PZ accuses Shermer of rape.

[Azathoth]

Shemer's lawyers are now involved

So, Michael Shermer’s lawyers have sent me a letter. It consists of accusations that I lied about being contacted directly by the victim of his assault (which is not true; that I had corroboration from other people does not imply that there was no primary source), that I did it for the blog hits (Jeebus, no, this does not profit me in the slightest and is more likely to have a long term cost to me), that I acted in malice against Shermer (also entirely false — I have nothing against the man), and that Shermer is shocked, shocked I tell you, never having ever heard such an accusation against him before (given that my correspondent has email from him making excuses for his behavior, this is clearly a lie).

Time to consider legal assistance now. I’m really, really reluctant to take down the post and especially reluctant to delete the comments as they demand, but I may close comments on that post until this is resolved.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ryngula%29

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I just hope he never has nothing against me!

[klr]

PZ = Loose Cannon

[Audley Strange]

Shemer's lawyers are now involved

So, Michael Shermer’s lawyers have sent me a letter. It consists of accusations that I lied about being contacted directly by the victim of his assault (which is not true; that I had corroboration from other people does not imply that there was no primary source), that I did it for the blog hits (Jeebus, no, this does not profit me in the slightest and is more likely to have a long term cost to me), that I acted in malice against Shermer (also entirely false — I have nothing against the man), and that Shermer is shocked, shocked I tell you, never having ever heard such an accusation against him before (given that my correspondent has email from him making excuses for his behavior, this is clearly a lie).

Time to consider legal assistance now. I’m really, really reluctant to take down the post and especially reluctant to delete the comments as they demand, but I may close comments on that post until this is resolved.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ryngula%29

Oh yes. Time for a hundred weight of popcorn soaked in cannibutter.

[charlou]

Seriously? He kept refilling her wine glass (which she kept emptying) and flirted with her (while she laughed, which would seem like encouragement to most people). I am completely confused about what he was supposed to have done wrong. Take some fucking responsibility for your own actions

This.

Ayep.

[charlou]

I may have mentioned this before or I may not have. A friend of mine once noticed in his girlfriend's Cosmo or Vogue magazine (this anecdote happened a while ago) an article that said "Have you ever been sold fake tickets?" Which seems like a reasonable question. However he pointed out it could have equally asked "Have you ever purchased fake tickets?" but the implication of both of these questions is subtly different but quite important, since the latter implies some responsibility on behalf of the individual and the former does not.

Both he and his girl found this deeply sexist, since it treated women as if they were acted upon rather than actors, a priori victims waiting for the next horror to befall them.

I think it pertinent w/r to this accusation in so far as it seems the person involved is incapable of considering that they are responsible for their actions.

None of which excuses anyone raping anyone.

Yep ... good analogy and very good point about the subtleties of language, and the nuances of social implications, ramifications and consequences of such thinking.

[Seth]

"He made sure my wine glass stayed full."

Yeah, and clearly you made sure it kept getting emptier so he could refill it, all the while you're laughing at his jokes and seemingly giving him the impression you're happy with the situation. If you don't want your glass refilled, you could stop drinking.

Er...not to put too fine a point on it, but isn't that what I've been saying all along?

Not really no. Your point goes a tad further.

Well, yes, but it's the fundamental precept is it not?

If she'd wandered off with Shermer to have a quick fuck in the bathroom, would it have been "rape" just because she was a bit tipsy? I don't think so.

A bit tipsy or falling down drunk? There's a big difference IMO.

Legally defined as rape or a highly unethical exploitation?

Leaving oneself vulnerable is not consent.

The important word there is "leaving," which implies a lack of intent. But here we're talking about voluntary action undertaken with knowledge of the consequences (of drinking alcohol) in a social situation where one is in fact consenting to having others (like her girlfriends) take care of you. I don't view that as "leaving" oneself anything, I view it as intent and knowingly and with consent getting hammered and then (in this case) expecting someone else to discern what your ex post facto decision about prior consensual activities might be.

And actually leaving oneself vulnerable MAY be consent under circumstances where the actions involved indicate consent.

For example, for someone to come to someone else's hotel room, disrobe and recline on the bed, all without saying a word constitutes consent in any rational analysis. Verbal consent is not the only possible form of consent you see. That's what makes this such a perplexing issue.

I recall the scene in "Lost in Translation" where Bill Murray's character goes to the door of his hotel room only to find a prostitute has been sent up by the management as a perk for a famous American actor. She proceeds to protest loudly "Please, no don't rape me" and other like phrases, all the while literally throwing herself at him and ripping off both her and his clothes."

When the actions don't match the words a natural confusion results. This is why the "No means no" crowd is wrong. No doesn't always mean no. Sometimes it means yes, sometimes it means "try harder" and sometimes it means "I'm really getting off on this faux rape role-playing." Then again sometimes it means "no."

This is why, to be fair, people who are actually objecting to the activity have a duty to make their actions congruent with their words to at least some reasonable and rational extent, or to at least say the words in a forceful enough fashion to make the objection manifest and obvious.

And yes, a careful sexual partner will always stop and check to find out which of the meanings are attached, but some degree of responsibility does, in my opinion, lie with the purported victim, particularly if they have voluntarily placed themself in a compromising position, perhaps unwisely, but nonetheless voluntarily. At that point they at least owe a duty to the other person to make the change of plan obvious and manifest and DISENGAGE from the encounter in a positive manner. That's only fair and reasonable if one's actions have previously provided implicit consent.

Some guys are like telemarketers. You can't pleasantly refuse. You have to shut them down abruptly, in a way that many find quite rude. Sadly, it seems a lot of women, as well as quite a few men, find that to be a very difficult task.

What, shutting them down or being shut down?

Somehow I don't think that "Get your motherfucking hands off me this instant you smelly sleazebag or I'm going to pop your eyeballs out of your head like a couple of grapes and throw them across the room, followed shortly thereafter by your balls," is likely to be misinterpreted.

On the other hand, "Oh...God...Please...Don't...Stop" is more than a little ambiguous unless you're scratching his eyes out at the same time.

Some girls (and guys) actually do like rough sex and it's up to them to set the boundaries beforehand, not bitch after the fact if they don't.

[Daedalus]

I was going to say, "I wonder what the Ape Lusters are making of it", but then I remembered I'd rather eat broken glass than know.

They're using the latest witch-hunt to turn on each other. Someone at JREF linked to a hilarious thread which Setar called "There goes the neighbourhood" in which he describes the recent allegations as being like a nuclear bomb going off. After several different people have had their words hidden with a snarky mischaracterisation by the immoderators. This leads to a point where he is considered a racist and evil for comparing a rape accusation to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and is using a racially charged title.

In other words business as usual.

Some people aren't happy unless they have something to feel outraged by. Pathetic people.

[Audley Strange]

Well Daedalus, I think it's more complex than that, I think it applies to most zealots of ideology. I wrote this on my invisible blog which I think, hopefully gives some explanation.

The Rules of Modern Sanctimony.

Even when you are wrong you are correct.

Any ideology that you have agreement with is objectively correct. Thus any evidence that you are in error is simply a matter of misunderstanding by any interlocuter. However because your ideology is objectively correct, one cannot assume that this misunderstanding is simply ignorance or a difference of opinion. Either they are being deliberately provocative or are evil.

Any Interlocuter must be treated with the highest suspicion.

To question objective truth, an interlocutor must be considered as being an opponent and be treated as uncharitably as possible. It is not possible for them not to know or just disagree, therefore since dialogue itself is a dominance/submission game, any disagreement must be considered an attack.

Revealed opponents are fair game.

Once the interlocutor has revealed itself to be an opponent, one must destroy its credibility with any threat, diversion, accusation, slander, uncharitable reading, comparison or any other tool of rhetoric to divert away from their attacks upon objective truth. They are not genuine, so they must be revealed to the public as evil. Its not that you can't argue your case, its they are mean spirited and won't listen.

Don't Listen.

You know you're correct, you don't need feedback, advice, rebuttal, you have the conviction of your beliefs no one can tell you what to do, so why bother even listening. After all you are an ideologue, and an ideologue is the personification of an ideology. By attempting to give you advice they are attacking your ideas, they are attacking you. They are oppressing you.

Play the Victim.

Your invective is merely post-ironic re-appropriation of normative stereotypes demonstrating the oppressive nature of dialogue, theirs are slurs, are hate crimes and are also attacks on you as a person and should be considered harassment and persecution. Use or make up a personal anecdote which involves you being traumatised to garner sympathy for your position.

[Daedalus]

Well Daedalus, I think it's more complex than that, I think it applies to most zealots of ideology. I wrote this on my invisible blog which I think, hopefully gives some explanation.

The Rules of Modern Sanctimony.

Even when you are wrong you are correct.

Any ideology that you have agreement with is objectively correct. Thus any evidence that you are in error is simply a matter of misunderstanding by any interlocuter. However because your ideology is objectively correct, one cannot assume that this misunderstanding is simply ignorance or a difference of opinion. Either they are being deliberately provocative or are evil.

Any Interlocuter must be treated with the highest suspicion.

To question objective truth, an interlocutor must be considered as being an opponent and be treated as uncharitably as possible. It is not possible for them not to know or just disagree, therefore since dialogue itself is a dominance/submission game, any disagreement must be considered an attack.

Revealed opponents are fair game.

Once the interlocutor has revealed itself to be an opponent, one must destroy its credibility with any threat, diversion, accusation, slander, uncharitable reading, comparison or any other tool of rhetoric to divert away from their attacks upon objective truth. They are not genuine, so they must be revealed to the public as evil. Its not that you can't argue your case, its they are mean spirited and won't listen.

Don't Listen.

You know you're correct, you don't need feedback, advice, rebuttal, you have the conviction of your beliefs no one can tell you what to do, so why bother even listening. After all you are an ideologue, and an ideologue is the personification of an ideology. By attempting to give you advice they are attacking your ideas, they are attacking you. They are oppressing you.

Play the Victim.

Your invective is merely post-ironic re-appropriation of normative stereotypes demonstrating the oppressive nature of dialogue, theirs are slurs, are hate crimes and are also attacks on you as a person and should be considered harassment and persecution. Use or make up a personal anecdote which involves you being traumatised to garner sympathy for your position.

Yeah, that fits like a well-worn glove.

Depressing that behavior can be so rampant and so formulaic.
Is your blog on this site? If not, please PM me a link.

[Thinking Aloud]

... this does not profit me in the slightest and is more likely to have a long term cost to me ...

... he suddenly realised. Neat way to garner sympathy from supporters for being stupid in the first place.

[Azathoth]

BWAHAHAHAHA!. You couldn't make this shit up

Here’s another challenge for the growing atheist movement: can we avoid the trap of charismatic leadership and the cult of personality?

[Audley Strange]

Thanks Daedalus. The blog itself is just some of my nonsense, short stories, different parts of my persona, thoughts on games and the like, it's more like my personal gym than anything for the public.

I'm actually quite reticent to self promote here (I find it a bit cheap to do so) but I'm not shy so... http://strange-communications.blogspot.co.uk/

Don't expect much, but I hope it makes you chuckle occasionally.

[charlou]

... this does not profit me in the slightest and is more likely to have a long term cost to me ...

... he suddenly realised. Neat way to garner sympathy from supporters for being stupid in the first place.

where's that martyr smilie?

[Seth]

Well Daedalus, I think it's more complex than that, I think it applies to most zealots of ideology. I wrote this on my invisible blog which I think, hopefully gives some explanation.

OMG am I ever going to quote this with frequency....

Thanks!