PZ accuses Shermer of rape.

[Robert_S]

Kittehs and puppies gimme asthma and they are very well so long as they are away from my presence.

Breathing is overrated.

[Svartalf]

I have a phobia about not being able to breathe, don't judge me.

[charlou]

I am a lot more open to the possibility that there might be something to this whole "rape culture" business, even if I still think that it is rather unfortunately named for a meme that wants widespread acceptance. Some of the things around the Stubbensville case have given me pause. But where is the research? Where are the surveys? Where are the psyche experiments? If they've been done, then why can an NPR listening, liberal Facebook feed having, atheist forum goer not know of them off the top of his head?

I'm not. The evidence I've seen presented so far simply suggests that there is a correlative link among people who treat rape lightly in certain respects and also indulge in "rape-like" behaviours. Essentially the frat-boy stereotype. I haven't encountered anything at all yet that suggests there is a causative link between say, comedians using rape as material, and the public at large being more likely to commit rape. I accept the idea that if a culture accepts rape as normal there will be more rapes (such as India). But it seems to me that's a circular argument. Of course people will do something if they consider it normal. It doesn't follow that if people joke about rape they are more likely to commit rape. Claiming so is a basic failure of logic and a distortion of the available facts.

Ayep. In fact, I'd say rape 'humour' of the ironic variety takes an anti 'rape culture' stance, by definition. It's observational and satirical social commentary, not in support of rape, but highlighting issues of current interest and concern ... just as satire has always done.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I am a lot more open to the possibility that there might be something to this whole "rape culture" business, even if I still think that it is rather unfortunately named for a meme that wants widespread acceptance. Some of the things around the Stubbensville case have given me pause. But where is the research? Where are the surveys? Where are the psyche experiments? If they've been done, then why can an NPR listening, liberal Facebook feed having, atheist forum goer not know of them off the top of his head?

I'm not. The evidence I've seen presented so far simply suggests that there is a correlative link among people who treat rape lightly in certain respects and also indulge in "rape-like" behaviours. Essentially the frat-boy stereotype. I haven't encountered anything at all yet that suggests there is a causative link between say, comedians using rape as material, and the public at large being more likely to commit rape. I accept the idea that if a culture accepts rape as normal there will be more rapes (such as India). But it seems to me that's a circular argument. Of course people will do something if they consider it normal. It doesn't follow that if people joke about rape they are more likely to commit rape. Claiming so is a basic failure of logic and a distortion of the available facts.

Ayep. In fact, I'd say rape 'humour' of the ironic variety takes an anti 'rape culture' stance, by definition. It's observational and satirical social commentary, not in support of rape, but highlighting issues of current interest and concern ... just as satire has always done.

That's just your rape fantasy talking.

[Coito ergo sum]

Wow, if Richard Carrier is invited to a credible skeptic or atheist event to speak after publishing this 30 karat bullshit gem, I will lose some respect for those groups that include him -- http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4419

The details involved alcohol. Given things others have said online (revisit the timeline), it’s possible Shermer has a habit of getting women drunk and having sex with them (or trying to). Several people online claim to have witnessed his skirt-chasing in general (even propositioning a married woman while her husband was elsewhere in the same room) and evidence of his propensity to have multiple simultaneous ongoing affairs (some of which one source claims his wife eventually became aware and was looking online for others…I don’t know if Shermer and his wife are still married). I’ve been hearing other rumors like this for years, so this isn’t a suddenly new thing. It’s just spilling out into public now.

You can review all there is and draw your own conclusion. This is only my own judgment. But the preponderance of evidence (a civil court burden, whereby a claim need only have a better than 50% chance of being true, so even just a 50.1% chance of being true would win a case) is enough for me to conclude that the general picture is probably true: Shermer pursues sex with women a lot, both one-night stands and ongoing affairs, and he has often enough done so without telling his wife or his various girlfriends.

Carrier's conclusion -- it has been proved by at least 50.1% that Michael Shermer, an adult male, has sought out other adults, namely women, for sexual encounters and he has done so during times/events when alcohol is consumed, and it even looks like he has done so without telling other women he has had such trysts with and/or his wife (which we don't know and which is none of anyone's business).

If that were all there were to this story, I would not be troubled by it. Consensual sex, even cheating, is not anyone’s doom. What one does sexually does not (contrary to pop politico psychology) indicate a general dishonesty or unreliability in other matters, or entail you’re a bad person, or make you unlikable or untrustworthy. Or dangerous. Or disgusting. Or any negative stereotype attached to expressions of human sexuality, even the sneaky kind.

Look at how he phrases that qualification -- obviously, he gives himself an out here. He's going to condemn Shermer, but he makes clear that OTHER PEOPLE (read those that hold to the appropriate political beliefs...) can engage in this activity and be given a pass (read, Weiner, Clinton, etc.).

What troubles me (and ought to trouble you) are the elements of victimization, exploitation, and insensitivity that are bubbling to the surface in some of the accounts of Shermer’s behavior.

He keeps filling up their wine glasses at social events. LOL.

Shermer probably has crossed moral lines. I have seen enough evidence to establish, in my own mind, at least a 50.1% chance that Shermer has not just cheated or fooled around, but has left a wake of victimized women in his path, that he has not conducted himself morally, and that he is probably not good or safe company (especially for women). Again, I am not witness to this. I am only inferring it from what has been said online by those who do claim to have witnessed evidence of it.

By a preponderance of the unverified hearsay I conclude that Shermer has probably victimized women and conducted himself immorally! He is probably not safe to be around! I have heard enough wishy-washy hearsay to prove it!

Carrier then goes on to establish his version of the 10 Commandments, so that we know what the rules are and why Shermer is "victimizing" women --

(1) Propositioning women you’ve barely even met, and have built no rapport with and have no idea what they think or feel about such things, is wrong.

Bwahahahahahahahha! Propositioning "women" you've barely even met. What? Propositioning men is by implication o.k.? Why did he not word this "propositioning PEOPLE" you've barely even met? That being said, what the fuck is this then? Women as a general rule don't respond favorably to quick propositions? Bullfuckingshit, Carrier. Go fuck off with your moralistic nonsense. Women are sexual beings and are about as likely as men, depending on the person propositioning them, to respond favorably to such propositions. Hotel conventions are replete with people fucking each other after having only just having met -- half of them are women.

He explains why --

That is wrong most especially (but not only) because it is certain to make a lot of women uncomfortable and unhappy and ruin their fun at parties. And a decent person shouldn’t want to do that. Moreover, a decent person would be aware that they are doing it. So when someone is doing it, or isn’t even aware that they are doing it, that’s a good reason to peg them as undesirable company.
It’s a basic rule of being a nice person: it is the moral responsibility of anyone at a social event to make sure, so far as they are able, that anyone in their immediate presence is reasonably comfortable, and not to make them uncomfortable without moral cause

Yes, because some women would be uncomfortable by someone flirting with them, there can be no flirting at parties unless you already know the person well and they are known to be agreeable tot he flirting. What a fucking douchebag. Look, Carrier, part of the whole idea of flirting with people you meet of the opposite sex is that it is a new and interesting and fun and exciting because of its newness. Women flirt with men they just meet all the time. Sometimes it's with a view toward having sex, sometimes it's just fun flirting. It's a way to get to know people. You go to a party, meet a person you find initially attractive and start the little dance -- buying drinks, flirtatious looks and glances and eye contact, light touching of the arm, subtle innuendo, humor -- all wrapped up into a thing called "hooking up" to the young folks.

But, according to Carrier, if you do that, you're not a nice person, and you're an immoral person, because you have gone forward with a flirt knowing that some women out there won't like it.

(2) Getting women drunk with the intent of having sex with them (without first establishing that they are okay with that) is wrong.

Ok, you patronizing little shit-for-brains. The only way a man "gets" a woman drunk is by forcing her like a fucking fois gras to swallow too much alcohol against her will. Offering to buy more drinks and/or pouring wine into a glass that the woman holds out for the bottle is not "getting" women drunk. Women are not fucking children. They are adults and can govern their own alcohol intake as much as men, and they are perfectly capable, generally speaking, of saying "no, not right now" or "no thank you" to an offer of alcohol.

Seriously. If you can’t persuade a woman to have sex with you when they are sober, you really should admit it’s slimy and pathetic to then try and impair their judgment just so that you can take advantage of them. That disregards their feelings, their happiness, their desires and interests, and simply makes them a tool for your manipulation and pleasure. You don’t care about them. You only care about yourself. And you’ll do what you can to them to get what you want. You shouldn’t even want to do that. And anyone who does is kind of an awful person. The kind of person I want to stay away from…and I think most women do, too.

Here, Carrier says he knows what Shermer intends to do with women, and he knows what most women want. And, he patronizes women again by making the argument that alcohol provides a special level of impairment to women, but not to men, AND that women are especially vulnerable to its powers. And, he wants to tell everyone what they should want and not want. Are you keen on going out, drinking, having a good time, and consensually fucking with people who want to do the same thing? You're sleazy and you shouldn't even WANT to do that, because there are some women out there who might not want to be offered another glass of wine or might not want to be flirted with.

Now on to Carrier's evaluation of the specifics:
\

Thus look at what she said happened: she claims Shermer “coerced” her “into a position where I could not consent” and then had sex with her. She has not said what form of coercion was used (and thus no accusation has been made yet that he used physical force) and what counts as coercion can be sufficiently subjective that it would be all but impossible for Shermer to prove he didn’t coerce her…in whatever sense she means. Likewise, what she considers being unable to consent can be sufficiently subjective that it would be all but impossible for Shermer to prove she could consent…in whatever sense she means.

Thus, read as-is, there really isn’t much here that Shermer can challenge…unless he wants to challenge it happening at all. And that’s where a significant number of other witnesses come in, who have already said they can corroborate at least that much, as well as that this woman felt traumatized and devastated by what happened. She was harmed. Regardless of what Shermer factually did. I think there are enough witnesses to prove that’s true, and if he forces the matter, I suspect he won’t be able to honestly deny it.

This is medieval logic in the extreme. Accuser makes vague, unfalsifiable claims against the accused. They are so vague that they can hardly be challenged due to the purely subjective nature of the accusations. The accused protests his innocence; however, since the accused says she was "harmed" by him in the subjective way described, which are so unfalsifiable the accused can brook no defense, then he is guilty. Hang him until he is half dead, disembowel him, and then draw him into four quarters and behead him. He is guilty. Guilty!... GUILTY!!!!

More thrilling logic -- .

I actually don’t know what details lie behind “coerced” and “could not consent.” And neither do you. Rather, the point I am making is that in one still important respect it doesn’t matter. What he did is sleazy.

Right - so, I don't know what happened. Carrier doesn't know what happened. You don't know what happened. And, the "coerce" and "could not consent" could mean anything from something very serious, to something very innocuous and innocent. But, what we do know for a fact is that in the best case scenario, what Shermer did was sleazy. We don't know what happened, but we do know that. LOL

Carrier, man -- I'll tell ya -- you are not showing yourself to be a towering intellect. Is this guy in any way respected for real? Or does he just maneuver for invites to Skepchick conferences?

He goes on to write a bollocksed recitation of the law, starting with the proposition that being acquitted means that it's illegal to accuse the person of having done the deed. Of course you can. OJ Simpson was sued and lost his wrongful death claim AFTER he was acquitted in criminal court. People call OJ a murderer all the time, and that's because criminal acquittals are not verdicts of innocence. The verdict of not guilty just means that the proof was not sufficient to be "beyond a reasonable doubt." Women can sue a rapist in civil court and the proof would be a preponderance of the evidence, as Carrier noted earlier in his article. And, it is a natural function of criminal and civl law that there is a burden of proof. Sometimes it will be a function of lack of proof. That doesn't limit what people can say about it. If you defame someone, however, that person can take it to court, as Shermer has threatened to do. It's up to him to do it.

But, in the end, Carrier ought to heed his own advice buried deep in the article -- "we don't know what happened" -- at all. We don't know if Shermer ever poured this woman a drink, and we don't know if "kept filling my glass" (if he did fill it) meant "kept filling it 8 times" or "kept filling it 3 times." We don't know what the accuser means by "coerce" and whether it would include activity that others might consider innocuous and innocent. Therefore, Carrier just can't possibly know whether the best case scenario presents a sleazeball Shermer. He may well have done nothing wrong at all, never had sex with her, or if he did, maybe she was a wild banshee who wanted every inch? Who the fuck knows? And, Carrier acknowledges that he doesn't fucking know, and yet he nevertheless concludes guilt. And, he makes the basic argument that guilt can be concluded based on the vagueness of the allegations!

Giant fucking douche.

[Bella Fortuna]

Heh. I have the chance to interview him.

[laklak]

Heh. I have the chance to interview him.

Haul out the chastity belt!

[Bella Fortuna]

Heh. I have the chance to interview him.

Haul out the chastity belt!

Actually, I don't want to say two words to him (unless those two words are "Fuck off").

[Svartalf]

Interview him? He wants to work for your outfit? Or is that for a blog or press thing you do?

[laklak]

Heh. I have the chance to interview him.

Haul out the chastity belt!

Actually, I don't want to say two words to him (unless those two words are "Fuck off").

You're going to turn down a bottomless glass of wine??

[Bella Fortuna]

Heh. I have the chance to interview him.

Haul out the chastity belt!

Actually, I don't want to say two words to him (unless those two words are "Fuck off").

You're going to turn down a bottomless glass of wine??

Hell no, but it'll make the "Fuck off" more slurred and garbled.

Interview him? He wants to work for your outfit? Or is that for a blog or press thing you do?

For the blog. I'm expected to do some interviews of some of the speakers/entertainers. Fortunately I get to pick who I do, so I can steer well clear of him. I'll probably have to meet him socially, though, as he'll be at a dinner I'm attending for the group. That should be interesting.

[Coito ergo sum]

Another FtBer has this to say --

Only, somewhere that script got flipped: it’s more grievously harmful to name the person on the off chance that they fall into the ~6% of false rape claims than it is to screw up that person’s chances at harassing or raping even more people. The cries of “innocent until proven guilty”, which are appropriate in a courtroom or when facing jailtime, are brought up — which are never brought up when someone tells you to watch out for that person who picked your pocket. The cries for physical evidence drown out the testimonial and corroborative evidence that are brought forward. The victim-blaming for putting themselves in the position they were in where they got raped flow freely, where in a parallel situation where someone’s car is hotwired nobody blames the person for choosing an inviting colour of car.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... -accusers/

Are the cries of innocent until proven guilty never brought up when someone tells you to watch out for that person who picked your pocket? Really? Well, first of all, how often does one know the identify of the person who picked one's pocket? However, on any scurrilous allegation - assault, theft, etc. -- wouldn't we be asking for proof? If someone said that Shermer was a thief, would we say "oh, yeah, well, someone said so, therefore we ought to treat him like a thief and act accordingly?" Or, would we say -- "what proof is there that Shermer is a thief?

Then the cries for physical evidence drown out the testimonial or corroborative evidence that are brought forward? Really? The testimonial evidence has been vague and inconclusive, it seems, which is the problem. Even Carrier noted that after the testimonial evidence was reviewed, we don't really know what happened. Right? So what is the corroborative evidence? That other women say that Shermer flirts with them and comes on to them? That's "corroborative" of rape?

It seems there’s a drive to create a false dichotomy where, because of the grievousness of the crime of breach of trust and breach of someone’s autonomy that rape represents, either the person is completely innocent and free of all charges, or is thrown in jail. Most rape and most assault and most harassment — while criminal — never results in true justice where the perpetrators are put behind bars, even if the victims do go to the police and even if there is physical evidence and even if there is a known suspect. Therefore, most rape and assault and harassment is entirely unpunished, and grossly underreported because everyone knows how the system is skewed.

Yes, arguably harassment is underreported, but what does that have to do with whether Shermer harassed anyone here? Or, raped anyone here? As Carrier noted in his dissertation on the topic - we don't know what happened, and the person who reported it clearly avoided the use of the word "rape" when she wrote about it.

People forget that there are not merely two options here. There’s not just “jailtime” and “completely innocent”. There’s not just “guilty” and “witch-hunts”. Another possibility is for people to be made aware of these creepers and to know that they cannot trust them as much as they might other people — to warn them that the trust placed in them might not be warranted.

There is another option -- that Shermer is not a creeper. Saying "be made aware of these creepers" begs the question. Is Shermer a creeper? And, there is another option -- that some folks would consider his activity to be creeperesque and others would not. There is that middle ground too. We don't know, do we?

I understand this dynamic well. When I was 16, my first girlfriend accused me of rape in order to preempt any acrimony over her sleeping with someone else, and the only things that saved me — unpopular kid as I was — were the facts that she’d repeatedly and demonstrably lied to a lot of people about a lot of things very often, eroding anyone’s trust in her, and because she happened to tell a lie integral to her accusation that I could disprove.

So, this guy "Lousy Canuck" thinks his situation was such that he ought to be believed and his ex-girlfriend was a false rape accuser, all based on prior conduct on her part. She wasn't to be believed. The woman in that case was not to be believed. However, in the case of Shermer, Lousy Canuck is of the view that Shermer is to be assumed the creeper and his accuser is innocent or could not possibly be accusing Shermer of something that either didn't happen or didn't rise to the level of harassment or rape.

So when someone whom PZ trusts, who also trusts PZ to do the right thing, comes forward and tells PZ her story of having been coerced into sex by the big-name and well-trusted Michael Shermer, and he realizes that to do anything at all about it he has to risk taking a hell of a lot of splash damage to his own reputation in bringing it to the world at large. He’s fully aware that even putting it forward to the degree that he has, stripped of any identifying details that might result in retaliatory harassment of the victim by Shermer’s fans, he’s not only risking his reputation but he’s giving ammunition to the people who want his reputation to evaporate entirely, who will not hesitate to use this event to destroy him and everything he stands for.

So, rather than take time to investigate these rather old claims, he knee-jerks and puts them on the web. Why? Was there an emergency? Shermer has been on the loose for almost 10 years since the alleged incident occurred. NOW it's vital to stop him from interacting with people at conventions?

Bollocks.

PZ Meyers and his ilk have been out for the blood of noncomformers since a few months before Elevatorgate, and Elevatorgate propelled it forward. They were going after the prominent "old guard" atheists, because they want to become the new guard atheists. They fucking said so explicitly when ApeLust was created. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/relig ... w-atheists The Old White atheists were to be pushed aside, and the New New Atheists were coming in. PZ was to lead the way, and he would get the calls for interviews,etc. Since then, they have engaged in war after war against the old guard, and they are careful to limit it to those who have views that might be considered "unLeft." Look at who they hit -- Dawkins, Harris, Dunning, Kraus, the list goes on and on. Shermer is rather libertarian in his views, and as such needs to get taken down. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-s ... 58500.html Like Thunderf00t, he was to be skewered.

Anyone who is among the old guard that does not fall in line behind ApeLust and Freefromthoughtblogs is going to get pilloried. Period.

This is part of their plan, their strategy, their modus operandi.

Believe it. That's not a "conspiracy theory" as such -- it's been proven by their actions over the past 2 years. Look who they attack, and how they do their attacking.

And as for the strength of the evidence at hand, the fact that PZ received post-hoc corroboration of the events in question, from someone well-placed within the community enough to be trustable themselves and to have been in a position to know the truth of the statement, from someone, I note, who even admits that they don’t much like PZ and the strength of their belief in the events is strong enough to override that distrust, is excellent evidence that the events actually happened. That’s why there’s a plural. It further cements in my mind that I was right to trust PZ, and that I’m right to trust Jane Doe, at the expense of the reputation of yet another so-called pillar of our community.

A "trusted" person who has not been named, and we know nothing of. We are asked to trust hearsay from an unnamed source reported by PZ Meyers against someone who Apelusters and FtBers have reason to oppose politically and philosophically. Anonymous hearsay within hearsay.

This is what passes for reasoning on Freefromthoughtblogs.com?

[hadespussercats]

An extended discussion about the meaning and nature of feminism was moved here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=45446

[DaveDodo007]

An interesting development: linky.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.f ... r.html?m=1

Money shot:

"In a personal email to me Shermer categorically denies these accusations. If what he said about his accuser gets out, it will be apparent to most all reasonable people that PZ Myers published a bold-faced lie. He recklessly tried to destroy another person's reputation without regard for fact-checking. Before publishing it PZ Myers should have contacted Shermer for his side to the story. This is standard journalistic ethics that even newsroom rookies know to do. PZ Myers knows how to email him. Why didn't he do so? Not doing so and publishing the accusation anyway was an unprincipled action devoid of ethical responsibility. But then, that's what we could expect from a demagogue now isn't it?"

Were still left with 'someone sent me an email' but at least the sender is named.

[Thinking Aloud]

That also implies that Shermer knows who the accuser is, which is at odds with her apparent desire not to reveal her identity to him for fear that "he will come after me in some way." So either it's progressed legally far further than we're aware, or someone somewhere isn't very good at keeping secrets.

(Or I've not been paying attention, and all this has been covered previously.)