|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 08/09/2013 : 14:47:20 [Permalink]
|
Ophelia Benson responded with "Sinking."
For a successful libel lawsuit, Shermer would have to prove that PZ posted what he did either knowing it was untrue, or with a reckless disregard for its veracity. Unless it was made up by PZ himself, his post and later comments demonstrate that neither of those things is true.| I've heard other skeptics impugn PZ's motives like this, calling him a muckraker and accusing him of yellow journalism, or in some cases even outright fabrication. |
As Ophelia notes, PZ doesn't need the blog hits.| I'm curious to see what Shermer's response will be. |
I'm hoping it's along the lines of, "Without admitting to any particulars, I've done some things I regret, they won't happen again, and as a show of goodwill, I'm donating umpty-ump thousand dollars to the so-and-so crisis hotline, and taking myself off the lecture circuit for a year." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2013 : 15:02:55 [Permalink]
|
Miranda Celeste Hale has reported FTB to its ISP for allegedly violating its TOS, but she didn't tweet exactly why.
Sharon Hill seems to think what PZ wrote about Shermer, Radford and Krauss was libelous, but to make such a claim, she'd have to know that PZ is lying (or reckless). Where is Hill's evidence? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2013 : 15:09:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Former FTB blogger Al Stefanelli shared his thoughts on the Shermer matter in a post titled I got your ‘grenade’ right here…
Regarding PZ's decision to post the story on his blog, he writes: This is not ‘bringing to light‘ a problem in the skeptic community. It is not an attempt to reveal some sort of dark underbelly of rampant sexual abuse that permeates the skeptic conference circuit. It is yellow journalism, if I even dare to use the word ‘journalism‘ in connection to anything that has come out of Pharyngula for quite some time.
First, this is very likely libelous and if I were Mr. Shermer, I’d be contacting an attorney, post haste, for advice on filing a law suit. |
I've heard other skeptics impugn PZ's motives like this, calling him a muckraker and accusing him of yellow journalism, or in some cases even outright fabrication. I'm curious to see what Shermer's response will be.
|
I find the responses by people like Stefanelli a bit hypotcritical and have a hard time taking them seriously. For a long time now, actually since the beginning, one of the responses against the reports of sexual harrassment up to this point were the lack of detail and the fact that names were not mentioned. Now they are, and voila. Now it's libel / yellow journalism / cry for attention / whatever.
Of course, I kind of predicted that these responses would come as soon as names were named. But that may be because I do not take the people reacting in opposition to skepchick / FTB on this seriously at all. I do not think these people are at all honest in their responses. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2013 : 16:57:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Miranda Celeste Hale has reported FTB to its ISP for allegedly violating its TOS, but she didn't tweet exactly why. |
It occurs to me that this is the clearest example of someone in the skeptic/atheist community directly contributing to rape culture that I've seen that didn't involve "I will rape ur fambly!" or the like. Miranda Celeste Hale is sending the message to rapists that if someone blogs rape allegations against you, someone else will have your back and try to shut the accuser's blog down, regardless of the truth. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2013 : 19:19:51 [Permalink]
|
All anyone has to do is make an accusation and it's a done deal. That's how it looks to me. Doesn't anyone here find that a bit disturbing?
I figure I'm gonna get hammered for asking that question. But I have to ask it.
And no, I don't approve of what Miranda Celeste Hale did. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2013 : 21:57:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
All anyone has to do is make an accusation and it's a done deal. That's how it looks to me. Doesn't anyone here find that a bit disturbing? |
Context is important. No matter what you might think of PZ's style, is he a serial liar? The same accusation-by-proxy from a known liar wouldn't be taken seriously. The source needs to be factored in.
As for "done deal," so far as I've seen, one person has publicly stated that they will not speak at any con that invites Shermer, and three other people have publicly stated that they will allow their Scientific American subscriptions to lapse (something I decided to do because of Shermer's massively overwrought insults in response to mild criticism). Maybe some people will refuse to buy his next book. Maybe some conventions will decline to invite him, or even tell him he's not welcome as an attendee, either. Maybe a bunch of women will avoid him like the plague.
So yeah, he's been convicted in the court of public opinion, and his punishment is... nothing at all substantial.
As I said, the moral calculus is clear: if the accusations are false, making them public will cost Shermer very little, but if the accusations are true, the publicity may save someone from being raped. Which is worse? Being accused of rape, or being raped?| I figure I'm gonna get hammered for asking that question. But I have to ask it. |
I hope the above doesn't count as a hammering.| And no, I don't approve of what Miranda Celeste Hale did. |
I just thought of something else: if the accusations are false, and Miranda Celeste Hale succeeds in getting FTB shut down, she'll have made it slightly more difficult for Shermer's legal team to get at the evidence for any lawsuits he brings. With FTB removed from public view, they'd be forced to get subpoenas, while with it online, they can just copy/paste the relevant evidence.
So Miranda Celeste Hale has not only made it easier for rapists to rape her and other women (regardless Shermer's status), but she may have made it more difficult for Shermer to seek justice if he's innocent. That's irony, right? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2013 : 23:38:54 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Which is worse? Being accused of rape, or being raped? |
Of course being raped is worse, but having to live with being a suspected of rape is hardly "nothing substantial." Let's not minimize the damage done if the claim is not true. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2013 : 05:05:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Of course being raped is worse, but having to live with being a suspected of rape is hardly "nothing substantial." Let's not minimize the damage done if the claim is not true. |
I've spent the last half-hour trying and failing to find information about the consequences of a false rape accusation where the case doesn't involve either a criminal/civil prosecution or violent vigilante justice. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2013 : 06:23:09 [Permalink]
|
Back to Ben Radford...
From the there's-always-someone-smarter-than-yourself department, Richard Carrier shreds CFI's statement as communicating all the wrong things, making it worse than their response to Ron Lindsay's nonsense.
In the comments, Carrier notes that Dr. Stollznow's husband has spoken out about this on Facebook, in the comments on a post by the third MosterTalk host, Blake Smith, in response to Radford talking about how he can't speak out to correct the lies being told about him:Ben, I know that it is your job at this point to minimize things. You would never admit to the things that you did. Fine. I get that. The truth is that you were asked to back off for years and you didn't. You acted like I didn't even exist in your persistence with Karen. I am her husband and no matter what you think of me, I asked you like a gentleman to back off. I never came out and told you off for your repeated sexually charged contact. I tried to (erroneously) give you the benefit of the doubt. I hoped you would just get bored. You didn't. You continued. When Karen cut your communication paths off, you started claiming that she was disrespectful to you. Do you really want this fight, Ben? We can back up our side of things. You are in the wrong. Period. No amount of claiming that someone gave you mixed signals will work when we both have copies of the cries for you to STOP. Just admit where you were wrong and apologize. Remember when things actually worked out for awhile? TAM 2011. You behaved and were a real gentleman. We forgave and things were smooth. We had always been willing to be reasonable as long as our wishes were honored. You just couldn't let it go. You have a problem and need to get some help. And after Barbara Drescher says that secrecy protects both accused and accuser, Baxter says,There is no more secrecy about who is involved. The cat is out of the bag. Who is being protected now? Here is the secrecy: Ben even says that his claims and evidence were only heard by the investigator but he fully heard and saw our claims and evidence. He had a chance to defend himself against our claims. We have no way of refuting what he said to the investigator. We have no way of knowing what details are simply wrong to correct them. We have no way of knowing which evidence CFI decided to reject and why. We have no way of knowing what was in that report that is about us. I'm so glad that we are protected from defending ourselves from his claims. This secrecy is awesome. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2013 : 06:25:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
All anyone has to do is make an accusation and it's a done deal. That's how it looks to me. Doesn't anyone here find that a bit disturbing?
I figure I'm gonna get hammered for asking that question. But I have to ask it.
And no, I don't approve of what Miranda Celeste Hale did.
|
I am not entirely comfortable with the accusations. Especially those of Lawrence Krauss and Michael Shermer. Especially given these are reports from anonymous sources, through PZ and Jen. With the accusation / naming of Ben Radford I have less of a problem, since the details are more clear and were at least implicitly admitted by CFI in their public statement.
The reason I am more comfortable with the naming of actual persons then I would otherwise be, is that the one I mentioned above. Since the start different people on the anti-harrassment side have been stating that there are a couple of speakers that females in the movement warn each other about. Since the start, the "harrassment isn't a problem"-side has been clamoring for them to name names. Well, here you have them.
The reason I am more comfortable with the naming of Ben Redford and Michael Shermer is because of their writing on this topic, which have quite frankly appalled me. I am not at all surprised that their names came up. Again, Krauss I am less comfortable with, given how he (by my knowledge at least) has so far stayed out of this debate.
Personally, I am hoping some more people come out and report on their personal experiences with these people, although that hope may be idle.
Now, I think it was Jen who stated that she gave these names in private to one of the leaders of one of the skeptic organisations (Lindsey?), but that he did not take any action. I am not at all sure how I would have handled the situation if I would have been given these names in private, were I someone like Lindsey. It is hard to stop inviting people based on rumour. And you cannot really put out a public message asking people to report their experiences with "speaker X", without already naming them. On the other hand, if you're not going to act on it, why ask these names? My feeling is that events so far were leading up to this, given the pushback the "anti-harrassment" crowd has been getting. That does not mean I'm entirely comfortable with it. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2013 : 06:39:58 [Permalink]
|
| I see on the facebook page that people keep pointing to PZ as the one who outed Ben Redford. He wasn't the one that did that. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2013 : 08:30:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Since the start different people on the anti-harrassment side have been stating that there are a couple of speakers that females in the movement warn each other about. Since the start, the "harrassment isn't a problem"-side has been clamoring for them to name names. Well, here you have them. |
It may have been on McCreight's now-curtailed post where I saw it suggested that Radford, Shermer and Krauss comprised the whole of "the List." At least, I can't find that reference any longer but I remember it being quite prominent.| Now, I think it was Jen who stated that she gave these names in private to one of the leaders of one of the skeptic organisations (Lindsey?), but that he did not take any action. |
You are correct. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2013 : 08:36:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
I see on the facebook page that people keep pointing to PZ as the one who outed Ben Redford. He wasn't the one that did that.
|
True. He reported to a much larger readership than the tweet.
His grenade metaphor, all of the phoney hand wringing and so on were a great example of his own self promotion on a serious issue. Poor PZ for being handed this information. Riiight... Dave is correct. I do think PZ Myers style stinks. He doesn't have to lie to be an asshole.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2013 : 08:45:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by tomk80
I see on the facebook page that people keep pointing to PZ as the one who outed Ben Redford. He wasn't the one that did that.
|
True. He reported to a much larger readership than the tweet.
His grenade metaphor, all of the phoney hand wringing and so on were a great example of his own self promotion on a serious issue. Poor PZ for being handed this information. Right. Dave is correct. I do think PZ Myers style stinks. He doesn't have to lie to be an asshole.
|
That is true. I found his post on Schermer idiotic. You knew as soon as you started reading that he couldn't wait to anounce the name, so just come forward with it. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2013 : 08:48:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by tomk80
Since the start different people on the anti-harrassment side have been stating that there are a couple of speakers that females in the movement warn each other about. Since the start, the "harrassment isn't a problem"-side has been clamoring for them to name names. Well, here you have them. |
It may have been on McCreight's now-curtailed post where I saw it suggested that Radford, Shermer and Krauss comprised the whole of "the List." At least, I can't find that reference any longer but I remember it being quite prominent.| Now, I think it was Jen who stated that she gave these names in private to one of the leaders of one of the skeptic organisations (Lindsey?), but that he did not take any action. |
You are correct.
|
I never made the assumption that the list would be extraordinarily long from what she had written previously. I always thought it was a small number of people. But that might just be me. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Unbelievable
