Neil Gaiman "cancelled"?

arthwollipot said:
"Cases like this". Examples?
Click to expand...
Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, Rolf Harris are examples of high-profile cases where women (actual victims) told friends at the time, and in which the abuser's behaviors were generally known but swept under the rug. Those woman were real victims, and they didn't send messages to their alleged abusers telling them couldn't wait until they saw them again so they could have some more. Pavlovich did, multiplke times from the very first time they met!!

arthwollipot said:
Also, "IMCE"? I haven't encountered that before. Do you mean "IMHO"?
Click to expand...
In My Considerable Experience. I have also been falsely accused. Additionally, I saw how my estranged step daughter responded to actual spousal abuse. Very differently to Pavlovich.


You might notice the second paragraph, the content of which makes a farce of some of the claims here by posters such as @Orphia Nay and @Safe-Keeper that I am some kind of misogynist because I won't bow down to the gods of #metoo and automatically believe a woman complainant by default. Pure comedy gold.

I will stand on my 12 year record here of being absolutely pro-women's rights. My body of work here speaks for itself.
 
smartcooky said:
In My Considerable Experience. I have also been falsely accused. Additionally, I saw how my estranged step daughter responded to actual spousal abuse. Very differently to Pavlovich.
Click to expand...
Your considerable experience does not justify assuming that rape victims are always lying. I seem to remember you were on Shermer's side too.
 
smartcooky said:
Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, Rolf Harris are examples of high-profile cases where women (actual victims) told friends at the time, and in which the abuser's behaviors were generally known but swept under the rug.
Click to expand...
As I, and others, have pointed out, Pavlovich DID tell others about this. As for whether this behaviour was "well-known" there are something like nine women complaining about his behaviour at this point.

Generally speaking, the false allegations that you point out tend to be single incidents. But when they begin to take on a familiar pattern then the accusations come across as more credible.

For example, we have these two...

Another accuser is Kendra Stout, who was 18 years old when she first met Gaiman at a book signing in Florida. Their relationship turned physical around three years later, and in 2007 she alleges he raped her during a trip to the Cornish countryside after she repeatedly told him “no” due to having a bad UTI. Stout filed a police report in October, according to NY Mag.

Katherine Kendall, who was 22 when she first met Gaiman in 2012, also spoke out, alleging that Gaiman attempted to assault her in his tour bus after she had told him she didn’t want to have sex with him. New York Magazine reports that years later, he gave her $60,000 for therapy to — as he put it in a recorded phone call — “make up for the damage.”
Click to expand...

Link
 
Remember that even if there is a broadly consensual relationship, it does not mean that sexual abuse and rape cannot happen in that relationship.

That is the whole point of recognizing the crime of marital rape.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Your selective interpretation of Pavlovich's responses.
Click to expand...
Its not ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ selective at all. Words have meanings... Pavlovich wrote what she bloody well wrote, and there is no escaping it, and no amount of speculative psyschobabble is going to convince me that she didn't mean exactly what she wrote...

Have you found a trasnscript of the podcast you want me to read? You'd be better spending your time finding that than making stupid, ill-advised, evidence-free, knee-jerk remarks.
 
Last edited:
I think in a lot of these cases, we cannot know the truth for sure.

That said, does Gaiman dispute that on the first day he met the new nanny he ran a bath for her and then turned up naked and got in the bath?

This sounds almost exactly like some of the behaviour that Weinstein was accused of and which was considered beyond the pale. Why is it, then, that Gaiman is in the clear for that?

Even if it turns out that she was a willing participant it does hint, at the very least, that he is more than willing to take long shot risks in which such gambits are part of his usual behaviour. The string of other allegations also seems to bolster this idea.

At the very least, I don't know how someone here can be burgeoning their credentials for supporting female victims of rape and abuse with, first this broadside against other forumites...

smartcooky said:
Seeing the number of posters here on this forum attacking and mocking the female victims of abuse and rape, while defending their rapists, has prompted me to post the story here.
Click to expand...

...followed by this broadside against an alleged victim...

smartcooky said:
...

IMO, she's simply a gold-digger looking for a payday
Click to expand...
 
arthwollipot said:
Your considerable experience does not justify assuming that rape victims are always lying.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but my considerable experience allows me to make up my own ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ mind as to whether I believe them or not.

arthwollipot said:
I seem to remember you were on Shermer's side too.
Click to expand...
Who is Shermer?

And if you have been paying attention, you might also remember that I was on the side of Rowena Chiu, Carolyn Doe, Jules Bindi, Cynthia Burr, Annie Farmer, Kate Doe, Jane Doe, Virginia Giuffre, Alexandria Canosa, Melissa Thomson, Amy Israel, Paula Wachowiak et al.

I doubt you'll even know who they are without a Google search.
 
smartcooky said:
And if you have been paying attention, you might also remember that I was on the side of Rowena Chiu, Carolyn Doe, Jules Bindi, Cynthia Burr, Annie Farmer, Kate Doe, Jane Doe, Virginia Giuffre, Alexandria Canosa, Melissa Thomson, Amy Israel, Paula Wachowiak et al.

I doubt you'll even know who they are without a Google search.
Click to expand...
Weird flex. Jane Doe obviously isn’t a real name so why are you bragging about being on her side when others won’t recognize the name without Googling.

This is more bad arguing from you. Just an attempt at pretending to be a better person than the person you are arguing with to avoid having to discuss the actual topic.

For what it is worth there is only one name I recognize there and that is Virginia Giuffre, so I assume the others have something to do with Epstein. Do you really think you get Brownie points for “being on the side” of Epstein’s victims?
 
Smartcooky, you said you hadn't read the thread when you joined in the other day.

I haven't found a transcript, there doesn't seem to be one, but I made comprehensive notes (4570 words) when I listened to it.

Those comprehensive notes are in the first few pages of the thread.

If you spent some time reading the thread, instead of fighting off queries of your posts, you might find you have to do less of the latter.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Smartcooky, you said you hadn't read the thread when you joined in the other day.

I haven't found a transcript, there doesn't seem to be one, but I made comprehensive notes (4570 words) when I listened to it.

Those comprehensive notes are in the first few pages of the thread.

If you spent some time reading the thread, instead of fighting off queries of your posts, you might find you have to do less of the latter.
Click to expand...
For anyone interested, you can easily use AI transcription programmes like Otter.ai to automatically generate the transcriptions of podcasts.
 
angrysoba said:
For anyone interested, you can easily use AI transcription programmes like Otter.ai to automatically generate the transcriptions of podcasts.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the suggestion. I've never willingly or knowingly used AI yet and don't feel like starting. Also, that earlier transcription wasn't great, was that from that programme?
 
Orphia Nay said:
Thanks for the suggestion. I've never willingly or knowingly used AI yet and don't feel like starting. Also, that earlier transcription wasn't great, was that from that programme?
Click to expand...
Which one? The one that I posted? It was from Apple Podcasts. Otter is better than that as it will identify different speakers. It won’t be perfect of course but accurate human-transcription is massively labour-intensive. Good transcribers will take about ten minutes to transcribe one minute of audio. So I would much prefer to use AI at least to begin with if I was going to transcribe seven hours of podcasts.
 
Puppycow said:
Transcripts and automatically generated subtitles are an ideal use case for AI. It isn't perfect, but it doesn't really need to be.
Click to expand...
It at least has to accurately reflect what its transcribing if you want to use it as evidence to support your claim. Otherwise, its next to useless!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom