Neil Gaiman "cancelled"?

[HansMustermann]

@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?

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

 

[HansMustermann]

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

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.....

 

[mumblethrax]

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

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.

 

[HansMustermann]

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

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

 

[mumblethrax]

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

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]

@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?

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?

 

[HansMustermann]

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

 

[HansMustermann]

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

 

[mumblethrax]

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.

 

[HansMustermann]

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

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

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

 

[mumblethrax]

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

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

 

[HansMustermann]

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

 

[mumblethrax]

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.

 

[HansMustermann]

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.

 

[mumblethrax]

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.

 

[Orphia Nay]

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.

 

[HansMustermann]

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

 

[Orphia Nay]

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".

 

[Filippo Lippi]

I appreciated your write-ups.

Does Gaiman offer point 3 as an excuse?

 

[Orphia Nay]

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.