The myth-making machine is chugging away, full steam ahead. One thing I’ve learned these last few years is that atheists are damned gullible, and all you need is a small number of people repeating the same crap endlessly (and oh, twitter is such a perfect medium for repetition), and there’s a solid chunk of the atheist community that will promptly just believe, because they want to have faith in their leaders.
Case in point: there is a rump of delusional atheists who have faith that a legal document is proof that Ben Radford is not a serial harasser. It’s sad to see. It’s too bad Radford didn’t save a lot of money and spend just $100 on some gold leaf and a sheepskin and get a certificate declaring that he was the second coming of Jesus Christ, because that would have at least gotten those atheists tithing to him.
Do read this clear-headed perspective at Dubito Ergo Sum on the matter if you still believe a civil case cleared out of court is indisputable proof of innocence. You clearly aren’t cynical enough to be a good atheist.
First, Radford hasn’t actually been cleared of any wrongdoing; CFI found sufficient cause to punish him for wrongdoing when the complaint was first made privately, and hasn’t (to my knowledge) since recanted or apologized or said they were wrong to do so.
Second, the court did not clear Radford of any wrongdoing, because the case was dismissed by consent of both parties. The court makes no statement regarding Radford’s wrongdoing, because the matter was settled out of court.
Third, no matter what the outcome of this case was, it couldn’t possibly clear Radford of any wrongdoing, because he was the plaintiff. The one accused of wrongdoing in this case was Karen Stollznow. At best, you could say that Karen Stollznow has been cleared of libel, assault, and slander, but even that would be an overstatement since, again, they settled out of court.
So yes, I will continue to believe this narrative, brah, because it actually is true that Mehta has misrepresented various aspects of this case, whether through ignorance, incompetence, bias, or some combination of the three. The question remains, though: if you characterize a situation in a way that turns out to be false, don’t you have an obligation to correct it?