Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Kevin_Lowe]

Not at all. What Im saying is that, for whatever reason, some men love to tap dance when the topic is violence against women.

All I'm saying is that, for whatever reason, some people love to attack the arguer when the topic is violence against women.

 

[Lorentz]

<removed on account of misreading>

 

[devnull]

Man, a guy just slammed into my car six years ago, and although my passenger and I said nothing at the time, and continued our professional relationship with him, I'd like everyone to shun him now.

#StillNotUninvited

So she's making it up? What would her motivation be?

 

[d4m10n]

So she's making it up?

I don't think anyone is saying that, at least not here. Everyone agrees that there was drinking followed by sex. The only question is whether Shermer knew (or reasonably suspected) that Smith was too far gone to meaningfully consent. Had someone interviewed the people present at the Scotch, Wine, and Cigar party then we might be able to answer this with some confidence, but no one did, because all of the JREF employees who knew about this event covered it up and went on to treat Shermer as persona grata. It is gauche to point that out, I know, but it is also the reason that we're left relying on memories from half a decade ago.

Along come the social justice advocates, well after the events in question, and they insist upon a "listen and believe" approach, where expressing doubt is considered rape apologism. If you followed the comments on the grenade post, the general theme from the natives was "How dare you disbelieve Jane Doe." That is an awful approach, as PZ ought to know, having once been falsely accused himself.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So she's making it up? What would her motivation be?

People do weird things occasionally. Plus a person could have all sorts of reasons to hate a given person other than having been raped by them. Asking people who've never met the accuser to speculate in such a way about a friend of yours seems both nasty and pointless.

Such things sometimes happen. They're outnumbered by the cases where accusers tell the truth, by a very large margin, but they happen. We don't always get to know why.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

ETA - According to Shermer, Smith made the decision to proposition him in a "very direct, assertive, and physical fashion" while still at the room party. Assign to that claim whatever probability you see fit.

That testimony can be ignored because we (SJWs) already know Shermer is guilty. That fact that he's denying the rape is evidence of the rape. Or something.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Along come the social justice advocates, well after the events in question, and they insist upon a "listen and believe" approach, where expressing doubt is considered rape apologism. If you followed the comments on the grenade post, the general theme from the natives was "How dare you disbelieve Jane Doe." That is an awful approach, as PZ ought to know, having once been falsely accused himself.

"Believe the victim" is one of the pillars upon which their religion is built.

Skeptics don't want to believe, they want to know.

 

[d4m10n]

Plus a person could have all sorts of reasons to hate a given person other than having been raped by them.

One can only begin to imagine.

 

[devnull]

Man, a guy just slammed into my car six years ago, and although my passenger and I said nothing at the time, and continued our professional relationship with him, I'd like everyone to shun him now.

#StillNotUninvited

What an amazing, and telling, misrepresentation of what happened.

Nobody is asking anyone to be shunned by the way. People can make their own judgements about the company they keep.

The incident was reported *the day after*, and numerous times since. The fact that the JREF decided not to act is immaterial. The fact that the victim was forced to continue to a professional relationship with Shermer due to the JREFs inaction is of course not her fault either.

There are member(s) on this very forum who can confirm that the victim was so inebriated that she was mumbling half conversations to nobody. And Shermer himself admitted that he was hiding drinks in order to remain sober, in a completely unsolicited email..... why would he send that btw, if everything was above board?

I still find it amazing that nobody can see the amazing double standard. When was the last time people questioned a man's claims of rape? If you hear of some guy being raped, say in jail, is your first reaction the same as when you hear of a woman being raped?

The victim in this case has no history of being a BS artist, has proven herself trustworthy, and has had to put up with crap like "you shouldnt have gotten drunk" with aplomb. Even without the evidence that we have, Id have no reason to doubt her at all. She's actually one of those rare, amazingly honest and open people.

Guys, Im hardly a radfem, far from it, but holy crap you need to take a look at yourselves.

 

[devnull]

That testimony can be ignored because we (SJWs) already know Shermer is guilty. That fact that he's denying the rape is evidence of the rape. Or something.

Jesus man, take his story, do some basic time math...... and then stretch to find another out for him (I guess).

BTW, when was the last time you send an email denying something nobody had accused you of yet? Happens all the time, right?

 

[d4m10n]

Nobody is asking anyone to be shunned by the way.

Seriously? The whole point of the "StillNotUninvited" and "ShermerShermerShermer" hashtags was to convince secular organizations to permanently blacklist the guy.

The incident was reported *the day after*, and numerous times since.

Reported to whom? We already know that Jeff and Alison knew about it. Who else was brought into the loop and how do you know?

The fact that the JREF decided not to act is immaterial.

It is immaterial to what happened, to be sure. It is totally material to our current situation, in which we find ourselves arguing about what people said and (seem to) remember without the ability to resort to any contemporaneous investigation.

The fact that the victim was forced to continue to a professional relationship with Shermer due to the JREFs inaction is of course not her fault either.

Forced by whom? Plait? Randi? Adams?

There are member(s) on this very forum who can confirm that the victim was so inebriated that she was mumbling half conversations to nobody.

Name one.

And Shermer himself admitted that he was hiding drinks in order to remain sober, in a completely unsolicited email...

There is nothing wrong with trying not to get utterly blasted when people are pouring you more than you care to imbibe.

...why would he send that btw, if everything was above board?

I believe the expression he used was "gossip rumors" or something like that. After witnessing the character assassination of Dr. Buzz0 as an alleged sex criminal voyeur, I tend to assume that rumors started in Vegas don't stay in Vegas.

The victim in this case has no history of being a BS artist, has proven herself trustworthy, and has had to put up with crap like "you shouldn't have gotten drunk" with aplomb. Even without the evidence that we have, I'd have no reason to doubt her at all.

I can only think of one reason.

"I spent another lovely portion of the evening with Dr. Michael Shermer of the Skeptic’s Society..."

http://remievandeross.tripod.com/reports/travels/dragoncon2008.html

 

[devnull]

Seriously? The whole point of the "StillNotUninvited" and "ShermerShermerShermer" hashtags was to convince secular organizations to permanently blacklist the guy.

Well, sorry. By nobody I actually meant Alison. What other people do is up to them.

Reported to whom? We already know that Jeff and Alison knew about it. Who else was brought into the loop and how do you know?

It was reported that very night actually, to the GM, as Alison was so upset. Later, Alison and Jeff told Phil, who appears to be suffering from some form of amnesia. Nobody acted.

It is immaterial to what happened, to be sure. It is totally material to our current situation, in which we find ourselves arguing about what people said and (seem to) remember without the ability to resort to any contemporaneous investigation.

If that's your belief, so be it. Feel free to hang with Shermer as much as you like. And obviously, youll be applying the same measure of evidence to everything else, right?

Forced by whom? Plait? Randi? Adams?

Forced by continued employment. Is this not obvious? I would have thought it was.

Name one.

a member came forward willing to be quoted in the article, but for some reason the journo just didnt use her. Im not convinced I should name her here, what value it would add etc.

There is nothing wrong with trying not to get utterly blasted when people are pouring you more than you care to imbibe.

uhuh. Much easier than saying "no thanks". That's not creepy.

I believe the expression he used was "gossip rumors" or something like that. After witnessing the character assassination of Dr. Buzz0 as an alleged sex criminal voyeur, I tend to assume that rumors started in Vegas don't stay in Vegas.

At the end of the day, Alison is believable, there are witnesses, Shermer's new timeline doesnt fit, and he sent an email in an attempt to cover his tracks. Cmon dude.

I can only think of one reason.

"I spent another lovely portion of the evening with Dr. Michael Shermer of the Skeptic’s Society..."

http://remievandeross.tripod.com/reports/travels/dragoncon2008.html

I think this was a wonderful troll Youve been raped by a guy, everyone you reported it to did nothing, all the MRAs come out of the woodwork to do their stretching.... Who else would you invite to a panel about sexual ethics and consent than a rapist and a rape crisis counsellor? Cmon man, that's pure genius.

 

[d4m10n]

I think this was a wonderful troll Youve been raped by a guy, everyone you reported it to did nothing, all the MRAs come out of the woodwork to do their stretching....

Didn't see any MRA’s stretching in 2008, but TBH, I wasn't terribly tuned in back then.

 

[One Tenth]

I still find it amazing that nobody can see the amazing double standard. When was the last time people questioned a man's claims of rape?

Are you seriously suggesting that male victims of rape are believed more readily, or otherwise treated better, than female victims of rape?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The victim in this case has no history of being a BS artist, has proven herself trustworthy...

 

[Axiom_Blade]

When was the last time people questioned a man's claims of rape?

Are you serious?

If you hear of some guy being raped, say in jail, is your first reaction the same as when you hear of a woman being raped?

I think the salient point is whether or not you like the person alleged to have been the rapist.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

One can only begin to imagine.

I said I'd stay out of this tedious and unproductive conversation this time round, but I really don't understand what you're saying here. You're citing as evidence that Smith would have reason to make up being raped by Shermer a post she made 2 years after the convention at which she claims she was raped in which she says that someone who we can assume to be Shermer rapes people. Can you explain your reasoning as to why you believe the post linked supports your point?

 

[d4m10n]

You're citing as evidence that Smith would have reason to make up being raped by Shermer a post she made 2 years after the convention at which she claims she was raped in which she says that someone who we can assume to be Shermer rapes people.

That is not what she said about the unnamed individual back then. What she did say was that he gets women drunk and lies about important things.

And for the record, I'm not saying she made anything up. We can be confident there was much drinking followed by (ethically murky) sex. The story seems to have evolved a bit over time, though, as the part about lying became a vestigial portion of the tale.

Unless, of course, that bit is about someone else altogether.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That is not what she said about the unnamed individual back then. What she did say was that he gets women drunk and lies about important things.

Perhaps we're differing on the definition of "rape", here. I consider having sex with someone under false pretences (i.e. "l[ying] about important things") to be rape.

But that's irrelevant. Re-reading the relevant posts, I think that I misunderstood what you were saying in your post. Although what you do appear to be implying is quite unpleasant on your part.

 

[d4m10n]

Although what you do appear to be implying is quite unpleasant on your part.

What I am implying is that morally salient details about what really happened are probably being left out.