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

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Shermer aside, why is the default position on a he said/she said claim that the guy is the honest one?

I took no such position.

 

[d4m10n]

What was the JREF supposed to do about the allegation anyway?

Maybe stop inviting him back? The fact that he spoke the very next year seems to indicate which narrative (he said or she said) the JREF leadership was more willing to believe.

 

[Scopedog]

Maybe stop inviting him back? The fact that he spoke the very next year seems to indicate which narrative (he said or she said) the JREF leadership was more willing to believe.

Fair point.

 

[Amazer]

Maybe stop inviting him back? The fact that he spoke the very next year seems to indicate which narrative (he said or she said) the JREF leadership was more willing to believe.

I don't see why it should indicate any such thing. Have you considered the possibility that this issue didn't play any role in inviting Shermer?

 

[d4m10n]

I don't see why it should indicate any such thing. Have you considered the possibility that this issue didn't play any role in inviting Shermer?

I'd be interested in hearing how this possibility may have possibly played out.

The only two eyewitnesses who have described what happened that night in terms unflattering to Shermer were both on the JREF payroll, and at least one of them claims to have elevated the issue to leadership.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

In short, he hid drinks while pretending to drink like most everyone else (although a few people just said "no thanks" and stayed sober), Alison was off her tree, at some point it was revealed that he wasnt drinking, even in her impaired state Alison panicked slightly and left

This is a good start, but magic handwaving still seems to fill in a few gaps. Why does someone panic because someone else isn't drinking?

, he followed and led her to his room while she was trying to get to hers..... at no point was she in any way capable of consent, and only has vague memories of the activities (and some physical issues),

This also looks like strategic vagueness. "The activities" and "some physical issues" could mean anything from "I stubbed my toe" to "I was raped with a fire extinguisher". Whether or not she was "capable of consent" also seems to be a potentially subjective claim which we don't have enough evidence to confirm or deny, since you have to be pretty darn drunk to qualify.

Do we know whether the "important things" Shermer was accused of lying about was definitely whether or not he was drunk? I think I saw someone trying to put those jigsaw puzzle pieces together, but it seems like there's a big potential crack there too.

at some point she sobered up a little, realised what had occurred and, upset, complained to the GM of JREF..... The next day (or so), Shermer sent a pre-emptive email.

Shermer is full of crap on the time line. There was no time for Alison to sober up from her admittedly sorry state. Shermer admitted to hiding drinks, and having sex with Alison. It simply doesnt work.

Once again you are hammering on the stuff everyone agrees on, and not paying much attention to the actual points of controversy.

Later, Jeff (who had been present I believe at the party I believe) and Alison approached the newly appointed president of JREF (mostly to warn him about Shermer's behaviour), who did nothing, and in fact denies having the conversation that 2 other people can recall with clarity.

Do you see how this is a problem from the outside perspective? Important pieces of evidence seem to vanish in this case. That can be explained by a patriarchal cover-up, and indeed such things have happened in the past, but it could also be explained by the accuser's story not matching perfectly to facts in the real world. Thus for those of us who aren't personally privy to the details it looks like a mess, not a slam-dunk.

 

[devnull]

The thing is Kevin, sometimes stuff falls into the category of "it's personal", or more eloquently, "none of your business"


I also think that no matter what details some people were privy to, it would never ever be a slam dunk. So be it. Im done playing these silly games with you.

My take on the JREF thing was they were happy to ignore it until the number of complaints became so great that they couldnt ignore it anymore. Why they chose to ignore these things is anybody's guess. Perhaps they didnt believe the victims, or perhaps they thought it had nothing to do with the JREF, or perhaps they didnt know *how* to deal with it. Whatever the case, it was a big fail IMO.

 

[devnull]

Whether or not she was "capable of consent" also seems to be a potentially subjective claim which we don't have enough evidence to confirm or deny, since you have to be pretty darn drunk to qualify.

Wait, what? Define "pretty darn drunk"?

So when someone has something stolen from their house, do you claim that "ownership of said item is a potentially subjective claim which we dont have enough evidence to confirm or deny"? Or do you just reserve that crap for cases that involved women?

Ill have to start handing out tap shoes soon.

 

[Amazer]

I'd be interested in hearing how this possibly may have possibly played out.

The only two eyewitnesses who have described what happened that night in terms unflattering to Shermer were both on the JREF payroll, and at least one of them claims to have elevated the issue to leadership.

Were those two witnesses in any way or shape involved in the decision-making process for inviting Shermer to TAM? If not, then it really depends on how they elevated the issue to the leadership.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Wait, what? Define "pretty darn drunk"?

So when someone has something stolen from their house, do you claim that "ownership of said item is a potentially subjective claim which we dont have enough evidence to confirm or deny"? Or do you just reserve that crap for cases that involved women?

Ill have to start handing out tap shoes soon.

That a certain level of intoxication is required to be unable to consent under the law is not really debatable. Nor that this often involves subjective assessment by jurors based on the testimony of the accused, if the victim got drunk consensually, and other (potentially illegitimate) factors. Add in the fact that, like here, the alleged victim has poor memory recall due to the intoxication makes it all the more difficult. These are very common issues with these kinds of cases. And I don't mean that in a dismissive way, but in the way that these private crimes are hard to convict.

 

[devnull]

That a certain level of intoxication is required to be unable to consent under the law is not really debatable. Nor that this often involves subjective assessment by jurors based on the testimony of the accused, if the victim got drunk consensually, and other (potentially illegitimate) factors. Add in the fact that, like here, the alleged victim has poor memory recall due to the intoxication makes it all the more difficult. These are very common issues with these kinds of cases. And I don't mean that in a dismissive way, but in the way that these private crimes are hard to convict.

Thanks for that.

I will note though that nobody is trying to try this case. Some people are saying "this guy is bad news, Im not sure Id hang with him". What people do with that is up to them. Some will dismiss the claims of the victims of the various incidents, and others wont.

 

[Amazer]

Thanks for that.

I will note though that nobody is trying to try this case. Some people are saying "this guy is bad news, Im not sure Id hang with him". What people do with that is up to them. Some will dismiss the claims of the victims of the various incidents, and others wont.

If that's all they were saying we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Shermer aside, why is the default position on a he said/she said claim that the guy is the honest one?

I think it's the other way around, most women are not lying about such things but a lot of guys prefer to believe women are evil bitches.

It isn't that. It is giving the accused the benefit of the doubt in a situation.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I will attempt to illustrate what I see as a double-standard.

Post #2129

Post #2169

Post #2170

Post #2172

Post #2172

Post #2189

All of these are examples of interpreting evidence in the least charitable light for Michael Shermer and makes it seem that whatever Michael Shermer says or does is evidence that he is a rapist. If, for example, a rape victim continues dating or marries their rapist we are expected to believe that this is not evidence that the rape accusation is questionable since there is no standard way to react to rape. This sort of benefit of the doubt apparently does not apply to the accused in your view. For further example, I do not know if Michael Shermer knew that Alison Smith was calling the incident rape right after it happened, but his initial e-mail could also be interpreted as an attempt to preserve Alison Smith's plausible deniability about a consensual encounter that he thought she might want to keep between them because it was simply nobody else's business. That is a charitable interpretation and probably something that happens every day when people hook up and want to keep it to themselves.

You have also painted the manner in which Michael Shermer was abstaining from over-drinking as "shady" and "creepy" and that he should have said "no thanks", but this should also receive a similar benefit of the doubt as far as there being no right or wrong way for an accused rapist to abstain from over-drinking. Your view of his abstinence seems to be more of a problem for him in retrospect since you appear to be looking for anything to support the conclusion that he is a rapist so everything a rapist does is evidence they are a rapist, such as waking up, brushing their teeth, showering, and dressing.

The shady of creepy action is not simply not drinking but presumably moderating alcohol intake in a surreptitious fashion instead of an obvious fashion.

 

[devnull]

It isn't that. It is giving the accused the benefit of the doubt in a situation.

Cool. So, hypothetically, your child is raped by a relative. It is he said/she said. You would continue to give the accused the benefit of the doubt? After all, a child would have to be considered less reliable than an adult in terms of testimony, no?

 

[shuttlt]

Cool. So, hypothetically, your child is raped by a relative. It is he said/she said. You would continue to give the accused the benefit of the doubt? After all, a child would have to be considered less reliable than an adult in terms of testimony, no?

Why does there have to be one standard for the benefit of the doubt regardless of circumstances or consequences? For emotional reasons, I prioritize my own kids over other people. That doesn't mean it's fair or rational.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Cool. So, hypothetically, your child is raped by a relative. It is he said/she said. You would continue to give the accused the benefit of the doubt? After all, a child would have to be considered less reliable than an adult in terms of testimony, no?

Are you trying to claim that justice is best served by those most closely tied to the individuals involved? That reasoning leads to long term feuds with dozens dead as the relatives of the accused don't believe the charges. Clearly you are abandoning a lot of what we consider to be justice in american culture.

 

[wareyin]

Cool. So, hypothetically, your child is raped by a relative. It is he said/she said. You would continue to give the accused the benefit of the doubt? After all, a child would have to be considered less reliable than an adult in terms of testimony, no?

Why does this sort of thing often end up infantilizing women? Why must a woman be compared to, or treated as, a child to make your point?

 

[ponderingturtle]

That a certain level of intoxication is required to be unable to consent under the law is not really debatable. Nor that this often involves subjective assessment by jurors based on the testimony of the accused, if the victim got drunk consensually, and other (potentially illegitimate) factors. Add in the fact that, like here, the alleged victim has poor memory recall due to the intoxication makes it all the more difficult. These are very common issues with these kinds of cases. And I don't mean that in a dismissive way, but in the way that these private crimes are hard to convict.

Alcohol's various effects makes it problematic for all kinds of claims. That is lowers inhibitions and as such causes people to do things the wouldn't do sober, messes with their ability to remember the events and can lead to people doing many willful intentional acts they do not remember makes it very problematic.

It can be impossible to know if someone was raped or not even for that person, and it can be impossible to know if you raped someone. If two people had sex and neither of them remember it because they were both black out drunk, how can anyone be sure if it was consensual or not with out a recording.

In this case I find it easy to label him scum I never want to associate with, labeling him a rapist is a higher bar.

 

[devnull]

Why does there have to be one standard for the benefit of the doubt regardless of circumstances or consequences? For emotional reasons, I prioritize my own kids over other people. That doesn't mean it's fair or rational.

Thankyou.

My point is that I believe an exception is being made in Alison's case. Why, I cannot fathom. All the evidence and testimony points to Shermer being a rapey SOB, but everyone loves the tapdance.