|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 08/12/2013 : 22:00:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
You're right. I don't mean to deny that sexual or any other kind of harassment or abuse exists. Or that it's uncommon. I was thinking more along the lines of a McMartin Preschool kind of thing. The phrase "witch hunt" doesn't necessarily mean something that doesn't exist anymore. There really were communists and communist sympathizers when McCarthy engaged in his witch hunt.
And before anyone gets their knickers in a bind, I'm not at all saying that's what's going on here. I just worry that the climate is ripe for it. I could be wrong. I probably am. But it's a worry I have. |
But for any of the three to be analogous, there has to be a downside for not making accusations. For the witch and communist hunters, remaining silent could result in making yourself a target. For the children of McMartin, parents and scary authorities were suggesting that if they didn't speak out, they were bad kids.
So where, among skeptics, is anyone saying something similar? How is the climate ripe for "if you don't accuse Radford of harassment, you'll be accused of harassment yourself?" |
- 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
26021 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2013 : 22:15:09 [Permalink]
|
See. My worry is that any little gesture might be misinterpreted, and that this is the time to bring up something that has been misinterpreted to a very receptive audience that is more than willing to default to a worst case scenario. But I also hear what you are saying. There isn't a reward for coming forward. So I might be off base here.
|
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 - 08/13/2013 : 01:17:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Which motives? The self promotion part or presenting the information part? Even in this thread, I am not the only one who noticed the self promotion part. Even though it's well known around here that I'm no fan of Myers anymore, it doesn't take someone like me to notice that he was milking that post for all it was worth, regardless of his more noble motives.
|
I'm not sure whether it was self-promotion. Rather, I get the feeling that people like PZ know about harrassment second-hand, except for a few who have come forward, up to now there was noone who would come forward and actually point out someone as an harrasser. The way PZs post came over to me is that he finally has something much more tangible. |
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 - 08/13/2013 : 01:23:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
And now the whole of FTB is down, returning error 503, "Service Unavailable." DOS attack, maybe?
|
I don't have any problems reaching 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- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2013 : 05:47:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
See. My worry is that any little gesture might be misinterpreted, and that this is the time to bring up something that has been misinterpreted to a very receptive audience that is more than willing to default to a worst case scenario. |
No accounts I've seen so far were anything close to a simple misinterpretation. |
- 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
26021 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2013 : 08:53:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Kil
See. My worry is that any little gesture might be misinterpreted, and that this is the time to bring up something that has been misinterpreted to a very receptive audience that is more than willing to default to a worst case scenario. |
No accounts I've seen so far were anything close to a simple misinterpretation.
|
So. If I say that there is something I worry about happening, it should be taken as me saying that it's something that is happening. Is that it? Even after saying that I could be wrong and probably am.
I think I'll keep my apparently taboo worries to myself.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2013 : 10:24:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
So. If I say that there is something I worry about happening, it should be taken as me saying that it's something that is happening. Is that it? Even after saying that I could be wrong and probably am.
I think I'll keep my apparently taboo worries to myself. |
I'd actually prefer my friends not wallow in anxiety over things for which there is zero evidence and which seem implausible to begin with. When they say something about such worries, I usually say something back which may or may not be the wisest thing to say at the time, but is intended to start a back-and-forth conversation during which misunderstandings will be addressed and corrected, once-taboo subjects un-taboo-ified, and which hopefully results in alleviation of fears and thus a happier circle of friends.
If it's a person I don't like, I'll stay quiet 'cause it pleases me to think that they'll keep that shit bottled up, making themselves miserable. Fuck those fuckers. |
- 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 - 08/13/2013 : 10:35:56 [Permalink]
|
| Okay. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2013 : 13:52:43 [Permalink]
|
Bunch of different stuff...
From rikzilla on the JREF forums:No, I do trust PZ more than Shermer and I'll tell you exactly and precisely why. When I attended TAM4 with my wife we spoke to Shermer and had him sign a book, before we departed he took my wife aside and briefly spoke in her ear. Only later, when we were in our room, did she tell me what Shermer said, that she was sexy and then suggested that the two of them slip away for drinks. He did that right in front of me...the husband he had just met... which to me suggests a narcissist for whom the usual rules of society just don't really matter.
To suggest that such a man might eventually do rape...? Not really such an extraordinary claim. We're not talking about Bigfoot here. Stephanie Zvan has a piece up titled "What Is Not in Dispute" which focuses on the parts of Karen Stollznow's now-removed SciAmMind post that Ron Lindsay didn't think needed correction. Most importantly, Stollznow's claims about Ben Radford.
Interestingly, highlights in the comments the following section of Lindsay's message correcting Dr. Stollznow:...[A] few years ago, an employee hired a male stripper to perform during office hours. We would consider this more gross misconduct as opposed to sexual harassment, but, in any event, this incident lends no support to the false claim that CFI treats "harassers lightly." The employee was terminated almost immediately. So someone hired a stripper once and got canned for it, while Ben Radford spent years harassing and eventually assaulting Dr. Stollznow for years and got a temporary suspension. Clearly, to CFI/Lindsay, "zero tolerance" means "some tolerance." Especially when he's trying to classify the stripper incident as not sexual harassment in one sentence but as a dealt-with-promptly incident of harassment in another.
Dana Hunter: Sexism, Skeptics, and the Burden of Proof. Even in the legal realm, not all cases/events require "beyond a reasonable doubt." It's important to realize that if "innocent until proven guilty" were the required standard before doing anything which might tarnish a person's reputation, then the police couldn't arrest or even question criminal suspects.
Jason Thibeault: Sexual harassment accusations in the skeptical and secular communities: a timeline of major events. In this piece, Jason had Ashley Paramore's July 29th video listed with "unnamed organization" at first, so I re-watched the video because I remembered her mentioning TAM and JREF, and sure enough those mentions were still there. What's interesting, though, is that Ashley Paramore said this at 9:02 in the video:About a week after TAM, I got an email from the JREF to assure me that Jim-Bob would not be allowed back at any future TAMs. Compare that with Carrie Poppy's email from Chip Denman (on the JREF board):JREF does not and will not have a blacklist. Maybe JREF had a blacklist, and they've done away with it in the last year?
Miriamne commented, on the Friendly Atheist blog over a year ago:Michael Shermer is the worst offender I've heard of and experienced personally, just to name a name... He's the one with the reputation of trying to sleep with a new to the movement young woman every TAM, and that's hardly the worst about him. Just one more tidbit of evidence.
And so is naomibaker's comment at Pharyngula, saying that years ago she got a blog comment from a "Mrs. Shermer" stating that Michael Shermer "had confessed several 'affairs' and listed names." |
- 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 - 08/13/2013 : 18:49:09 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Maybe JREF had a blacklist, and they've done away with it in the last year? |
More likely, they don't have an official blacklist. Blacklisting has a bad connotation. And likely, Bed Radford will not be invited to TAM next year either. Or ever again.
But I'm not taking bets on anything.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2013 : 21:50:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
More likely, they don't have an official blacklist. Blacklisting has a bad connotation. And likely, Bed Radford will not be invited to TAM next year either. Or ever again. |
Well, Dr. Stollznow didn't use the word "blacklist" in her request:My request to the Board is that the JREF fulfill the obligation of its anti-sexual harassment policy by making a firm commitment to not invite this predator to any future JREF function. That's what prompted Denman's response disavowing a blacklist.| But I'm not taking bets on anything. |
Given that DJ Grothe "proudly and publicly advertised taking Mr. Radford out to the “Magic Castle” last night [July 19, 2013] during his visit to L.A.," I'd lay odds that DJ Grothe will continue to be an unempathic ass.
Holy crap, I hadn't seen JREF's form 990! In fiscal year 2012, for every dollar of income in contributions and grants, JREF paid out $1.06 in salaries, other compensation and employee benefits! 53 cents of every contribution/grant dollar goes to Randi's salary, and another 20 cents goes to Grothe. So the salaries of JREF's chair and president amount to 73% of its donation income.
It gets worse! As revenue, they claimed almost $45K as membership dues, and $434K as "other contributions." They claimed a big goose egg under "fundraising events." But under functional expenses, they claimed a $455K loss for "conferences, conventions and meetings." In other words, TAM 2012 cost the JREF $21,000. It's not a fundraiser, it's a fundloser!
Because the vast majority of JREF's income comes from "lectures and seminars," not from donations, members or TAM. So if anyone is wondering whether the JREF gives a fiscal damn about their input as members or donors, I'd have to say the answer is "no." Donations, contributions and dues amounted to only 37% of JREF's total revenue. |
- 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
26021 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2013 : 09:55:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
And now, Brian Dalton is on my shit-list for defending rape culture by blaming the victims.
|
He's defending a friend of his who he doesn't think raped anyone. He's not defending "rape culture." I doubt that Shermer thinks he raped anyone. But that is beside the point.
Let me tell you a true story, because this can work both ways. A few TAMs ago, I was hit on by a woman who kept buying me drinks. She had this little trick of asking to be kissed on the cheek and at the last second she would turn her head and the kiss was on the lips. That in itself could have been considered a sexual assault if I had chosen to see it that way. But I knew she was just flirting with me, and perhaps desired to have this thing end in sex. I had kept my wits about me, and I knew that she was married. I refused further drinks. So even though we were having fun, I couldn't continue. I wasn't willing to go there, even though it would have been very easy to have. I outright told her that she is married and I was tired and I left, alone. Had I given into my desires (I had them, and I considered it) I surely would have had "buyers remorse" in the morning. It's just who I am.
Now let's change the above story to her being Shermer and me being some women that he was flirting with. The story becomes bad bad bad. It even includes what would be seen as a sexual assault, if we change the characters.
There is something to be said about taking personal responsibility. Is that always victim blaming? And of course, it does not excuse non-consensual sex. There is no excuse for non-consensual sex. And non-consensual sex is what it has to be to be considered rape, aside from statutory cases and blackmail.
And remember, Shermer and Dalton are friends. Friends tend to believe friends. It's just the way it is.
And once again I must point out that I am not defending Shermer. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Unbelievable
