Sexual misconduct allegations against Radford, Shermer, et al. Part 2

[colander]

Who: In case you haven't noticed, conference policies have been a big deal during the last years. Also a TAM Code of Conduct has been formulated. I cannot provide you with a list of all people who fought for policies. Just, as a matter of fact, RemieV was among them.
Why they should care: Because the policies cannot be enforced if the staff members themselves are too drunk to notice what's going on. Besides, senselessly drunk staff members aren't creating the sort of atmosphere that the policies are supposed to ensure.
Why I raise the issue: Because I feel so and I don't need your permission to do so.

Eh, those smell like shabby, ad-hoc justifications for your original comments. For one thing, conferences should be hiring dedicated professionals to monitor events and take complaints, not just leaving it up to conference event planners who are present at the events in part to participate in them like all the other attendees are.

More interestingly, though, you didn't just say staff members, did you? You referred specifically to female staff members. So, again, because I am still quite curious: why should we be interested in trying to regulate the drinking habits of female staff members?

 

[colander]

"Then there must be witnesses, a police report, a medical exam and finally a willingness to go over all the gory details with whatever voyeur wants a piece."

No I'm quite confident that Tsig's post discouraging women from reporting sexual assault to the authorities is equating police reports and medical examinations with voyeurism.

No she isn't. She's saying that both busybody prodding and dealing with the police are often humiliating and unpleasant experiences. If that offends you, that's too bad, because it's true. But she's not calling police actions voyeuristic. She's calling busybodies voyeuristic.

 

[Verklagekasper]

Eh, those smell like shabby, ad-hoc justifications

Uh-hum.

More interestingly, though, you didn't just say staff members, did you? You referred specifically to female staff members. So, again, because I am still quite curious: why should we be interested in trying to regulate the drinking habits of female staff members?

Read carefully. I did not say female staff were specifically required to be regulated but that "[the community] doesn't care if female staff members get drunk as a skunk". As is evident in this very case. If you really want to deny that, please tell who the people caring are.

 

[tsig]

Ah yes, thanks for this. It's sometimes hard to keep track of who said what when in these things, but yes I've read both statements before (and have just re-read them). I think there's a tiny bit of wiggle-room for Shermer if he wants to claim he was being discreet and gentlemanly in the email, but it's not something I'd give much credence to were he to try. I would certainly consider it to be far more reasonable to believe that either he was lying then or lying now or, even more credibly, that he has told two different lies at two different times.



Now you mention this like this, I think it's something I've heard said before. I don't think there's anything that raises it above the level of rumour and innuendo, but I didn't think you were just making a funny.

Incidentally, why do you often link to google searches rather than the thing you're actually referencing?

Shermer certainly has more reason to lie, he keeps his rep and doesn't have to admit that he can only score when the woman is bombed out of her mind, she, on the other hand, has nothing to gain but a public humiliation just so she can bring the Man down.

 

[tsig]

"Then there must be witnesses, a police report, a medical exam and finally a willingness to go over all the gory details with whatever voyeur wants a piece."

No I'm quite confident that Tsig's post discouraging women from reporting sexual assault to the authorities is equating police reports and medical examinations with voyeurism.

No, the voyeurism is the constant refrain "more details, more details".

(don't give up your day job, your mind-reading act stinks)

 

[tsig]

No she isn't. She's saying that both busybody prodding and dealing with the police are often humiliating and unpleasant experiences. If that offends you, that's too bad, because it's true. But she's not calling police actions voyeuristic. She's calling busybodies voyeuristic.

Yes, if someone gets robbed nobody asks if they resisted or if they gave their money willingly but in a rape case the women get asked the most private and insulting questions while the questioner proudly pulls on his skeptic t-shirt and smugly asks "Aren't we supposed to be skeptical?"

(corrected your post)

 

[shuttlt]

Yes, if someone gets robbed nobody asks if they resisted or if they gave their money willingly but in a rape case the women get asked the most private and insulting questions while the questioner proudly pulls on his skeptic t-shirt and smugly asks "Aren't we supposed to be skeptical?"

(corrected your post)

Is this really the case? In the recent case of the Django Unchained actress there seems to be a pretty detailed debate over motivations and actions and witnesses. In the Knox thread you've got the same thing. Surely wherever you have two competing viewpoints, or claims to truth, you have a debate over facts, peoples memory and honesty questioned, claims of witnesses pushed etc. I know these aren't strictly speaking robberies, but why would a robbery not be questioned? If we had one member of the forum accuse another of theft, who in turn denied it... would there not be questions? Would people not hope for witnesses and evidence?

 

[colander]

Uh-hum.

Read carefully. I did not say female staff were specifically required to be regulated but that "[the community] doesn't care if female staff members get drunk as a skunk". As is evident in this very case. If you really want to deny that, please tell who the people caring are.

Do you feel that "the community" should care about female staffers getting drunk? If so, why?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Shermer ... doesn't have to admit that he can only score when the woman is bombed out of her mind, ...

This opinion seriously underestimates the attraction people (both genders) have to fame.

I find it hard to believe Shermer can't score with women. Maybe he finds drunk women less resistant, or maybe he just drinks a lot himself and ends up with women who also drink (I'd bet on the latter) but I'm sure he could score fairly easily. He's on TV, he's written books that sell well. I'm not condemning the whole female gender to such trivial attractions, but there are plenty of women out there who are.


... Or maybe he finds he has to lie less or can get out of it more easily in the morning if he doesn't have to overly flatter women to make them think he likes them for more than sex.

 

[Verklagekasper]

Do you feel that "the community" should care about female staffers getting drunk? If so, why?

I feel that women who get drunk at conferences to the point that they don't know where they are and what they do have issues that cannot be fixed by policing men.

 

[squealpiggy]

No, the voyeurism is the constant refrain "more details, more details".

(don't give up your day job, your mind-reading act stinks)

Your comment was in reference to reporting the crime to the relevant authorities. The "more details" seems to be more in response to failure to report.

One must balance respect for alleged victims with the need for a just trial for the accused.

 

[colander]

I feel that women who get drunk at conferences to the point that they don't know where they are and what they do have issues that cannot be fixed by policing men.

That is very interesting! Can you tell me a little more about these "issues" you speak of? Must the drinker be both a woman and at a conference in order for you to be able to diagnose these issues?

 

[d4m10n]

One must balance respect for alleged victims with the need for a just trial for the accused.

If you are designing a system of criminal justice, yes. If you're in an internet thread, not so much.

 

[ThunderChunky]

An account which conflicts with the plain meaning of his e-mail to Wagg right after the event itself, in which the alleged hookup was just a bunch of "gossip rumors" invented by a couple of sexually frustrated skepbros, and Alison was just a "good kid" rather than someone that he would try to have sex with.

From the email it's unclear what the actual rumors referred to were and how they originated, so we cannot decipher what Shermer was implying did not happen. To give him the benefit, the fact that he brought up how he was caught avoiding drinks implies that alcohol had something significant to do with the rumors and that they were not just about sex. The recipient of the email (apparently Wagg?) would have to come forward and explain the context because that correspondence altogether is quite strange.

 

[qayak]

From the email it's unclear what the actual rumors referred to were and how they originated, so we cannot decipher what Shermer was implying did not happen. To give him the benefit, the fact that he brought up how he was caught avoiding drinks implies that alcohol had something significant to do with the rumors and that they were not just about sex. The recipient of the email (apparently Wagg?) would have to come forward and explain the context because that correspondence altogether is quite strange.

Actually, the rumours were about Smith according to the email and didn't seem to have anything to do with Shermer except that he apparently offered to look into it for Wagg.

It could be as Shermer says, two guys spreading rumours about her. Being as the rumours were described as viscous I suspect it was something beyond alcohol consumption.

 

[qayak]

Do you feel that "the community" should care about female staffers getting drunk? If so, why?

In this instance, absofreakinglutely!

She was an employee of the company hosting the event. Shermer was an invited speaker. She went out with Shermer and got hammered. Doesn't reflect well on the company.

Shermer being more experienced with such events had a simple way to avoid getting hammered. He simply didn't drink what was given to him.

 

[qayak]

Back to the wheel chair thing. Smith walked from the elevator to her room but when she wanted to go home she needed a wheel chair.

Doesn't Smith have a heart condition? Was the wheel chair for that or because she couldn't walk due to an advanced state of inebriation that came about after walking back to her room?

We need a witness. I suppose one will conveniently show up soon. They often do.

 

[zooterkin]

Actually, the rumours were about Smith according to the email and didn't seem to have anything to do with Shermer except that he apparently offered to look into it for Wagg.

It could be as Shermer says, two guys spreading rumours about her. Being as the rumours were described as viscous I suspect it was something beyond alcohol consumption.

Mud wrestling, perhaps?

 

[tsig]

Back to the wheel chair thing. Smith walked from the elevator to her room but when she wanted to go home she needed a wheel chair.

Doesn't Smith have a heart condition? Was the wheel chair for that or because she couldn't walk due to an advanced state of inebriation that came about after walking back to her room?

We need a witness. I suppose one will conveniently show up soon. They often do.

Way to shoot the messenger before the messenger even arrives.

 

[Donn]

We need a witness. I suppose one will conveniently show up soon. They often do.

Way to shoot the messenger before the messenger even arrives.

Yes. Indeed. Bang!

Imagine that kind of biased thinking from a policeman who is taking a rape victim's statement. At no point entertain that the victim is a real person who is telling the truth.