Neil Gaiman "cancelled"?

angrysoba said:
Sure, why not? Apparently she is a rape victim now? What about Bob, theprestige? What about him?
Click to expand...
If you want a serious answer? Be kind and supportive to them both while you figure out what on Earth is going on, and if nothing pans out convincingly either way try to figure out how to keep them from ever crossing paths again. Probably also keep an eye out for potential future data points. (not necessarily you personally, but whoever is dealing with the problem)
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
(...) Its called Trial by Media. On no more than the unsubstantiated word of the accuser, the accused gets vilified and publicly branded a rapist (...)
Click to expand...
If it is your contention that the media could be less sensationalist, knowing the public enjoys baying for celebrity blood, I won't argue with that.
smartcooky said:
And the saps in here lap it all up!!
Click to expand...
I think you are not seeing very clearly.
 
smartcooky said:
But that is exactly what happens. Its called Trial by Media. On no more than the unsubstantiated word of the accuser, the accused gets vilified and publicly branded a rapist before any evidence is even looked at while the accuser gets to remain anonymous. The accused ends up with the burden to prove they didn't do what they are accused of if want to avoid their life being destroyed. That is a reversal of natural justice.

And the saps in here lap it all up!!
Click to expand...
How about the people in here who have listened to the whole podcast with a critical ear and determined this is a serious matter that shows many signs of being true?

Why are you so sure of yourself when you know you haven't seen or heard the whole story available so far?

You're the only one who's completely made up their mind.
 
TragicMonkey said:
4. This is just an internet messageboard, and it's entertainment. Don't be clawing each other over something that happened or might not happened to people you don't know and will never meet and have no way of determining the actual truth of the matter about. It may never be known, at least not to people who aren't involved and don't have access to evidence, which may not even exist.
Click to expand...
Okay, I haven't been following the thread for a while and I know this might not be directed at me, but I do reserve the right to get worked up over a blatantly ignorant person wantonly accusing people who have come forward with SA accusations of lying on no basis other than ignorance, gut feelings, and an apparent grudge after being the alleged victim of a false accusation. You can't pull the 'it's just a message board lol' card when this kind of attitudes and misconceptions (like 'oh obviously) are way too common and genuinely lead to countless survivors not being believed, or not daring to come forward in the first place.

Also not sure what in this thread you consider entertainment? Or did I misunderstand you?
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Okay, I haven't been following the thread for a while and I know this might not be directed at me, but I do reserve the right to get worked up over a blatantly ignorant person wantonly accusing people who have come forward with SA accusations of lying on no basis other than ignorance, gut feelings, and an apparent grudge after being the alleged victim of a false accusation. You can't pull the 'it's just a message board lol' card when this kind of attitudes and misconceptions (like 'oh obviously) are way too common and genuinely lead to countless survivors not being believed, or not daring to come forward in the first place.

Also not sure what in this thread you consider entertainment? Or did I misunderstand you?
Click to expand...
No, it's not directed at you.

And this entire messageboard is entertainment. Are you paid to post here? Are you employed by the legal teams of either party in the case? Are you a friend, relative, acquaintance, employee, neighbor of either party? If not then this thread is entertainment. You may not actually enjoy the entertainment, which raises the question why you're submitting yourself to it.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Damn, y'all need to chillax. Some points:

1. Claims require evidence.
2. Nobody posting in this thread, and nobody reading this thread has access to actual evidence. You aren't on a jury, you aren't on the legal teams, you are only getting news stories and gossip and filling in the rest with your own assumptions and ideas.
3. Nobody has tasked anybody here with determining the truth of this matter, so your guesses here have zero stakes to them.
4. This is just an internet messageboard, and it's entertainment. Don't be clawing each other over something that happened or might not happened to people you don't know and will never meet and have no way of determining the actual truth of the matter about. It may never be known, at least not to people who aren't involved and don't have access to evidence, which may not even exist.

Sometimes y'all act like you've been charged by God to come up with the answer to stuff you can't actually really know about, and you win a prize if you get it right. To me a big part of skepticism is knowing when you are not in a position to figure something out, no matter how brilliantly skeptical you are.
Click to expand...
Good luck, TM. I was told to "grow up" earlier when pointing out the difference between Instagram and a courtroom.
 
angrysoba said:
Which makes that head in the sand picture ironic.

Anyway, I suspected as much, and I guess he will just have to continue looking like a buffoon by repeating claims unaware that I have shown them to be false.

I predict that at some point he will do a hard pivot to believing Pavlovic after all and will start declaring that anybody who doesn’t is a “vile scumbag” and that in his “considerable experience” this is typical of misogynists, etc…
Click to expand...
SOP for smartcookie.
 
For smartcooky, screenshot from the texts he posted, showing Pavlovich told Amanda Palmer.


IMG_7840.png
 
Orphia Nay said:
For smartcooky, screenshot from the texts he posted, showing Pavlovich told Amanda Palmer.


View attachment 59719
Click to expand...
So THIS is what you think validates her claims? You posted this with the expectation that it would convince of anything? Really?

All this shows is that she likely did tell Palmer something (so I was wrong about that bit). You really must be looking at this through a toilet-roll tube if you think it helps Pavlovich? Have you actually read any of what she said?

"I just wanted to check in and hear about how you are. Big hug to you.​
​
"Oh my GOD Neil, I never said that. I'm horrified by your message. Me metoo you? Rape? WHAT? I have never used the word rape. This is the first I've heard of this.​
​
"I have never used the word rape. I'm just so shocked, I honestly don't know what to say"​

She is flat out denying what she later claimed as truth. This is even stronger evidence for him than the stuff I posted earlier. I can just hear the defence counsel on cross with her on the stand....."were you lying then, or are you lying now?"
 
smartcooky said:
So THIS is what you think validates her claims? You posted this with the expectation that it would convince of anything? Really?

All this shows is that she likely did tell Palmer something (so I was wrong about that bit). You really must be looking at this through a toilet-roll tube if you think it helps Pavlovich? Have you actually read any of what she said?

"I just wanted to check in and hear about how you are. Big hug to you.​
​
"Oh my GOD Neil, I never said that. I'm horrified by your message. Me metoo you? Rape? WHAT? I have never used the word rape. This is the first I've heard of this.​
​
"I have never used the word rape. I'm just so shocked, I honestly don't know what to say"​

She is flat out denying what she later claimed as truth. This is even stronger evidence for him than the stuff I posted earlier. I can just hear the defence counsel on cross with her on the stand....."were you lying then, or are you lying now?"
Click to expand...
This takes a special level of obtuseness to miss the point.

smartcooky, you were the one who said that people who are abused will tell others.

Gaiman's own words prove that she did tell others, including Palmer. Why do you think she told Palmer that he raped her? Or if she didn't say that, why do you think Palmer told him that she did say that?

As for invoking the defence counsel, nobody here claims that Pavlovich would win a case in a court of law. This kind of response sounds like the bullying rhetoric that abusers use against their victims. Who is going to believe you? The NZ police already told her that and that is why they didn't go forward with the prosecution. The podcasters also agree, from the first episode and continuing through the second episode, that the WhatsApp messages seem to confirm Gaiman's side of the story. The police officer specifically asked her if she can prove that he had behaved this way with others and of course, she could not, because she didn't know of others who he had done that with.

Yet the podcast hosts were able to track down others who said he had behaved this way with him. We find out, from the podcast, and also a number of publications that you can read if only you choose to do so, that there are something like nine women who now have come forward, not anonymously, in most cases, but with their full names, detailing the type of behaviour that they say has psychologically scarred them.

In most cases, Gaiman has denied he ever did these things, and yet he has also produced an acknowledgement that he has behaved badly and needs to work on it, etc...
 
It's not unreasonable not believing Pavlovich's compliant texts, because IF it's coercive control then it's very good evidence that she was playing Gaiman's game, compliant, under his spell and his control.
 
Orphia Nay said:
I've looked through the complaint, and she isn't suing him for rape, but for assault, battery, and human trafficking, amongst other things.

Nonetheless, it's quite possible that Neil Gaiman raped her, and that Scarlett Paclovich never used the word "rape" when talking to Palmer.

The complaint says Palmer was the one that brought up "Me too".


View attachment 59720
Click to expand...
Seriously, that is a far-fetched set of dots you are trying to connect, a series of unlikely things that had to have happened. I agree that it is possible... remotely. But is it probable? I don't think so.
 
smartcooky said:
Seriously, that is a far-fetched set of dots you are trying to connect, a series of unlikely things that had to have happened. I agree that it is possible... remotely. But is it probable? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
What are the unlikely things, and what makes them unlikely?
 
Orphia Nay said:
It's not unreasonable not believing Pavlovich's compliant texts, because IF it's coercive control then it's very good evidence that she was playing Gaiman's game, compliant, under his spell and his control.
Click to expand...
Orphia Nay said:
What are the unlikely things, and what makes them unlikely?
Click to expand...

It will all hang on the skill set of a psychologist, to convince a jury that what Pavlovich has written over and over again was not really what she was thinking. That will be a tough row to hoe, especially if they get someone on that jury with my attitude to the alleged profession of psychology.

And for the avoidance of doubt, I regard psychology as woo woo - a pseudo science that barely rises to the level of palmistry or reading tea-leaves. Psychology has given us the Recovered Memory bollocks that led to the Satanic Panic and the wrongful prosecutions of hundreds of people and the wrongful convictions of many of them. Also the wrongful convictions of Stefan Kiszko and Kathleen Folbigg was a result of psychology junk-science.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
And for the avoidance of doubt, I regard psychology as woo woo - a pseudo science that barely rises to the level of palmistry or reading tea-leaves. Psychology has given us the Recovered Memory bollocks that led to the Satanic Panic and the wrongful prosecutions of hundreds of people and the wrongful convictions of many of them. Also the wrongful convictions of Stefan Kiszko and Kathleen Folbigg was a result of psychology junk-science.
Click to expand...
Spoken like a Scientologist.
 
smartcooky said:
It will all hang on the skill set of a psychologist, to convince a jury that what Pavlovich has written over and over again was not really what she was thinking. That will be a tough row to hoe, especially if they get someone on that jury with my attitude to the alleged profession of psychology.

And for the avoidance of doubt, I regard psychology as woo woo - a pseudo science that barely rises to the level of palmistry or reading tea-leaves. Psychology has given us the Recovered Memory bollocks that led to the Satanic Panic and the wrongful prosecutions of hundreds of people and the wrongful convictions of many of them. Also the wrongful convictions of Stefan Kiszko and Kathleen Folbigg was a result of psychology junk-science.
Click to expand...
Do you think that being young, homeless and broke would have ANYTHING to do with doing things against your will to have something to eat and somewhere to sleep?
 
smartcooky said:
It will all hang on the skill set of a psychologist, to convince a jury that what Pavlovich has written over and over again was not really what she was thinking. That will be a tough row to hoe, especially if they get someone on that jury with my attitude to the alleged profession of psychology.

And for the avoidance of doubt, I regard psychology as woo woo - a pseudo science that barely rises to the level of palmistry or reading tea-leaves.
Psychology has given us the Recovered Memory bollocks that led to the Satanic Panic and the wrongful prosecutions of hundreds of people and the wrongful convictions of many of them. Also the wrongful convictions of Stefan Kiszko and Kathleen Folbigg was a result of psychology junk-science.
Click to expand...
Psychology is not woo, and Recovered Memory is not woo psychology!

Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezus Frickking Christ!!!

It was psychologists who debunked Recovered Memory!!!!!!

Psychologists are the ones who demonstrate that false memories can occur and that was these false memories implanted in subjects through hypnosis that led them to believe things that made up the Satanic Panic.

My Christ! This is getting ever more insane.

ETA: altered the bit in bold.
 
Last edited:
"It was psychologists who debunked Recovered Memory!!!!!!"

Exactly. Elizabeth Loftus, for one.

You'd have to have the perceptiveness of a brick to not think a homeless girl is probably vulnerable to coercion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom