• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Neil Gaiman "cancelled"?

@theprestige
Right, so the whole reading more into a stylistic flourish is just based on your imagining stuff beyond what was written, and what those words actually mean? Like, literally just your own flight of fantasy as to how that could fit in with something unrelated that happened in your imagination? :p

I mean, sure, I'm not the reality police, I'm not gonna drag you to jail for living inside your own fantasy. But I'm also not bound to play by the rules of being responsible for what only happened in your own active imagination :p
 
Last edited:
Again, what's the relevance? This happened in New York, not the UK (where it also seems to be illegal). He started threatening her with eviction when she rebuffed his advances years after this woman and her then husband moved in, and only after they were divorced. The idea that it was an upfront agreement is highly implausible in light of these facts, and inconsistent with either person's account. And even if it had been, it would still be a transgression (and quite possibly a criminal act) on his part, not on hers.

Once you actually said it happened in New York, the relevance of the original reasoning was exactly zero. But, you know, there's a hidden conditional there: you actually have to say first what your evidence is :p

As for the last part, it's patent nonsense even by legal definitions. It's not a binary situation, where either A is pure and good, and B is all evil, nor viceversa. Nor even correct, If I offered you money or a flat or other advantages in exchange for you bending over this table and letting me screw you, then, yes, I would be guilty of soliciting. Or "inciting" in UK terms. And I had already said Gaiman would fall under this either way. But if you accepted, you'd ALSO be a prostitute by definition. Both CAN and often enough ARE both true at the same time.

Basically it's not that kind of a stupid made-up false dichotomy fallacy.....
 
Last edited:
Once you actually said it happened in New York, the relevance was exactly zero. But, you know, there's a hidden conditional there: you actually have to say first what your evidence is :p
It was in the evidence that was already presented to you, and which you say you've read. The problem isn't that people aren't giving you the evidence, it's that you're either not reading it or not retaining it.

You're still just making your ignorance everybody else's problem.

As for the last part, it's patent nonsense even by legal definitions. It's not a binary situation, where either A is pure and good, and B is all evil, nor viceversa. If I offered you a flat in exchange for you bending over this table and letting me screw you, then, yes, I would be guilty of soliciting. Or "inciting" in UK terms. And I had already said Gaiman would fall under this either way. But if you accepted, you'd ALSO be a prostitute by definition. Both CAN and often enough ARE both true at the same time.
Again, this did not happen in the UK. "Incitement to prostitution" isn't relevant. The fact that threatening tenants with eviction if they don't engage in a sex act with you vitiates their ability to consent is. The crimes you'd likely be guilty of in the US would be things like criminal sexual harassment or sexual assault (in addition to the civil liabilities under the FHA).

I mean, find me an example of the victims of a similar scheme being charged with prostitution in the US.

The dichotomy that either A is 100% right and B is 100% wrong, or viceversa, is a stupid made-up false dichotomy fallacy.....
But that stupid made-up false dichotomy fallacy (are you getting paid by the word?) has not been presented. The fact that one party or the other isn't necessarily apportioned 100% of criminal responsibility does not entail that blame is always shared between parties. I do not see any basis for charging this woman with anything.

Sometimes, there's just a perpetrator and a victim.
 
Last edited:
It was in the evidence that was already presented to you, and which you say you've read.

Not in the evidence actually presented in this thread by the time I made that comment, IIRC. AGAIN, I don't owe it to you to slog through hours of podcasts, any more than I owe creationists to first read the whole works of Aquinas and Kalam philosophy to see if they're actually right. No matter how much you flail, I don't owe you to do the research to see that you're right. You know what evidence makes it X instead of Y? Then you present it :p

Sometimes, there's just a perpetrator and a victim.

And all the time, if you actually claim that or anything else to be the case, you should lead with the evidence :p
 
Last edited:
Not in the evidence actually presented in this thread, IIRC.
YDNRC. It's in the Guardian article zooterkin helpfully linked to, specifically for you.

AGAIN, I don't owe it to you to slow through hours of podcasts, any more than I owe creationists to first read the whole works of Aquinas and Kalam philosophy to see if they're actually right. No matter how much you flail, I don't owe you to do the research to see that you're right.
I'm not telling you to listen to hours of a podcast. I haven't either. Still, somehow, I've managed to spot the errors you've made.

And if you want to have an informed opinion on Aquinas' arguments, I'm afraid you do in fact have an obligation to read Aquinas, or at least about him.

And all the time, if you actually claim that or anything else to be the case, you should lead with the evidence :p
We're talking about your claims.

Most reasonable people, when they make a bad assumption or error in fact, will say something like "Whoops, my bad."

You're making a brazen attempt to say "Well, you should have given me better evidence, then."

Nobody has any obligation to spoonfeed you. You have access to all the same information we do.
 
@theprestige
Right, so the whole reading more into a stylistic flourish is just based on your imagining stuff beyond what was written, and what those words actually mean? Like, literally just your own flight of fantasy as to how that could fit in with something unrelated that happened in your imagination? :p

I mean, sure, I'm not the reality police, I'm not gonna drag you to jail for living inside your own fantasy. But I'm also not bound to play by the rules of being responsible for what only happened in your own active imagination : p

I think it's an entirely fair reading of your posts. A woman alleges that Neil Gaiman extorted her for sex. Your response was to argue that it sounds more like she was prostituting herself to him.

I think that's a really weird reading of the situation, especially in the context of the other allegations brought forward by other women.

"Give me sex or I'll make your life difficult" doesn't result in prostitution, if the victim cooperates with the extortionist. It results in extortion, and a victim of extortion. You keep minimizing or dismissing this. Why? Is it all just superficial rhetorical flourishes, with no deeper meaning, from your side?
 
No. My response was that the quoted text in this thread made it sound like prostitution. In a way that didn't sound like "or I'll make your life difficult", but rather an "or I'll not help you out of whatever problems your life has already got". Again, similar things were happening for years at that point, and plenty of people WERE actually agreeing to.

Beyond that, all you're STILL arguing is that inside your pointy little head, you had a fantasy about unrelated phrases meaning something else. Which, frankly, I won't stop you from having, but they bear no relevance for ME. You can just go back to having your own delusional imagination, and your own talking to yourself, really :p
 
Last edited:
We're talking about your claims.

Which just tells me you're too logically unequipped by half to even comprehend, much less have a relevant conversation about, the difference between an intensional and an extensional context. In this case literally between "what that phrasing sounds like" (intensional) and "what it actually is" (extensional.)

And frankly, your failure to understand logic is your problem not mine :p
 
Which just tells me you're too logically unequipped by half to even comprehend, much less have a relevant conversation about, the difference between an intensional and an extensional context. In this case literally between "what that phrasing sounds like" (intensional) and "what it actually is" (extensional.)
This is sophistical. "Vaccines cause autism" is extensional, "I believe vaccines cause autism" forces an intensional context, but their meanings are similar by implicature. Both will be treated as claims that vaccines cause autism.

And claims about how things seem also require evidentiary support. It's obvious what Donald Trump is just couching a claim when he says things like "People are saying immigrants are eating cats and dogs," but if we take it literally, we should ask him "Which people are saying that, exactly?"

Further, "this reads like this woman is a prostitute, not a victim" is far from the only erroneous and unsupported claim you have made in this thread. We have an embarrassment of choices.
 
Last edited:
This is sophistical. "Vaccines cause autism" is extensional, "I believe vaccines cause autism" is intensional, but their meanings are similar by implicature. Both will be treated as claims that vaccines cause autism.

That's still showing that you don't get the difference. "Similar" is not the same thing as "equivalent in logic. But... Nevertheless you can actually address both with evidence, and actually understanding what evidence is in different contexts, rather than expecting that someone else does the research to prove you right. Especially since you weren't asked to prove a negative like "it wasn't X", but your claiming to know it was Y instead. Which is a positive claim :p

And intensional claims also require evidentiary support. It's obvious what Donald Trump is just couching a claim when he says things like "People are saying immigrants are eating cats and dogs," but if we take it literally, we should ask him "Which people are saying that, exactly?"

Which just tells me you STILL don't understand how that difference works. Even when it's as basic as the difference between "that phrasing sounds like X" and "I firmly believe it is X". Both are intesional, but they're not the same :p

Further, "this reads like this woman is a prostitute, not a victim" is far from the only erroneous and unsupported claim you have made in this thread.

Then you can address those too :p
 
Last edited:
That's still showing that you don't get the difference. "Similar" is not the same thing as "equivalent in logic.
It's showing that I do get the difference, but that the difference is immaterial by conversational implicature, which is why I said similar, and not identical.

But... Nevertheless you can actually address both with evidence, rather than expecting that someone else does the research to prove you right.
The burden is on your to produce evidence for your contested claims, not on anyone else.

Which just tells me you STILL don't understand how that difference works
No, it doesn't tell you that.

Then you can address those too :p
And here you're doing it again. Your sloppy thinking and ignorance are everybody's problem but your own.
 
It's showing that I do get the difference, but that the difference is immaterial by conversational implicature, which is why I said similar, and not identical.

Well, then you would also know that "similar" is largely irrelevant.

And here you're doing it again. Your sloppy thinking and ignorance are everybody's problem but your own.

No. If you claim I've done other mis-understandings or even fallacies, you should be able to at least name them. That's not on me, that's on you, no matter how much flailing and brow-beating you do.

I mean, expecting me to do the research for your claim is stupid as it is, but objecting that I'm even asking you to name and formulate your alleged objections, is two steps beyond stupid :p
 
Last edited:
Well, then you would also know that "similar" is largely irrelevant.
It isn't. It's highly relevant that "vaccines cause autism" and "I believe vaccines cause autism" will be treated as asserting the same claim. It means that the importance of the distinction between intensional and extensional contexts you're alleging collapses. You're left with the task of supporting the claim either way.

No. If you claim I've done other mis-understandings or even fallacies, you should be able to at least name them.
This is just incorrect. All I have to do is dispute an unsupported claim, and the burden shifts to you to provide evidence or argument.

Your beliefs are not justified unless and until someone proves them wrong. They're justified once they have sufficient support.

But as it happens, myself and others have given you reason to believe your claims are wrong, because doing so is utterly trivial, and you still act like it's unreasonable to expect that you could have figured this out yourself.

I mean, expecting me to do the research for your claim [...]
These are your claims.
 
Last edited:
It isn't. It's highly relevant that "vaccines cause autism" and "I believe vaccines cause autism" will be treated as asserting the same claim

Meanwhile "what X says sounds like vaccines cause autism" is NOT the same thing. In fact, it can even be used in a reductio ad absurdum against X. Or not.

Again, so far you only demonstrated that you have no flippin' clue about how intensional contexts actually work.

This is just incorrect. All I have to do is dispute an unsupported claim, and the burden shifts to you to provide evidence or argument.

No. You still have to be at least able to point out WHICH unsupported claims I've made, not just go "it's far from the only erroneous and unsupported claim you have made in this thread", pat yourself on the shoulder, and head off to have a wank. Balking at the very idea of even addressing WHICH those are, is just stupid.

Sure, you can then give me the burden of proof if it's actually my claim, but refusing to even say what that claim is, is as stupid as stupid dodges get.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile "what X says sounds like vaccines cause autism" is NOT the same thing.
I am not making the claim that "Sounds like p" is equivalent to p in all cases. I am pointing out the sophistry involved in even raising the distinction at all. It just doesn't do the work you think it does.

For a refresher, your claim was "But then the way it's phrased, she agreed to a deal where she'd get a place to stay AND 275K in exchange for sex. Doesn't that qualify as prostitution?"

If you would like to treat this literally, it just isn't true. The phrasing had nothing to do with you reaching this conclusion. You just didn't understand what you were reading.

No. You still have to be at least able to point out WHICH unsupported claims I've made [...]
I did this at the time you made those unsupported claims. So did other people. I was counting on you being able to remember that it had happened, but it's a matter of record if you would like to review.
 
Last edited:
For a refresher, your claim was "But then the way it's phrased, she agreed to a deal where she'd get a place to stay AND 275K in exchange for sex. Doesn't that qualify as prostitution?"

The "deal" was that she'd sign an NDA. Doesn't that qualify as coercive control?

Especially since noone informed her that in US law NDAs are voided in the case of police investigations.

This story is just getting started. Let's not make this all about you, Hans. ;)
 
I am not making the claim that "Sounds like p" is equivalent to p in all cases. I am pointing out the sophistry involved in even raising the distinction at all.

If you think that the former is the actual claim or that the later's just sophistry, you just made my case that you don't understand intensional contexts at all :p
 
Last edited:
I've listened to the last two episodes of the "Master" podcast 6-part series.

I won't type up summaries since my first 4 got no response.

A couple of things I will note:

1. Neil Gaiman's lawyer is Andrew Brettler, lawyer for Russell Brand, Danny Masterson, and Prince Andrew.

2. In a 2022 recorded phone call Neil Gaiman tells "Claire" "I'm really sorry" he didn't realise he'd taken up so much negative "headspace" with her for the past 10 years, and offers her money to pay for therapy. He also says "the me of 10 years ago might have made the first (unwanted) move" but "I have learned a lot". Yet months earlier he had done just that with Scarlett at the outdoor bath.

3. Apparently in recent years he has discovered he is "high functioning autistic".
 
I appreciated your write-ups.

Does Gaiman offer point 3 as an excuse?

Thank you.

Sort of, I mean he did mention it.

He also said he found it strange finding that out at his age. But you can also see that that is another way of getting Claire on his side.
 
I've listened to the last two episodes of the "Master" podcast 6-part series.

I won't type up summaries since my first 4 got no response.
I really appreciated them (though the information in them made me rather sad), but I'm away on a short break so didn't have time to respond.

I didn't know about his background in Scientology; I have enjoyed Gaiman's writings (as opposed to comic books, which I've never got into, though I do like comics in general), and some of his work has resonated with me.
A couple of things I will note:

1. Neil Gaiman's lawyer is Andrew Brettler, lawyer for Russell Brand, Danny Masterson, and Prince Andrew.
Oh, dear.
 
Thanks, zooterkin.

The podcast creators give a good summary of Episode 5 - The NDAs here:

https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2024/...cuse-neil-gaiman-of-sexual-assault-and-abuse/


Episode 6 - The Phone Calls is mostly about "Claire" who was allegedly groped and kissed and touched unwantedly and sent sexually explicit messages by Gaiman starting in 2012 when she was 22 and he was 52.

He allegedly pursued her for sex and they were in contact for 9 months before she cut off contact after he allegedly lay on her and tried to kiss her in the back of a tour bus. She said no. He said "I'm a very wealthy man and I'm used to getting what I want". She didn't respond and then she said he said (yep) "I'm going to have to let you go."

His story is that he thought she wanted intimate contact. She was star-struck, another fan like K, but not sexually attracted in any way.

She thought she was the only one, like all the others.

In 2022 during Me Too etc she learned the language of consent and coercion and felt "grounded" after spending years trying to work it out, not wanting to believe her hero was bad in any way or that she was to blame for his actions.

She writes a long letter to NG (after contacting numerous news outlets and seeing if others had talked, with no action taken) in 2022, dejected, pregnant at the time, exhausted, 9-10 years after their relationship.

She records the phone call when he calls her.

She's anxious about the cost of her therapy and he apologises and says "I'm sorry, even my memories have been obviously wrong" He offers to pay her $500/month for 10 years (60K) for it, and to make a hefty donation to the rape crisis centre she now works at (the latter of which he didn't do). This is 2 months after he sent Scarlett 8K for her therapy.

Similarities: the women's ages (20-22), their vulnerable situations, 2 were fans, 2 were employees, 3 had to call him "Master", 2 (or 3?) were allegedly beaten with a belt, choked, and spanked.

The podcasts did a good job of remaining neutral, but bringing up contradictions by Gaiman and examples of consent at times by the women.


OK, it's been tiring listening to all this and trying to do a good job of summarising it.
 
Last edited:
The "deal" was that she'd sign an NDA. Doesn't that qualify as coercive control?
Since you're replying to me but responding to Hans, I'll just say I agree with you. There's plenty to indicate coercion (if the allegations are true).

And I also appreciated the write-ups.
 
If you think that the former is the actual claim or that the later's just sophistry, you just made my case that you don't understand intensional contexts at all :p
For the sake of clarity, I think this whole silly digression is sophistical, because it designed to look clever but accomplishes nothing.

It's also fairly off-topic at this point, but if you'd like to start a new thread about your ideas about burden of proof in intensional contexts, I'd be happy to ignore it.
 
Thank you.

Sort of, I mean he did mention it.

IF it's supposed to be a defense, it reminds me of a term that IIRC Cracked coined a long time ago: Assburger Syndrome. You know, when people think autism is a valid excuse to be an ass. Bonus points if it's self-diagnosed. (Not in his case, but there are plenty who use the excuse without having been diagnosed by an actual doctor.)

Kinda like we've had people all along who blamed it on their star sign.
 
Last edited:
Very long article in New York Magazine's Vulture section. A taste (spoiled for NSFW):


Gaiman asked her to sit on his lap. Pavlovich stammered out a few sentences: She was gay, she’d never had sex, she had been sexually abused by a 45-year-old man when she was 15. Gaiman continued to press. “The next part is really amorphous,” Pavlovich tells me. “But I can tell you that he put his fingers straight into my ass and tried to put his penis in my ass. And I said, ‘No, no.’ Then he tried to rub his penis between my breasts, and I said ‘no’ as well. Then he asked if he could come on my face, and I said ‘no’ but he did anyway. He said, ‘Call me ‘master,’ and I’ll come.’ He said, ‘Be a good girl. You’re a good little girl.’”
 
Very long article in New York Magazine's Vulture section. A taste (spoiled for NSFW):


Gaiman asked her to sit on his lap. Pavlovich stammered out a few sentences: She was gay, she’d never had sex, she had been sexually abused by a 45-year-old man when she was 15. Gaiman continued to press. “The next part is really amorphous,” Pavlovich tells me. “But I can tell you that he put his fingers straight into my ass and tried to put his penis in my ass. And I said, ‘No, no.’ Then he tried to rub his penis between my breasts, and I said ‘no’ as well. Then he asked if he could come on my face, and I said ‘no’ but he did anyway. He said, ‘Call me ‘master,’ and I’ll come.’ He said, ‘Be a good girl. You’re a good little girl.’”
Sounds like prostitution to me. Throw the book at her. /s
 
Very long article in New York Magazine's Vulture section. A taste (spoiled for NSFW):


Gaiman asked her to sit on his lap. Pavlovich stammered out a few sentences: She was gay, she’d never had sex, she had been sexually abused by a 45-year-old man when she was 15. Gaiman continued to press. “The next part is really amorphous,” Pavlovich tells me. “But I can tell you that he put his fingers straight into my ass and tried to put his penis in my ass. And I said, ‘No, no.’ Then he tried to rub his penis between my breasts, and I said ‘no’ as well. Then he asked if he could come on my face, and I said ‘no’ but he did anyway. He said, ‘Call me ‘master,’ and I’ll come.’ He said, ‘Be a good girl. You’re a good little girl.’”
Jesus! Never read him, but I had assumed he had a reputation for being a feminist, but turns out he was Andrew Tate the whole time. If, I should add, these accounts are true.
 
Jesus! Never read him, but I had assumed he had a reputation for being a feminist, but turns out he was Andrew Tate the whole time. If, I should add, these accounts are true.
There's no reason to doubt them. Multiple credible accusations including his ex-wife.
 
There's no reason to doubt them. Multiple credible accusations including his ex-wife.
Basically no reason to doubt, but I also think that we should hear from the accused, and although I haven't read the whole thing it looks like some of these allegations amount to serious crimes. Surely he should be charged.
 
Basically no reason to doubt, but I also think that we should hear from the accused, and although I haven't read the whole thing it looks like some of these allegations amount to serious crimes. Surely he should be charged.
It's certainly possible to hear from the accused, as he has responded to the latest accusations here:


Basically, he says he didn't do it, and if he did do it, it wasn't bad, but he will do better from now on, and is learning how to grow as a person, but he definitely didn't have sex with anyone without their consent and although he takes responsibility for any bad behaviour, it wasn't as bad as people are saying. Promise.

Amazingly I seem to have managed to navigate several sexual relationships without ever having had to resort to getting my partners to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements, but that's just me I guess.
 
It's certainly possible to hear from the accused, as he has responded to the latest accusations here:


Basically, he says he didn't do it, and if he did do it, it wasn't bad, but he will do better from now on, and is learning how to grow as a person, but he definitely didn't have sex with anyone without their consent and although he takes responsibility for any bad behaviour, it wasn't as bad as people are saying. Promise.

Amazingly I seem to have managed to navigate several sexual relationships without ever having had to resort to getting my partners to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements, but that's just me I guess.
Yeah, definitely some kettle logic there from Gaiman, veering between emphatic denial and a realization that what he did was wrong very wrong, but not that kind of wrong, and haven't we all made mistakes, but now he needs people to believe in him, to trust him over time, but not overnight (yikes, definitely not overnight!).
 
Yeah, definitely some kettle logic there from Gaiman, veering between emphatic denial and a realization that what he did was wrong very wrong, but not that kind of wrong, and haven't we all made mistakes, but now he needs people to believe in him, to trust him over time, but not overnight (yikes, definitely not overnight!).
I have no sympathy for him, even though I've felt some of his writing has been very evocative for me. I can see how he might have been able to convince himself that he wasn't doing anything wrong, given what some of his victims admitted to saying to him after encounters, but that doesn't justify it.
 
I have no sympathy for him, even though I've felt some of his writing has been very evocative for me. I can see how he might have been able to convince himself that he wasn't doing anything wrong, given what some of his victims admitted to saying to him after encounters, but that doesn't justify it.
I think if he was sincere that he had done nothing wrong, he would have been able to address each allegation directly, or even sue. These half-hearted denials and threadbare excuses just make the guilt more likely, in my opinion.
 
I have no sympathy for him, even though I've felt some of his writing has been very evocative for me. I can see how he might have been able to convince himself that he wasn't doing anything wrong, given what some of his victims admitted to saying to him after encounters, but that doesn't justify it.

I was a big fan, but I simply don't see how he comes out of this looking like the good guy.
 
I was a big fan, but I simply don't see how he comes out of this looking like the good guy.
Totally agree.

What I wasn't aware of, until comparatively recently, was that he'd been brought up by parents who were high up in Scientology, and was actively involved himself from a young age. That alone might account for some of his behaviour, all the more so when that Vulture article clearly suggests that that process involved him being mentally and physically abused as a child and he has yet to properly deal with the consequences. That doesn't excuse his actions, but may partially explain them.
 
Totally agree.

What I wasn't aware of, until comparatively recently, was that he'd been brought up by parents who were high up in Scientology, and was actively involved himself from a young age. That alone might account for some of his behaviour, all the more so when that Vulture article clearly suggests that that process involved him being mentally and physically abused as a child and he has yet to properly deal with the consequences. That doesn't excuse his actions, but may partially explain them.
I'm to the point where I couldn't care less about hypothetical "explanations" for bad behavior. Unless I'm Neil Gaiman or his therapist, they're a red herring.

Neil Gaiman is obviously a fully-formed adult human being, capable of navigating western society and its norms of good behavior. He chose to flout those norms. We can hold him accountable for his choice, without having any concern for the origin of the urges he chose to indulge.
 
Back
Top Bottom