feminist sockpuppet comment gets replaced by a random sampling of previous answers. *sigh*
Pteryxx:
I would *love* that. Seriously. I’d even cuddle it at night.
I’m back! You know, I’m starting to get the feeling that I’m persona non grata around here, however, this group fascinates me and I can’t resist a couple of questions.
(1) It has been objected that I haven’t responded to all the points made in opposition to my arguments. I thought that I did, that both sides presented their arguments, and simply ended up disagreeing. I thought that I answered the basic points, and not all of my points were answered. However, since there were multiple persons and notes in opposition to my argument, I no doubt missed something. To make it easier to keep track of things I would be grateful if one person took up the argument with me perhaps via email outside the forum altogether. However, I would insist that it be a person who is open to the idea that they might be persuaded by opposing arguments as I am open to that idea.
(2) This group fascinates me and I can’t help repeating a question from my last email that wasn’t addressed: Some of you seem to imply that there is no middle ground or even the possibility of rational disagreement on specific issues like whether PZ’s actions are liable to result in the best result.. There seems to be an implication that if there is disagreement then in your mind that means that the person is not just wrong, but evil. Am I correct?
This lurker thinks you’re doing the right thing too.
philosophia, every single piece of shit you insist on dropping in the middle of the carpet has been asked and answered. On the previous page, I provided you with handy dandy links so you could go and read all the answers for yourself. Now, go do that or go away. I am sick to death of doucheweasels. We are not here to feed your fascination or to provide you with more material for you to think you are the one genius hyperskeptic of them all. You aren’t. You’re just another asshole.
Thanks, drfill. That’s a great nym, by the way.
besides, didn’t we have that discussion, a few implosions ago? 95% of the questioners are going to be dishonest douchebags, and 95% of the learners are lurkers and regulars who are reading along, but keeping silent. The good-faith offering of citations happens in the cutting edge of the remaining 5-10% where we have to balance attempts to educate with minimizing the damage from their ignorant victim-blaming. (Case in point: setec.) The ones who demand to be educated hardly ever read, because they don’t want to learn anything that doesn’t come with a sugar coating of personal attention and stroking. IMHO, providing links early would be more like traffic control.
…
Right while I was composing about how they’ll only learn with sufficient personal attention. Who’d’a’thunkit.
Pteryxx:
True. I’ll also note that those of us who do provide links almost always end up doing it multiple times, because apparently, most people can’t be bothered with reading the actual thread they are posting in.
Pteryxx:
Yeah. Gotta love those little egos, why gosh, they are just the most important people in the universe! So special, they deserve their very own tutors, who they will only argue with, as the second most important thing in the universe is their point of view! True assfax.
Here, let me try to put my Philosophy Hat on:
Who gives a fuck?
Who would actually want to bother and what exactly would be the point of this?
What the fuck are you going on about?
(Honestly, you aren’t that much of a persona non grata . You are a bit of a smarmy asshole who plays insufferable word games and puts words in our mouths, though. So there’s that.)
philosophia
1 Piss off, no one is obliged to educate you. We argue this stuff in public so that those looking on might see our position and perhaps reconsider their own. Convincing you would just be gravy.
2 Hasty generalisation fallacy is fallacious.
Philosophist, if you can’t be bothered to read the various links supplied by Caine and others on the previous page, why should we spoon feed you. If after reading them you then have genuine questions, fair enough. Until then, do some of the work yourself as your jaqing off has already been covered in depth in those links.
anteprepro:
Why they would be providing a super-duper, extra special uberhyperskeptical genius with the ability to bray their opinions about, feeding their narcissism and sense of being one of the bestest ever thinkers, you bet.
John Phillips:
Yes, however, one would have to assume genuine questions on philosophia’s part. I wouldn’t believe that, I’d be, hmmmm, skeptical. I’m also not prepared to believe any future statement on their part that they have read 4,000 to 5,000 posts already. It’s obvious they have not. However, that has not stopped one doucheweasel yet from proclaiming “I did read them!”, 15 minutes after being given the link.
In the ‘last word’ thread, we had someone saying they had indeed read all those posts, when what they actually did was a very bad search of the Epic Grenade thread. *sigh*
Ok, I will tackle #2.
I may, MAY even attempt to employ that overrated ##$@!& civility stuff.
This is the situation. A woman that has earned PZs trust confides in him that she was raped by MS. She has gotten no help from the org she dealt with in the past. She is not seeking to put MS in jail. She wants to remain anonymous. She wants toget her story out to aid other women who may be in contact with MS. PZ wrestles with the choice. Do as a trusted friend requests or sit on the story.
There is no other option here.
Why?
When someone is raped, supporting them as they desire (and IF they desire) is of utmost importance.
There is no option to go to the police. She did not want that.
Recognizing the danger to women if they do not have this warning and realizing any backlash against himself is minimal, especially compared to the goal of helping protect women, PZ posts Jane Doe’s story.
In light of all that, WHAT THE EVER LOVING F…(oh yes, forgot I am trying to play by someone elses rules about discourse. Limiting my expression to not offend delicate ears.) IS SO HARD ABOUT UNDERSTANDING WHY PZ DID THIS?
When people complain and f….freaking whine about PZs course of action, they continue to cast doubt on Jane Doe’s story, bc it is not PZs decision where to take the info. The choice was Publish or Not Publish.
DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND NOW??!!
Oh dear, I used a naughty word. Well I am an atheist and I fucking do not care about following Christianity’s rules about offending their genocidal skydaddy. I do not have the fucking hangups about words that fucking tone trolls do.
Result? Lots of women who might not have known about a specific risk they should avoid now know about it.
Best result? Same thing really. But your argument is about all possible things in all possible worlds. You’re letting the perfect be the enemy of the good if you think PZ should have not acted this way or undertaken some other elaborately confected combination of responses so-long-as-they-were-not-this-specific-response to JD’s testimony.
He had no “good” options. He just selected the least worst option from the unappealing set of options available. That’s what a moral person does.
Remember, “The standard you walk past is the standard you accept”. He didn’t walk past.
Totally agree Caine, and, like you don’t really hold out much hope, but I added the word genuine just in case, you never know :)
John Phillips:
True. I live to be surprised. How incredibly pleasant that would be.
Tony and Mildlymagnificent, I think mockery is the best option now. ‘Philosophia’ has been playing their little game across threads and keeps repeating them in this one. Of course, if you feel like beating your head against a doucheweasel, by all means, do so.
I figure some of the less trolly doucheweasels really have “read” the threads, as in they’ve focused their eyes on the screen while the words went past, but As You Know Bob those privilege goggles can blank out the words so they bear no resemblance to the words inside the brain. Lynchings, witch hunts, obvious fabrications!
Philosophia et al:
What is it with people and the need to JAQ off every 5 minutes? Don’t understand how to search on the internet? You’d almost believe they were being assholish on purpose.
Caine, the Horde:
You rock. Have some trollberry pie to keep up your strength.
Pteryxx:
Also, blog as courtroom, drunk chicks, man’s reputation more important!
Caine:
Oh I have no doubt of that.
I just wanted to toss out pretty much the last of MY good faith effort to address such rank stupidity and reading INcomprehension. Maybe some lurker out there benefitted. Yeah I will tell myself that.
Lofty, *fistbump* Oooh, pie.
A couple of clueless types on Thibeault’s threads gave out invitations to ‘private discussion’ on a forum of their choosing, too. That seems to be the latest trend in creeping on presumptions of good faith.
I feel kinda weird giving you a show of support for the third time, Myers, but, well: still willing to help, however I can.
When it’s bros before hoes
And the comments are court.
Mocking the douches
Is the the very best sport.
…and me without my irony meter.
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/15/philosophy_has_a_sexual_harassment_problem/
Pteryxx:
Lovely.
FossilFishy:
*Applause*
@ pHred: Glad someone else found that rhyming site hi-larious, too. :)
@ FossilFishy: HA! Well done!
Let me guess, clydey and his sort won’t consider anything less than DNA and the testimony of four Real Sceptic Dudebro Shermer Fanboy witnesses to be sufficient evidence.
Please note that in suggesting a one-on-one email discussion I never said anyone was obligated to do that. I just enjoy discussions with people I disagree with from time to time and perhaps there is one person here who would enjoy the same. I wouldn’t mind reading all of the links in Caine’s emails, but of course I cannot guarantee that I would agree with it all. But it might make for a more common vocabulary. And of course, I do not claim to be a “a super-duper, extra special uberhyperskeptical genius”. Far from it, my opinions are to the left of middle but not at all uncommon or particularly brilliant. I suspect that anyone that might be interested would prefer to reach me privately, but I’m not sure how that is done. At any rate, I will just be lurking to see if there is any interest among all the ridicule. In the meantime, best wishes to you all!
Been lurking all week, and before I stay up half the night to keep up, I want to say that I believe the Jane Does, stand with PZ, salute The Horde, especially the all-stars led by Caine, Tony!, Petryxx and all the amazing people who have fought the battle of the past week. Thanks for the ongoing education and examples of how to fight the good fights. I leave for you dark chocolate to go with the above-mentioned trollberry pie.
MJKelleher, lurker in the dark, thank you. Thank you for speaking up, for standing up, and for adding to our flame. Together, we are the bonfire in the dark.
My eyes are burning out. Or something. I read “sceptic” (#564) as “septic”.
Kittehserf:
Yep, and that’s been pointed out, over and over and over and over, throughout each thread dealing with these issues, starting with the Epic Grenade thread. You just cannot get a clue into some brains, by any means at all. It’s exasperating, to say the least.
Susannah:
I do that all the time. In threads like this, “septic” is often more apt.
Comment by philosophia blocked. [unhush][show comment]
philosophia says…
and nobody claimed you did. Your invitation can be refused.
Read them, or don’t. You could also say thank you if you were so inclined.
Do we get a refund?
It’s a discussion, with evidence, not a sales pitch. More to the point, O clueless one, rape is not just an interesting debate topic to us. Nobody cares about you strolling onto a rhetorical stage exclaiming “Here I am!
EducateDebate me!” and nobody cares about scoring agreement points. This is about addressing a really major problem in our communities so that people don’t get hurt. You’re being rude by making it about you.Here, these are SPECIFICALLY FOR YOU. (you debate types, that is.)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason/2013/04/03/my-oppression-is-not-your-thought-experiment/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason/2013/08/10/how-to-be-a-responsible-devils-advocate/
Also, do not imply, in any way, ever, that I e-mailed you. Just don’t. I don’t care if it was an accidental use – use the fucking preview button prior to posting and actually read what you wrote.
@Lofty
Round and round the trollberry bush…
Can’t get the damn tune out of my head now. Thanks.
pop goes the doucheweasel!
@philosophia:
How about you start by reading all the stuff she linked to in 3 joined posts at around number 207 on the previous page (which was, IIRC, after you started posting in this thread)? She wasn’t just putting those out there because she likes doing extra typing. Some of those pages actually (*gasp*) address your “innocent” questions.
If you can’t be bothered to do that when everyone is watching, then it sends a strong signal that you certainly wouldn’t bother to do it when the links are only visible to you.
@Caine:
Really, the value of giving the links up front is that anyone can then immediately tell people “you didn’t do the required reading; your questions are dishonest; go read those other pages before you talk” and then we could all just ignore them completely. Wouldn’t it be nice to just watch as people like, oh, say, philosophia started choking with frustration as the discussion just kept flowing without any response…
now I have dreams of an automated response where every anti-feminist sockpuppet comment gets replaced by a random sampling of previous answers. *sigh*
Back in the usenet days, Rob Pike (then at Bell Labs) wrote a markov chain text generator and used to use it to post as Mark V Shaney, and a pseudo-authoritarian named Bimmler. What’s scary is that Shaney’s posts were about as coherent as some of the nonsense I hear out of the pitters.
Aussie spelling for the win. ;)
@Caine – don’t I know it re: never getting it through their heads. I’m an occasional lurker here but have been a Manboobz regular for a good while, so I’ve seen a fair bit of impenetrable misogynist douchebaggery.
Just repeating, fwiw from a lurker who’s not a member of the community:
Jane Doe – all the Jane Does – I believe you, and thank you for your courage in speaking out.
PZ, thank you too, and if it comes to a fund I’ll see if I can contribute (damn the falling dollar).
Horde, you are a pretty spectacular crew.
Bottom-feeder-shit* brigade rape apologists, I still have plenty of Legos for you to step on. I sharpened the edges and everything.
*Bottom-feeding fish: cute! Bottom-feeding fish shit: beyond gross!
as to the red flag of threatening legal action in this case.
This issue and the people involved do not seem to be the kind that role over for threats, certainly not PZ. So it looks like the slime bucket does not want this to go away. I can think of no better way of making it more public than a bunch of dueling layers. With the sexual content it might even make the mainstream 6 o’clock news. so just watching it someone looks like they are reacting emotionally.
Sure they have the right to seek legal advice but is it really wise to take legal action.
Everyone deserves to be treated with respect it reflects negatively on my honor if I deliberately act in a disrespectful way. Getting people drunk so you can have sex with them is not very respectful and as has been explained numerous times here is in fact a form of rape, it can in no way be considered an honorable way to behave nor has it ever been considered to be honorable.
hence all the funny negative names used to substitute for family names and the negative reaction to all of you who try a minimize any of this crap.
still standing!
uncle frogy
@uncle frogy #579
Emphasis mine.
Don’t muddy the waters; it is rape, plain and simple. Otherwise you give more credence to the ‘degrees of rape’ people and the ‘this isn’t really rape’ idiots.
PZ, for what it’s worth, I support you. And I support Jane Doe. Don’t let the doucheweasels squeeze you out. Hang in there.
And Caine, Fleur du Mal, I want to add my thanks for all you do. Your energy and patience are truly amazing.
best news I’ve heard all year :D
based on the same evidence we have for Shermer? Yes, I’d consider guilt more likely than not, and chose my behaviors accordingly. Of course, it would be a bit tricky to get the same kind of evidence, given that PZ is not on the list of men women warn each other about at conferences, unlike Shermer who’s been on that list for well over a decade as far as I can tell.
I’m just going to quote myself from another thread, to explain why this is a symptom of some fucked up ethics:
I’ve touched on this a bit in the grenade thread, and it even came up way back during “the dialogue”: the True Skeptics have ethics based on a different axiom than most people here. For them, finding out for themselves what is or isn’t true actually is the most important issue and takes precendence before (almost?) anything else. During “the dialogue”, Stephanie had to remind them that no, finding truth is not the most important overriding concern, and that search for truth needs to be tempered with ethical considerations for the people that might be harmed along the way (she used examples from unethical science research to make her point).
So yeah. To the true skeptics, it really is the most important thing for them to make a judgment, and so they experience it as unethical to not provide it, or to take action before it has been provided. It’s why they’re raging at us: they are convinced we’ve made the judgment already, on so little evidence that from their perspective, we’re unethical because our conclusions might be wrong but we’re already acting; the concept of harm reduction seems foreign to them, or even outright unethical because it prioritizes something other than figuring out who’s right.
[…]their ethics don’t actually allow for harm reduction to be the most important thing.
amazing innit, how they think us actually sticking to the point of the grenade post is somehow “missing the point” to The True Skeptics?
discussions about rape culture; so fucking enjoyable. [/sarc]
Jadehawk:
Very interesting.
Not being concerned with harm reduction…lack of empathy for others…I wonder how many of the pseudosEPTICS are libertarian…
Strange also, Jadehawk, that they are so prissy and conformist about having all the information there could possibly be before forming an opinion when not a few of them feel able to waste time because they don’t understand the definition of rape. (And won’t be told.)
Surely knowing that would be a good starting point if your aim is a sound conclusion.
@Jadehawk #583
I wonder how it feels to be like this? That these hyperskeptics would rather remain emotionally disconnected from the pain of another human being while they weigh up every possible scrap of evidence before making a judgement.
If that’s organised skepticism, then fuck it.
I do love all these people who are coming out and saying we wouldn’t believe the same of PZ. No, of course not; because PZ is a different person.
However, if the situation were identical, and it were simply PZ’s name instead of Shermer’s… then yes. If PZ had a history of harrassing women, that was well documented and indeed so serious that women feel the need to warn conference newcomers to be careful around him; if PZ had said sexist things in the past and then got all huffy when someone pointed it out; and if, following all that, I were to read an anonymous account which claimed that PZ had gotten her drunk and raped her, and that having thought about it I could see no benefit to the anonymous accuser nor to the person who published the account on her behalf… then yes, I totally would believe that PZ were a rapist, because that’s what the fucking multitude of evidence points to.
I fail to see how this is complicated. I really do.
Unlurking again.
Well done to PZ and the horde. With your help I moved from barely warm fundy to full on humanist, via atheism. I stand by you and your endeavours. Salutations from the bottom of the world. Kia Kaha!
@Jadehawk
You mention “the dialogue”. Sounds interesting and I missed it – do you happen to have a link?
Thanks
@Thumper; Atheist mate #587
They are genuinely expecting us to say ‘oh, well, that’s different’ because PZ is our ally. In other words, they would expect us to defend PZ in the same situation no matter what because that is what they are doing for Shermer.
And the other thing the hyperskeptics get wrong is what the default position is. To them, the default is “men always treat women kindly and respectfully*”, so that any deviation from that is seen as the odd thing (positive claim) that must be substantiated; in reality, the default setting for human interactions is “men often treat women badly”, so an instance of that isn’t an odd thing at all.
*another confounding problem is that their definition of “kindly and respectfully” doesn’t quite line up with what that would actually mean
“I’d be a Libertarian, if they weren’t all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.”
—Berkeley Breathed
it wasn’t, for the most part. it was tedious and didn’t go anywhere. but if you like, here’s a link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/04/15/moving-right-along/
@581. Stacy :
Seconded (Thirded? Umpteen hundred and umpty umped?) by me.
I believe Jane Doe and I believe PZ and those doing otherwise need to ask themselves why and seriously reconsider.
@Loud
Yes. What they want is us to say “No, I woudn’t believe it of PZ” so they can go “Aha! Unskeptical!”. They appear unable to see the irony, considering that, as you say, that is exactly what they are doing with Shermer.
They are the ones being unskeptical.
Sorry, to clarify: When I said I fail to see how this is complicated, I was referring to the fact that the vast multitude of evidence points to the fact that the accusations have merit.
You did tell everyone the octopus was unharmed and could leave that jar anytime it chose right?
I choose the side of PZ Myers & Jane Doe and respecting other people and their right to control their own fucking bodies! I’m on the side of feminism and human rights. And I believe Shermer is almost certainly (99.999 %) guilty of rape because of the evidence presented here.
The Vicar:
Y’know, you’re right.
The very first post on all threads relating to sexism should contain a list of links to required reading, since it appears every post brings fresh rotten meat from the ‘pit. If it’s the very first post, with fireworks and gold stars, there’s no question.
I know it’d be a little extra effort for PZ or whoever volunteered to do that, but it’d definitely help shorten some of these arguments at the all-you-can-eat buffet at the Golden Doucehweasel. We can reduce a lot of responses into one: “Have you read the links in post #1?”
PT’s crowd has got their remnants of a tribe thing going on this now – on the Uncommon Dissent page for some reason. Mostly it’s the same “no evidence” and “innocent until proven guilty” line of bullshit by a few (there are ONLY a few, really) people – who generally are pretty darn on-the-ball, but also some of that “we’re in this together, so SHUT UP!” stuff, so it’s saddening.
The dirty part is the “our gang” sniping about PZ’s “sad error” on taking this on so incompetently, and the shittiness of the horde here (compared to the glancing, light wit of their now small and friendly group).
I enjoy the site, mostly, and the people, but it does have an echo chamber feel, now that I disagree with the main line that’s coming down.
I was going to make my first comment in years – measured but civil enough – and try to call a couple of them on it, but now I have to be “permitted” to post, even after having registered. Maybe it’s an error, or my incompetence, but if not, they really have to get out more.
My takeaway from the ‘grenade’ post was simple: I have no particular reason to disbelieve the words of the women who’ve spoken up to PZ and others, especially given the minimal harm it will do to Shermer for me to believe that much: I simply won’t hang around him while he’s drinking. I don’t hang around a lot of drinking anymore anyway, because my meds make drinking strongly counterindicated (as in, I could die), and because I’ve been attacked twice by men reeking of alcohol.
But that’d be the extent of my behaviour changes; well, that and that I’d mention that concern if I thought there was a risk that someone would be likely to put herself in that place without knowing what she was headed for.
And yes, I do feel much more of an obligation to my fellow women who are the likely targets of such a practice than I do to the reputation of the man who, on a significant preponderance of the evidence presented, probably did exactly what he’s said to have done. Harm-reduction is a fairly simple principle to make the decision on: “Which action that I could take will result in the least harm?” Since I rate “lack of easy access to people he might want to rape” as a pretty small harm to Shermer, and “possibility of being raped” as a pretty BIG harm to any potential victim, there is no difficulty whatsoever in saying that the witnesses PZ reported on are evidence enough for me to take that choice.
If I face two paths through a mountain forest, and on one trailhead is a board with a few signs saying “I saw a bear down this path”, while on the other there are a few signs saying “no bears spotted here”, I’d be a poor fellow-member of society to insist that the signs saying “I saw a bear” must be removed because it’s unfair to the bear unless there are pictures and human bones and bear spoor to be found.
Our hyperseptic friends, OTOH, would insist that the bear will suffer terribly from not having a fresh supply of new people to eat, and that it’s grossly unfair to talk dirt about the path where the bear is until there are bones and spoor to point to. The fairness to the people who may be mauled (pun intended) by the bear has no place in their world; only the bear’s perspective matters.
And the “big gun” we’ve seen hauled out in this thread is, “Well, if you saw some of those same signs about the bear posted on the other trail, would you also avoid that trail?” To which the obvious answer is, “Um, DERP? Yes, of course I would.”
@Jadehawk
Ah, that dialogue. I did read some of the early bits, but didn’t follow till the bitter end.
Thanks for the link.
@Cain(#532):
I’m going to be lazy and ask if you could please stick all those links you have currently collected as info dump on the wiki so that I (and others) can mooch of your hard work and get the links up if we get into a thread needing them.
@Thumper; Atheist mate(#587):
Good observation. I’m going to add this little bit since the hyper-skeptics to don’t want to understand where we are in the pecking order of who gets to know what.
We, as peanut gallery & other assorted observers, do not have the (divine) right, the one that the hyper-skeptics seem to think they are entitled to, to know her name or that of the other people who have come out to corroborate her story.
This is not a zoo. Go fuck yourself.
The other thing about “what if this was Shermer saying it about PZ?!” nonsense:
The only way to make it equivalent to this situation, for me, would be if the person publishing the accusation was someone of whom I had spent years reading their daily take on things, felt like I had a pretty good handle on their ethics and their standard of judgement, someone I trusted. It helps that the person accused is someone of whom my main memory is him saying that guys are better than skepticism than women are, and then threw a fit when people pointed out that was crap. So yeah, this isn’t something that exists in a vacuum. My own prior experiences regarding both of these people point towards it being likely. (like if the one bear sign path was pointing at a forest just like the ones bears like, and the other bear path sign was pointing at a sauna.)
Good point, carlie, as usual. :)
Clydey2times, @250,
I know I am late to the party, and I know that these questions have been answered before, but I like them so I am going to answer them from my personal perspective.
Question 1:
Question 2:
My answer to Question 1:
With the emphasis on the word “provisionally”, yes. Yes. YES!!!!! Unequivocally so. It is demonstrably the null hypothesis that a person making a claim of having been raped is telling the truth.
Even a brief scan over rape statistics in any nation on the planet (where available, obviously!) will show you that the incidence of false accusations of rape is vastly lower than the incidence of rape. That means more women are raped than women who falsely claim they have been raped make those claims. More than that, of those women who come forward and make claims of having been raped, the vast majority have been raped. Again, this is independent of simple outcomes like conviction of a rapist. More times than I can comfortably conceive, no conviction happens in cases of obvious rape. There’s a difference between proving someone has been raped and proving the accused rapist actually did it.
On that very simple, very mathematical, very demonstrable basis, yes, if confronted out of the blue by some hypothetical, unknown woman making an accusation of rape, I would PROVISIONALLY treat that claim as true because it is the null hypothesis given the Bayesian priors we have available to us.
The same would go for a male victim of rape, by the way.
My answer to Question 2:
Again, if all context is identical and we are swapping out MS and putting PZ in, keeping that context, then yes. Yes. YES!!!! Unequivocally so. It too, is demonstrably the null hypothesis.
What we need to know is what is the minimal evidence available to an outsider like me.
1) We know that MS has a reputation for harassing female conference attendees. He has been the subject of warnings by many people in the sceptic/atheist communities for many years. There are people who have experienced his sexually harassing/abusing conduct first hand and have spoken of it by warning others, amongst other things. Even I, a relatively unconnected man on the other side of the Atlantic (generally) from MS know about these rumours. It’s not the first time the subject of sexual harassment/sexual assault perpetrated by MS has come up. So we have a history. Not the world’s most concrete history, but certainly a large amount of witness testimony (not hearsay) that would be admissible in court. This is part of the context around this accusation, and context is important.
2) The statistical concepts discussed in answer to Question 1.
3) The accuser of MS is known to PZ. I.e. the accuser is only unknown to us outsiders. Unless we are entertaining conspiracy theories and what not, the most parsimonious assumption is that PZ is telling the truth (on that more later).
4) The proxy (PZ) by which the accusation has been made is known to be a person of reliable honesty in these sorts of matters relative to background honesty. I.e. PZ has a general reputation for reliability, honesty and bluntness. That does not mean he cannot be wrong, dishonest or circumlocutory. Of course he can, he’s human. But again, as with 1), this is history, context. It provides some modifier to our prior probabilities.
For me that’s it. There are other details and wrinkles, but that, I think, is nearly a minimal set. Maybe not a global minimum!
So replace MS in all those points with PZ. I.e. make the CLAIM and the CONTEXT identical, then sure, yes I’d believe that PZ was provisionally likely to be a rapist as accused. Why would I not? The same priors lead me to the same damn conclusion. This is not rocket surgery.
I don’t have any great vested interest in PZ NOT being a rapist other than simple human decency (I don’t want people raped, dammit) and I have vaguely friendly feelings towards him as someone who has educated and entertained me remotely over the years for free, and who I once shared a beer with in a pub in Downe, Kent. I’m sure if we got to know each other better an amazing bromance of Hollywood proportions would ensue and Buddy movie antics would abound. We’d probably solve a crime or something. Of course we could loathe each other bitterly and I’d end up mocking his beard. A lot. Of course I already do that a bit.
Perhaps it would surprise you to know some additional facts: I am pissed off with my sceptic/atheist “heroes”. I can disagree with people and still like them, but I won’t tolerate recalcitrant, unrepentant bigotry that is immune to basic reason. So D J Grothe, Thunderf00t, Mr Deity, Michael Shermer, Ben Radford, Penn Jilette, and so on and so on and so on have all, in my view, let me down (that’s the kindest possible thing I can say btw, some have done worse). My “heroes” (I don’t really have heroes) have feet of clay. SERIOUS feet of clay in some cases. I am disappointed in most cases, enraged in a few, actively hostile now in even fewer.
And yes, I’m sure my feeling disappointed and let down and hostile towards them/some of them will not make the slightest bit of difference to them. I do know I, a total non entity when it comes to this field, am not significant enough to hit their radar. But my money no longer goes to organisations and individuals that support/represent these people, it did before. I do not voice my support for these individuals and organisations etc, just once voice, amongst many. My money and support now goes elsewhere. It’s the most I can easily do at a distance other than outright campaigning for specific outcomes, and I have enough on my plate with work, family, voluntary work and other activism closer to home. I do what I CAN because I cannot do everything. Lots of people feel the same way, and this is going to have an effect in a competitive charity market.
Louis
@who cares #602
This too. Why can’t these people understand that the victim has a right to privacy should she want it?
@piegasm #603
Literally crying with laughter right now :)
Aren’t we doing exactly what we are supposed to do according to libertarianism? Joe eats at a restaurant and dies (no boards of health in a libertarian paradise,) word gets around (highly effective media outlets in a libertarian paradise,) and the restaurant goes out of business, saving coutless lives. So if someone is a sexual predator, we get the word out so everyone can avoid that person. No government required! Libertarianism for the win!
rr @ 608: The bit you’re missing is the hidden premise, the same one that people tend to have when they say “I’d like to have lived in (the antebellum South/mediaeval Europe/samurai-era Japan/ancient Rome/classical Athens/et c., et c..)”: they’re always imagining themselves as part of the upper classes. Same with libertarians; they assume they’d be the 1%, sipping untaxed champagne from a local sweatshop-produced lady’s court shoe, rather than the vastly more likely prospect that they’d be the night shift on the spit-turning treadmill for the 1%’s dinner. I mean, obviously, with their intellect, Twoo Libertarians/Skeptics/Anarchists would be the Dictator-for-Life of their very own castle, right?
Fortunately for the rest of us, Afghanistan and Iraq (unwillingly), and Somalia and Syria (somewhat more domestically), have given us a sparklingly clear picture of the joys of tiny government and no nasty evil tyrants insisting on robbing honest swindlers of their hard-grifted/inherited cash. Our glibertarian friends, of course, are quite sure they’d be the warlord in these Walter Mitty scenarios; they’d do well to talk to some of the people who’ve lived in these de facto libertarian paradises, and ask them how awesome they found it. Of course, that’s rather tricky, because the ones who could, got the hell out and are scattered in Yet Another Diaspora or Two, and the ones remaining are too busy scrambling to stay alive to be arsed deflating some libertarian’s transrectally-inflated thought balloons.
I hope his stupid ain’t contagious
Here he is now, to educate us
Asking questions just to needle
A mosquito, a doucheweasel
Yeah
LOL, nice one, UnknownEric. :)
Also, earworm, you thundering JERK. ;)
Thumper:
In this, there is a whole herd of oliphants the hyperskeptical geniuses are missing. If PZ had a history similar to Shermer’s, most of the Horde wouldn’t be here in the first place.
Who Cares:
Good idea. I’ll get that done today. Thank you.
Caine,
Quoted for gigantic amounts of fucking ginormous truth in so many damned ways.
Louis
Caine, Fleur du mal #612
And even more to the point, he’s demonstrably far removed from being like Shermer, in his vociferous pro-woman, anti-sexist stance.
So the hyperskeptic geniuses who are using the ‘turn it around’ defence are so off the mark it’s untrue.
Fucking skepticism, how does it work?
rr
Ahahahaha, that’s just lovely.
RE: What if PZ was accused?
PZ has, for years, emphasised the need for changes in how we view consent (i.e. yes means yes; enthousiastic consent), lended his voice to call out sexism and sexual harrassment in this comunity, and, most importantly, spoken up about the disgusting way our culture often treats rape victims. PZ’s history is incongruent with the claim that he’s committed sexual assault; the same cannot be said for Shermer.
Had PZ just been some college professor, yes, I’d think the claim was likely true. That’s not the case, however.
Okay, I have placed the Handy Link Dump on my page on the wiki, because I’m wiki-stupid. If one of the smart-wiki people know a better place for it, help yourself, please!
http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/Caine,_Fleur_du_mal
@Thumper
@75
I mean it’s third-party evidence in the eyes of any lawyers who get involved in this, because…well, forgive me if I’ve got this wrong, but as I understand it, according to the original text of the quote under “Further corroboration” in an earlier version of the post, the information came to PZ from the anonymous woman not directly, but through a third party. This is something mentioned by Shermer’s lawyers in the cease-and-desist letter.
Andy Kimber, just a friendly warning here: this is not a courtroom. This is also not the place to re-hash what has already been discussed, at length, across many threads. Do not start up again. Thank you.
Oh, I’m sorry! I was just trying to explain what I meant to someone who questioned it. Nuff said!
@Caine #612
Yeah, I nearly added a footnote saying that if PZ had a history similar to Shermer’s, I wouldn’t be reading him and neither would the vast majority of the Horde… but then I realised that would require a load more context in order to make my hypothetical make sense, and the scenario I was presenting was probably complex enough for anyone who thinks “What if it was PZ?!?!” is a “gotcha” question.
@Andy Kimber
I was under the impression the woman gave it to PZ directly, but the point is moot and I don’t think we’re in disagreement elsewhere, so no matter :)
Shermer’s lawyers were wrong. A lot of things in that letter were completely nonsensical.
I got the information from my source directly.
If I had even rumors of a history like that, I’d agree that women were justified in avoiding me, and I’d try to correct my behavior to prevent further misunderstandings.
Andy, thanks! You’re someone who made my day better by orders of magnitude. :D
Thumper:
I know, I just didn’t want anyone to miss the sweet silver mine in what you said. I realize it’s a given for most of the Horde, but when it comes to the hyperskeptical geniuses, everything must be spelled out. In crayon.
Actually, IME, they tend to fall back on their favorite line; those Somalians and Syrians and Iraqis just aren’t Scotsmen, you see. If they were, then True Libertarianism™ would spread across the land, bringing freedom and prosperity in its wake. (How thinly veiled the racism is can vary by libertarian).
Well, and the set of Ken Ham™ Automated Ideorelative Goalposts (get your AIG today!), guaranteed to make any field goal attempt come up short.
@CaitieCat, Jacob Schmidt
Just my (not very good) satire of a libertarian solution. I actually heard Harry Browne (US libertarian party presidential candidate in 2000) say that the proper solution to racial discrimination against blacks in the US south was for them to move somewhere else!
I’d do a 2 or 3 word set. Something ending in an “oo” sound, then the word “ya”, as in slang for “you”. Like “couldn’t do ya” or “They’ll unglue ya”.
PSA
“Default hypothesis” and “null hypothesis” aren’t synonyms. A default hypothesis is what you’re supposed to fall back on when a burden of proof for another hypothesis hasn’t been satisfied. The null hypothesis is a specific type of default hypothesis, specifically one stating that there is no relationship between the variables tested.
End of PSA
Jadehawk, I’ve added your PSA to the Handy Dandy Thread Link Dump. Thanks.
You’ve betrayed those of us who are abuse & rape survivors. You’ve published unsubstantiated gossip, named a name with out evidence. You’ve added to the argument that we survivors are: lying, hysterical, vindictive, mercenary, self-pitying, deluded, lynch mobs, etc. I don’t need some white knight in shining armor to rescue me from the Bad Menz. You’re hijacking the convo re: sexual abuse & focused all the attention on yourself & men of privilege. You’ve silenced survivors, rather than supporting us. For your own ego gratification, for brownie points, or to see yourself as a hero, you’ve sold me out. Mister, I live with brain injuries, ptsd & mutilated genitals as a result of the abuses I’ve suffered. I live in abject poverty, malnutrition & isolation. And you just put your white, male boot on my neck again. At this point, I’d have to say the foul jerks who said you’re creating a cult might have been on to something: a cult of personality, perhaps. Please close your mouth, open your ears and let someone besides str8, cis whit boiz of privilege have a forum. I won’t forgive nor forget what you’ve done.
Alert sent.
Just in case there are still some “it’s all Tribalism” lurkers still lurking. I’ll add my voice to this one. I’d be convinced on even less evidence than what we have for Shermer’s guilt. With Shermer, as has been pointed out, we (or at least some people in the know) have years’ worth of testimony from women in the community, we have his sexist statement–despite his own personal knowledge of how many great women (in the professional sense, not in the bedded trophy sense) there are on the atheosceptical speaking circuit–and his reaction to being called out on it. However, if someone who has their own established credibility in the feminist atheist intersection of the community were to have published a Jane Doe account identical to the one in the grenade post even given the counter-evidence of PZ’s built up reputation as a progressive, feminist advocate, I’d still provisionally believe the testimony of Jane Doe.
Why? Because rape is common. It’s not far-fetched for someone to talk a good talk, but turn out to be a complete hypocrite abuser later on or behind closed doors.* How many predators of children are charming and lovable but turn out to be rapists? In fact, many rapists are good at appearing good. Alcohol is the most dirt common rape drug out there, so a guy who appears trustworthy and benign is likely to use it as a preferred tool. What could be easier than using the trust you’ve built up with your reputation to get a woman alone and too drunk to consent?
I’d be sad. I’d be disappointed. I’d keep my eye out for A) further corroboration (such as was presented in the grenade post’s updates) B) reports of possible motives for a false allegation.* But, yes. I’d believe Jane Doe and I’d act accordingly. I’d keep away from Pharyngula. I’d avoid buying PZ’s books. I’d avoid interacting with him at any events. And I’d warn other women to stay away too.
As for picking a side, I’ve been standing on this side with accelerant and matches at the ready for a while.
*In fact, I’ve encountered this in my personal life more than once.
**Which is, of course, the reason I don’t believe any of the accounts coming out about him now: non-reliable sources + motive for retaliation do not a credible allegation make.
Ibis3:
*fistbump* I have matches. Lots of matches.
Is it just me, or is the arglebargle getting even more pathetic and desperate?
if you feel like beating your head against a doucheweasel, by all means, do so.
Thank you for that eyeworm. I used to have friends who owned ferrets, and the image of giving a Glasgow Kiss to a doucheweasel, only to have it splatter all over the landscape is both….very disturbing and somewhat gratifying.
imnotandrei:
I would say sorry, but I think you got me back, with that disturbingly wonderful description.
Anybody see this yet – Shermer has responded.
http://buffalobeast.com/interview-with-famed-skeptictrigger-warning-michael-shermer/
Dammit mikeyb! I was just going to post Stephanie’s summary and link to that very thing.
Seriously, go read it. You’ll be so glad you did.
Goodness me. Shermer comes across as one scared control freak.*
*I don’t generally have anything against control freaks, I am one.
Oh my goo’ness!
The depth of that hole!
Chigau:
It was most impressive. He definitely gets an award on the digging front.
It’s hearsay, isn’t it?
<ducks>
Hello Caine, I know I am about 200+ comments late, but thank you for the warm welcome. I am glad to be on the this side of the “deep rifts”.
Merlin, no worries, and it’s always nice to welcome someone like you to this side of the trench. : D
Did I miss an update?
From the comments after the “interview” at mikeyb’s link:
” the sad part is so many people know who she is. And PZ told her he can no longer talk to her. He’s throwing her under the bus, as his lawyers told her he can no longer communicate with her. he used her. She now has to get a lawyer she can not afford.”
Given my statement upthread, I should point out that I would also believe the testimony of another testimony given in similar circumstances.
Gaahh, my offering to the dog of typo’s clearly wasn’t sufficient.
I honestly think that it was just one person bullshitting, but that’s just my hunch for the time being.
Tony, not that I’m aware of. The only possibilities I can think of are that “Pilar” is making shit up, or that “Pilar” knows Jane Doe and is willing to betray her confidence for the sake of being able to reveal inside information in a comment. To be charitable to “Pilar,” I’ll assume the first option until I see some evidence that proves otherwise.
Yeah, I should have not even posted the question. At least not before checking any new threads here.
@650: I think that makes sense.
Tony, given the amount of people in that thread saying nasty stuff about PZ, it’s hardly surprising someone would be attempting to act as they had inside info about it all. Remember the fake allegation stories some idiot posted in the Epic Grenade? The one where someone stole a woman’s account of her rape?
If ‘Pilar’ actually knew anything, I expect it would be all over the blogosphere, not buried in the comments section of an interview.
I also noted that ‘Pilar’ completely confused (or outright lied about) Carrie Poppy’s role in this situation, so I don’t think there’s anything to be concerned about.
That ass Clydey2Times just posted to my blog, accusing me of choosing to ban someone. Hey, doucheweasels, get the facts straight before you post on my blog. It’s the least you can do. For the record, I don’t choose to ban anyone here. The only people with that power are PZ and Chris Clarke.
Caine:
Control freaks
Used her for what? Putting his reputation on the line? Getting himself threatened with a lawsuit? For all these people go on and on and on about Jane Doe’s supposed anonymity, they certainly don’t seem to have a problem with asking people to take their word for things. Their actually anonymous word, at that. The mind. It boggles.
I’m not going to bother reading any comments here. I just want to say thank you PZ Myers for sharing. It took a lot of bravery to do what you did – what I’ll call, for lack of better wording, the right thing. I just found your blog today and I have to say I was very impressed at how you acted in what was obviously a moral quandary. I don’t know what sort of flack you are getting but I wanted to at least add one more voice to the “I think ya dun good” column. Well done!
@656:
Thanks for speaking up.
Unlike YouTube, the comments here tend heavily toward caring, compassionate humans.
the backlash is deserving towards a slandering self serving shit like yourself.
you know that funny term “due process?” It’s not just for the courts. It’s a philosophy on how justice and fairness actually work. Something to which you seem painfully unacquainted.
But hey, so far as you have your happy band of witch hunters that bolster your delusion self perception as a white knight, it’s all good right?
oh, wait, you’re losing those. And will even more so once this goes to court. Too bad, so sad.
Perhaps you should consider adopting a fundamentalist religion where you never have to worry about being taken to task? Finally get to live out your Jim Jones fantasies?
In disdain,
Jeffrey Lee Robinson
Gee, what a baldfaced lie without a soupcon of EVIDENCE to back it up. From there on, stupidity reigns.
it’s amazing how much the comments here sound like Christians towards their pastor.
that give you a woody, PZ?
Liar.