Neil Gaiman "cancelled"?

As far as I know I'm the only person in the thread who doesn't want to look at the messages and I'm tempering that with not demanding the nanny situation be seen as any weirder than the other facts show, ie, the timeline of events nobody's disputing, and her not getting paid for her work in a normal fashion.

It's mainly the testimony of the one girl who just plain rebuffed him in the back of the tour bus (and got offered 60k shut-up money for therapy) that speaks to me as to the guy's character regarding ladies he's interested in pursuing. But of course we don't know if she's just a lying clout/golddigger either, which is why I said "if true" when mentioning it.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Thankfully rape and sexual assault don't always have long term consequences.
Click to expand...
Don't be stupid - of course they do... but the false rape accuser pretty much has nothing to lose by making a false accusation unless they file a complaint with the police, and even then, rarely are they ever held to account.

This case aside, most of them make those false accusations through the media and can remain anonymous. This leaves the falsely accused in a situation where there is an assumption of guilt, and an impossible burden of proof, one in which they have to prove they didn't do what they are accused of, as alleged by an accuser they can’t even identify?

The #metoo movement did a lot of really great things by exposing rampant sexual abuse by some reprihensible high profile people in powerful positions.... Harvey Weinstein, Larry Nassar, Al Franken, Kevin Spacey et al. But it also had a huge down side... it allowed unscrupulous people to exploit the movment for their own ends.

This is why I do not, and will not, and will never follow the sheep-like behaviour being exhibited by some of the members if this forum, by uncritically and automatically "believing women" by default.
 
smartcooky said:
Don't be stupid - of course they do... but the false rape accuser pretty much has nothing to lose by making a false accusation unless they file a complaint with the police, and even then, rarely are they ever held to account.
Click to expand...
Just like rapists. See it is really the same level of thing.

smartcooky said:
This is why I do not, and will not, and will never follow the sheep-like behaviour being exhibited by some of the members if this forum, by uncritically and automatically "believing women" by default.
Click to expand...

Yes you are happy to give rapists a pass, I get that.
 
smartcooky said:
This is why I do not, and will not, and will never follow the sheep-like behaviour being exhibited by some of the members if this forum, by uncritically and automatically "believing women" by default.
Click to expand...

It's like I didn't even say anything.

arthwollipot said:
Sure, there is a certain amount of skepticism to be had - "always believe the claimant no matter what" is wrong and basically begging the question.
Click to expand...
 
ponderingturtle said:
Just like rapists. See it is really the same level of thing.



Yes you are happy to give rapists a pass, I get that.
Click to expand...
Not uncritically believing all women means I'm giving all rapists as pass? C'mon PT, you aren't stupid. Tell me you know that you are deliberately misrepresenting what I have said.
 
Orphia Nay said:
What's the point of typing something else up for you when you've already ignored it, like so many other things? "Proudly Wrong" (thanks Joe Morge / angrysoba) indeed sums you up.
Click to expand...
YOU show me documentary evidence (not unsubstantiated claims, not just the word of the alleged victim, not just your opinion and/or your interpretation of her claims), that Pavlovich's allegations are unquestionably true? Don't leave it to others or point to their posts... YOU do it.

So far all we have from YOU is Pavlovich's words, her filing and your opinion on a podcast, which contains no third party corroboration.

You can make any claim you like, but unless your claim is substatiated with facts and evidence, then at best all you have is a belief. In other words, you don't know. Beliefs are not knowledge!
 
smartcooky said:
(...) all of you are doing EXACTLY that with Gaiman right here in this thread,... you have already decided he is guilty, purely on the uncorroborated word of one person.
Click to expand...
I think you are wrong about what all of us in this thread have already decided, and I also think you are wrong about what all of us in this thread are basing our various opinions on.
 
smartcooky said:
YOU show me documentary evidence (not unsubstantiated claims, not just the word of the alleged victim, not just your opinion and/or your interpretation of her claims), that Pavlovich's allegations are unquestionably true? Don't leave it to others or point to their posts... YOU do it.

So far all we have from YOU is Pavlovich's words, her filing and your opinion on a podcast, which contains no third party corroboration.

You can make any claim you like, but unless your claim is substatiated with facts and evidence, then at best all you have is a belief. In other words, you don't know. Beliefs are not knowledge!
Click to expand...
I am not your monkey. I've already quoted the screenshot of Gaiman's own words, words from the pdf you posted, it's your own evidence.
 
Lithrael said:
I think you are wrong about what all of us in this thread have already decided, and I also think you are wrong about what all of us in this thread are basing our various opinions on.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

I think the general attitude in this forum is that claims will not be believed unless accompanied by evidence in support, except in threads involving rape allegations. Those are special exceptions where claims are uncritically believed, and the accused is automatically guilty.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Go to post 343.

It's the attachment in what I quoted.
Click to expand...
OK, I didn't see that. You said posted a screenshot. This is what it looks like when you post a screenshot

2025-03-28-21.33.43.jpg

Orphia Nay said:
Post in thread 'Neil Gaiman "cancelled"?'
https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ds/neil-gaiman-cancelled.372259/post-14529562
Click to expand...
I've PMed you about this
 
Orphia Nay said:
I don't know if he realises I am a woman, and I'm disappointed but bemused at his treatment of me, being abusive towards me when I am just stating facts.
Click to expand...
You're not being abused, you're being asked to back up your claims

I now realise you have done that, and I missed it due to a misunderstanding that I have PMed you about - I hadn't seen what you "posted"

And yes, I know you're a woman... I would have thought that was blindingly obvious. And given the vehemence with which I have been defending women's rights to safe spaces and privacy in the "transwomen" thread, I am both staggered and disappointed that you have chosen to smear me as a misogynist, even if only by implication! :mad:
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
You're not being abused, you're being asked to back up your claims

I now realise you have done that, and I missed it due to a misunderstanding that I have PMed you about - I hadn't seen what you "posted"

And yes, I know you're a woman... I would have thought that was blindingly obvious. And
given the vehemence with which I have been defending women's rights to safe spaces and privacy in the "transwomen" thread, I am both staggered and disappointed that you have chosen to smear me as a misogynist, even if only by implication! :mad:
Click to expand...
You know who else had a reputation for vehemently defending women's rights?

Besides, people are not supposed to use their own self-administered medals for declaring that they are beyond reproach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom