Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

[Sulman]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... 180950278/

"The results from this study can provide a language for young men to describe sexaully coercive experiences and acknowledge that males can be victims of coercion by females

Um, yeah. We are totally dumb around the right woman.

[windy]

But no, more likely the guy is actually closer to a Carrie Poppy grade emotional wack job. Being "duped" is a very charitable interpretation here. Searching for complex conspiracies to explain away the dumb is an unwarranted luxury and more than slightly embarrassing.

It's probably time to point out; if she did feel harassed she would obviously want an intermediary she trusted. More importantly Radford has been the one who fucked up and made claims he couldn't support. And it's Radford who has had to post private emails in a so far futile effort to "prove" - what? that he had an agreement? Even his best evidence doesn't show that. No he is reduced to trying to prove that he is on an emotional hair trigger rather than being a complete fraud.

Now you're just being hyperskeptical, don't you know that Ben couldn't show all of the evidence because a screen capture only has so much vertical space?

:doh: :doh: :doh:

radford.png

(44.28 KiB) Downloaded 263 times

[zenbabe]

I assume it was something like this?
[youtube]jWnK1luCWyQ[/youtube]

Yes. And like this:

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... f7c05b.png
viewtopic.php?p=92865#p92865 <-- click link for oodles of 'shop goodies and loads of Gunderfyll's vids.

[Parody Accountant]

WHAT MANNER
OF DEVILRY
IS THIS?

[youtube]YBX_CveiafI[/youtube]

[Dick Strawkins]

http://i.imgur.com/lJuayxG.jpg

[John D]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... 180950278/

"The results from this study can provide a language for young men to describe sexaully coercive experiences and acknowledge that males can be victims of coercion by females

Um, yeah. We are totally dumb around the right woman.

The male: "Well, I didn't expect to be fucking her tonight, but if she is that fuckin horny I have some free time. I just hope she doesn't think I will fall in love with her or something."

The female: "Well, I didn't expect to be fucking him tonight, but if he is that fuckin horny I have some free time. I just hope I don't feel like a whore when I wake up in the morning."

[Lsuoma]

So let me get this right, if one of them puts you to the block bot,all of them by proxy put in a complaint against you....even if you never contacted them before.
Twitter allows this?

You ARE new here, aren't you.

But trying, trying oh so hard...

I find s/h/it's content-free blather trying, anyway.

[Dave]

[quote="DeepInsideYourMind"

Bunkum ... *anything* that happens can be brought up as evidence ...

"Here's our discussions in which she admits she made it up"

"Here is her partner agreeing that Karen has agreed this"

"Here are her twitter comments where she changes her mind"

etc etc


Nothing in pre-trial negotiations is confidential

You *might* have been right if the lawsuit itself was about this Stollznow agreed to enter into some sort of contract. But on the issues of this case? Totally inadmissible.

Unless you care to show me that this case was brought in a jurisdiction where the equivalent of Federal Rule of Evidence 408 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_408 is not in effect.

Reading further would bring you to : The practical value of the common law rule has been greatly diminished by its inapplicability to admissions of fact, even though made in the course of compromise negotiations, unless hypothetical, stated to be “without prejudice,” or so connected with the offer as to be inseparable from it.


So unless Baxter and Karen put "without prejudice" on every email and communication ... they are admissible as evidence of admissions of facts in the case ... "No that didn't happen" "Yes I used the wrong phrase" etc etc ... which is pretty much what the "agreed" statement said (and therefore the prior communications must have said)[/quote]

The portion you quote is from "The Notes of the Advisory Committee on the Proposed Rules." They were justifying why the common law rule was no longer sufficient and there needed to be a new rule. ("These considerations account for the expansion of the rule herewith to include evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations, as well as the offer or completed compromise itself." From slightly later in the same paragraph that you quoted from.) The new rule is FRE 408 which makes no mention of "without prejudice." Even fucked up jurisdictions such as NY which still retain most of the common law approach to evidence have passed laws similar to FRE 408 restoring the settlement privilege. (see NY CPLR 4547)

So unless Baxter and Stollznow somehow used a time machine to send their emails prior to the passage of FRE (sometime back in the 1970s IIRC) or whenever it was passed in their jurisdiction, what you have quoted is primarily indicating that the intent of the rule is to prevent exactly that from occurring.

[Dave]

Now, new and improved with correct quote nesting!!!

Bunkum ... *anything* that happens can be brought up as evidence ...

"Here's our discussions in which she admits she made it up"

"Here is her partner agreeing that Karen has agreed this"

"Here are her twitter comments where she changes her mind"

etc etc


Nothing in pre-trial negotiations is confidential

You *might* have been right if the lawsuit itself was about this Stollznow agreed to enter into some sort of contract. But on the issues of this case? Totally inadmissible.

Unless you care to show me that this case was brought in a jurisdiction where the equivalent of Federal Rule of Evidence 408 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_408 is not in effect.

Reading further would bring you to : The practical value of the common law rule has been greatly diminished by its inapplicability to admissions of fact, even though made in the course of compromise negotiations, unless hypothetical, stated to be “without prejudice,” or so connected with the offer as to be inseparable from it.


So unless Baxter and Karen put "without prejudice" on every email and communication ... they are admissible as evidence of admissions of facts in the case ... "No that didn't happen" "Yes I used the wrong phrase" etc etc ... which is pretty much what the "agreed" statement said (and therefore the prior communications must have said)

The portion you quote is from "The Notes of the Advisory Committee on the Proposed Rules." They were justifying why the common law rule was no longer sufficient and there needed to be a new rule. ("These considerations account for the expansion of the rule herewith to include evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations, as well as the offer or completed compromise itself." From slightly later in the same paragraph that you quoted from.) The new rule is FRE 408 which makes no mention of "without prejudice." Even fucked up jurisdictions such as NY which still retain most of the common law approach to evidence have passed laws similar to FRE 408 restoring the settlement privilege. (see NY CPLR 4547)

So unless Baxter and Stollznow somehow used a time machine to send their emails prior to the passage of FRE (sometime back in the 1970s IIRC) or whenever it was passed in their jurisdiction, what you have quoted is primarily indicating that the intent of the rule is to prevent exactly that from occurring.[/quote]

[Stretchycheese]

Again, pointless caveat that I'm prochoice, why do I even bother saying it when to Secular Woman/FTB/etc I am Devil's spawn as are we all here. :roll: (Oh, and Level 2 on the blockbot, ba ha ha.)

What a joke. The blockbot is simply an ideological blacklist and cudgel used by the SJW crowd to vilify skeptics and dissenters by associating them with harassers and trolls (yeah, I know, thank's Capt. Obvious!).

By the way ST, did you ever get around to finishing Professing Feminism? Any thoughts? I'm very suspicious of Ophelia's claim that she's "friends" with PF's author, Daphne Patai. I suspect Patai would quickly join her evergrowing list of "former friends" or "witch-of-the-week" if she offered some commentary and analysis about the schism.

[Apples]

Hulu usually doesn't work in Canada, but that one did. I hope they've changed their rules about that.

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/easily-byp ... al-filter/

[Liesmith]

So let me get this right, if one of them puts you to the block bot,all of them by proxy put in a complaint against you....even if you never contacted them before.
Twitter allows this?

You ARE new here, aren't you.

But trying, trying oh so hard...

I find s/h/it's content-free blather trying, anyway.

It's this sort of harassment against content-free contributors that keeps me from posting more often, Socialist Boob.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Yeah, well, atheists do need to ramp up their PR. Historical holocausts against mass populations of atheists is still relatively unknown. Property restrictions forbidding sell or rental to atheists even as late as the 50s are also more unknown than they should be.
Historical immigration quotas against atheists also languish in our classrooms.

I mean here I am a Jewish agnostic, and I honestly do not know much of the organized oppression and daily microaggresions against atheists. I wander around town daily, and though I have certainly felt immersed in #GodCulture, I have never faced any oppression against me for my agnostic views.

So yes, I probably would be more sympathetic if this happened to a rabbi who can demonstrate this is a common and consistent issue, than for anyone who can only show some asshole was being an asshole to them but otherwise fail to show any case that this is a real issue.

So, in less you've had it as bad as the Jews, STFU? This is about discrimination based on religion -- doesn't matter against whom.

[Really?]

Uh oh. I hope no one shows this study to the looneys:

"A total of 43 percent of high school boys and young college men reported they had an unwanted sexual experience and of those, 95 percent said a female acquaintance was the aggressor, according to a study published online in the APA journal Psychology of Men and Masculinity.

"Sexual victimization continues to be a pervasive problem in the United States, but the victimization of men is rarely explored," said lead author Bryana H. French, PhD, of the University of Missouri. "Our findings can help lead to better prevention by identifying the various types of coercion that men face and by acknowledging women as perpetrators against men."

Of 284 U.S. high school and college students who responded to a survey about unwanted sexual encounters, 18 percent reported sexual coercion by physical force; 31 percent said they were verbally coerced; 26 percent described unwanted seduction by sexual behaviors; and 7 percent said they were compelled after being given alcohol or drugs, according to the study. Half of the students said they ended up having intercourse, 10 percent reported an attempt to have intercourse and 40 percent said the result was kissing or fondling."

Press Release: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 032514.php

Actual study: http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releas ... 035915.pdf

[John D]

Uh oh. I hope no one shows this study to the looneys:

"A total of 43 percent of high school boys and young college men reported they had an unwanted sexual experience and of those, 95 percent said a female acquaintance was the aggressor, according to a study published online in the APA journal Psychology of Men and Masculinity.

"Sexual victimization continues to be a pervasive problem in the United States, but the victimization of men is rarely explored," said lead author Bryana H. French, PhD, of the University of Missouri. "Our findings can help lead to better prevention by identifying the various types of coercion that men face and by acknowledging women as perpetrators against men."

Of 284 U.S. high school and college students who responded to a survey about unwanted sexual encounters, 18 percent reported sexual coercion by physical force; 31 percent said they were verbally coerced; 26 percent described unwanted seduction by sexual behaviors; and 7 percent said they were compelled after being given alcohol or drugs, according to the study. Half of the students said they ended up having intercourse, 10 percent reported an attempt to have intercourse and 40 percent said the result was kissing or fondling."

Press Release: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 032514.php

Actual study: http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releas ... 035915.pdf

They rapin everybody...

[youtube]mEAKsaQOCpQ[/youtube]

[Guestus Aurelius]

Scroll on by if you're sick to death of, or bored to tears with, abortion arguments.

I don't know why I feel compelled to start off w/ disclaimer that I'm prochoice, and I have some personal as well as professional experience with abortion. But, really, that shouldn't matter (IMO).

Adam Lee has one of the more frank pieces I've seen about #UpForDebate, at Patheos here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat ... community/

<snip>

To be fair, in the comments Adam says this:

Surely I'm not the only pro-choice person here who gets the willies thinking of an 8th month abortion. Yes, I know they comprise a minute proportion of abortions, and arguing the issue as if they are representative is disingenuous. But if you are going to say EVERYONE who is pro-life deserves immediate dismissal from serious conversation, then the tough cases, however rare, must be addressed.

I'll be glad to address that, bearing in mind, as you say, that it's strictly a hypothetical scenario. The overwhelming majority of terminations happen very early in pregnancy, and late-term abortions are almost always done because of serious medical complications. Any real-world examples of purely voluntary late-term abortion are vanishingly rare, if they ever happen at all. That said:

My position is that every person has autonomy over their own body, full stop. If a woman is pregnant and no longer wants to be, for whatever reason, she has the right to evict that pregnancy. However, if the fetus has a functioning brain and can survive outside the womb without heroic measures, I don't think there should be a right to insist that this removal be carried out in a way that ensures its destruction.

So although he didn't make it clear in the post, he was talking about the right to cease being pregnant on demand, not necessarily the right to kill a viable fetus on demand.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat ... 1304623722

Funny that he'd simultaneously hold that position and prohibit our homeslice Steersman from laying out ostensibly pro-life arguments that might lead one to a similar conclusion.

What an A-class dickhead.

(By the way, does any study exist that actually measures the commonness of "purely voluntary late-term abortion"? I'm quite sure they're indeed "vanishingly rare," but "vanishingly rare" ≠ "strictly a hypothetical scenario," and "vanishingly rare" ≠ not worth taking into account—cf., e.g., infanticide, the murdering of abortion doctors, and nuclear warfare.)

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Anything that happens in settlement negotiations is absolutely inadmissible at trial. I would go further and say that unless the judge requested that a settlement negotiation occur, the judge will only be annoyed if this type of drama is brought up. Oh, and the judge will be annoyed at whoever it is that brings this non-issue to the judge's attention. So whether intentionally or not, Radford was played - hard. And there's not a damn thing he can do about it.

Bunkum ... *anything* that happens can be brought up as evidence ...

Sure. Thats why I have a 500 page book sitting on my desk right now detailing what can and cannot be offered as evidence in Federal Court, theres another 1000 page book on the bookshelf behind me.

"Here's our discussions in which she admits she made it up"

"Here is her partner agreeing that Karen has agreed this"

Completely inadmissible. In Federal Court, this is covered under FRE 408. Every jurisdiction in the US has a similar rule. Settlement offers or other offers to compromise are non-admissible.

"Here are her twitter comments where she changes her mind"

Those might be admissible, but she doesnt admit anything on twitter. At best, they are evidence that she has changed her mind, but shes allowed to change her mind about settling.

Nothing in pre-trial negotiations is confidential

Its not confidential if the parties havent agreed before hand that it is, but it is still not admissible. Admissible and confidential are two very separate things.

Thanks for clarifying that, Dave. iirc, settlement negotiations are made inadmissible to avoid discouraging out-of court settlements, no?

It's easy to conflate what goes on in a court of law, with how this will play out in the (TW: cliche) 'court of public opinion.'

And doubtful it's gone to court yet -- Radford's likely just filed a suit to spur a settlement, with following through on the suit the (TW: cliche) 'nuclear option.'

[Apples]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... 180950278/

While questions remain for future research—such as examining the difference between seduction and coercion—the team hopes these findings start to break down double standards about what constitutes acceptable sexual advances. As they conclude in their paper: "The results from this study can provide a language for young men to describe sexaully coercive experiences and acknowledge that males can be victims of coercion by females, which can begin to challenge the notions of traditional masculinity and hypersexuality."

Riiiight. The hypersexuality of some men, and perhaps most young men, is just a traditional notion. Totes socially constructed. And since the feminist shit-buffet being offered up in the realm of sex and relationships is working out so well, you want men to have a bite as well.

The students who were drunk or drugged before they were coerced into sexual contact reported feelings of distress about the experience, much as female victims would. However, the men differed from female victims in some ways. For example, their self esteem was not impacted by the experience, the researchers found. For men, being the object of sexual attention—even if that attention is not wanted—"may inadvertently be consistent with expectations of masculinity and sexual desire," the researchers speculate in a release.

Ah, I see. So the problem is that men don't experience damaged self-esteem from such misadventures, and we need to "break down double standards" in order to fix that. :doh:

Here's an idea - maybe we could break down some quadruple-standards, and everyone would have better self esteem, if we weren't promoting "expectations of femininity and sexual desire" that combine whorish-slutwalk-manbashing-prudishness with selfish and logically-bankrupt victorian-weaker-sex PTSD-from-Twitter bordello-party victim-militancy.

http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/686/3579091490.jpg

Protip for Rachel Nuwer at The Smithsonian. Most guys (me included) have indeed been subject to "unwanted sexual advances" from women (and men too). But here's the thing - as many women pointed out in the wake of Rebecca Watson's "me me me me guys don't do that" video - not everyone quivers like a leaf or freezes like a deer when they need to quash a come-on. If you browbeat everyone into thinking they may be committing an assault if they try to make the first move or hook up after a few drinks, we become a society of twisted, unhappy, mentally-damaged fucks, exemplified by the likes of Skepchicks and ThoughtfreeBlogs and Shakesville (not to mention we may lose out on many of the sexual advances we do want and potentially drain a bunch of the excitement and joy out of human life).

And if at the same time you promote the notion that people (women, in particular) can't be expected to have any real adult agency and responsibility for their own boundaries -- that anything but "enthusiastic consent" offered when stone-cold-sober actually meant, in retrospect, FUCK NO, and anything that happens without pom-poms and a notarized consent form is rape or assault, then .... fuck you into the ground with a rusty spokesgay -- and I hope you have low self-esteem.

[Sunder]

(By the way, does any study exist that actually measures the commonness of "purely voluntary late-term abortion"? I'm quite sure they're indeed "vanishingly rare," but "vanishingly rare" ≠ "strictly a hypothetical scenario,"

I'm less sure. The only scenarios I can come up with for why a woman would get a very late term abortion that don't involve medical complications are:

1) Trying and failing to have one earlier and simply running out of time.

or

2) Just being too lazy to have the procedure done early and being unafraid of being blocked if you wait too long.

If you can think of some other possibilities, I don't doubt I may have overlooked something. But of those two, the second seems incredibly highly improbable. You're constantly sick, your clothes don't fit, and you want a specialized medical procedure. That's not the kind of thing you put off til the last minute, especially knowing the risk of running into legal barricades in the third trimester.

[Apples]

Coincidentally, given recent Pitversation, Rachel Nuwer also wrote this piece - "The world needs to talk about child euthanasia" - a month ago:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... w4tBEJdUih

[Matt Cavanaugh]

It's also still a possibilty, and a likely one at that, that Karen Stollznows accounts were generally correct. I am still mostly unsure about this issue, as the information we have isn't good enough, but the remaining bit leans towards believing her, still.

+++ speculation +++
....

Doesn't matter what really happened between them. (But to answer your question, Stollznow indirectly acknowledges they had a thang.) Stollznow publicly stated that what happened constituted sexual harassment, physical & sexual assault. Those acts are felonies with specific definitions that, I dunno, a professional linguist, maybe, should comprehend. Unless Stollznow can demonstrate that they are true, (which she can't) then it's libel.

Radford isn't claiming nothing happened, he's not denying at least some of what he did was inappropriate. He's denying he committed those felonies.

I'm not defending Radford per se; I'm defending the fucking dictionary.

[Dick Strawkins]

(By the way, does any study exist that actually measures the commonness of "purely voluntary late-term abortion"? I'm quite sure they're indeed "vanishingly rare," but "vanishingly rare" ≠ "strictly a hypothetical scenario," and "vanishingly rare" ≠ not worth taking into account—cf., e.g., infanticide, the murdering of abortion doctors, and nuclear warfare.)

By their very nature they are likely to be kept secret (or falsely classified as medical emergency cases.)
I think the rate of post 24 week abortions in the US is about 1.8% - about double that of European countries - although most of these will be for genuine medical emergencies.

Non emergency abortions do occur, but they often only come to light when there's an investigation into clinics for other reasons - for example in the Gosnell case, where an investigation into prescription drug abuse revealed many cases of post viability abortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

For the purposes of the SJW argument, however, it doesn't matter if there were zero cases - they argue that the law should allow for viable fetus abortion right up until the moment of birth. Having a law that prohibits this right, they argue, undermines the right to bodily autonomy.

[Sunder]

Actually, I was able to think of a third scenario:

Changing your mind. You wanted to have a baby but then as time drew near you had second thoughts.

Within that scenario I could also see various subcategories. A change in financial situation might raise doubts about your ability to support a family. The father might run out on you when he'd promised to help support his child. Etc. Some of these may be more justifiable than others.

Ultimately I still think I'd err on the side of choice for the same reason I err on the side of free speech: There's no person or group I trust to have the wisdom to make the distinction between just and unjust exercising of these rights.

[Dick Strawkins]

That's not the kind of thing you put off til the last minute, especially knowing the risk of running into legal barricades in the third trimester.

Yes, most people would not make that mistake. But we are talking about a tiny percentage here. Surely some people will be in this category - either through ignorance of the law, or through financial or legal problems.
On the Magic Sandwich Show, Sara and Courtney gave hypothetical examples of women who couldn't get time off work for several months in order to have an early abortion and therefore requiring late term abortions.
It sounded pretty unlikely to me at first, but thinking about it I'm sure that some cases (by pure weight of numbers) will fall into this category.

[Guestus Aurelius]

Sunder, I'm not sure where we differ here. I said that I agree that "purely voluntary late-term abortion" is "vanishingly rare." Are you disagreeing with my contention that it still probably does happen once in a blue moon?

[another lurker]

(By the way, does any study exist that actually measures the commonness of "purely voluntary late-term abortion"? I'm quite sure they're indeed "vanishingly rare," but "vanishingly rare" ≠ "strictly a hypothetical scenario,"

I'm less sure. The only scenarios I can come up with for why a woman would get a very late term abortion that don't involve medical complications are:

1) Trying and failing to have one earlier and simply running out of time.

or

2) Just being too lazy to have the procedure done early and being unafraid of being blocked if you wait too long.

If you can think of some other possibilities, I don't doubt I may have overlooked something. But of those two, the second seems incredibly highly improbable. You're constantly sick, your clothes don't fit, and you want a specialized medical procedure. That's not the kind of thing you put off til the last minute, especially knowing the risk of running into legal barricades in the third trimester.

Mental illness can be added to that list:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... years.html

A married woman who aborted her own baby in the final week of pregnancy was jailed for eight years today after a judge said she had robbed the child of the life he was about to begin.

Here is a pdf listing some of the reasons given for abortions past 20 weeks:

http://www.bpas.org/js/filemanager/file ... ortion.pdf


I do take issue with the claim that if a woman wants a late term abortion, birth can simply be induced, and the baby can live, and everyone can live happily ever after. If the pregnancy is already so far along that there is no avoiding a painful labour/birth or a dangerous c-section, then why not gestate a little bit longer and just give birth when you're ready? Because purposely inducing an early birth unless medically necessary is tantamount to child abuse: http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/lab ... _babies_be, http://www.spensershope.org/chances_for_survival.htm, http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e7976

As for sticking a knitting needle in it's head because at 35 weeks you have decided that you don't want to raise a child for 18+ years, there is always *adoption*. And anyone who is going to, I think, purposely commit infanticide in utero, as in the first case I linked, is mentally ill. Which brings up another question - if people are aware of the woman's mental illness, should she be arrested and strapped down to a hospital bed until she can give birth safely? Not so far fetched...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -care.html

[Sunder]

Sunder, I'm not sure where we differ here. I said that I agree that "purely voluntary late-term abortion" is "vanishingly rare." Are you disagreeing with my contention that it still probably does happen once in a blue moon?

Not disagreeing, but stating that for my second scenario at least, there are so many improbabilities compiled together than there may actually be no instances of it ever happening. Or maybe there are.

I can definitely see scenario 1 happening, since that's actually one of the goals of much of the more draconian abortion restrictions in the US that aim to shut down clinics in order to make it as difficult as possible for a woman who wants an abortion to obtain it. In such cases the woman has my full sympathy. She's not waiting til the last minute because of laziness, but because of political meddling.

And scenario 3 seems likely, and in that case my sympathies are mixed. Some justifications may be better than others. There may be some outright bad ones (sex selection is a prime candidate). Here my only problem is I don't trust the law to be sophisticated enough to properly separate the two.

[AndrewV69]

In other news : California state Sen. Yee arrested in corruption case.

State Sen. Leland Yee, an outspoken advocate of gun control and open government, was arrested Wednesday on charges that he conspired to traffic in firearms and traded favors in Sacramento for bribes - campaign cash paid by men who turned out to be undercover FBI agents.

[CuntajusRationality]

$200USD raised out of $30,000 goal (15 days left)

My name is Karen Stollznow. I am an author and researcher with a PhD in Linguistics. In recent months, I wrote an article for a Scientific American Mind blog in which I spoke out about sexual harassment I’d endured from a male colleague for several years. I did this to highlight the wide problem of sexual harassment in the workplace for women, including those in scientific and academic fields. Many people who read the article immediately identified my harasser by name, and spoke publicly about my situation on their own blogs and other social media. They knew who my harasser was because he had recently been disciplined by his employer for his behavior.

As a result, my harasser filed a defamation suit against me, trying to bully me into silence. Although he’s spent thousands of dollars on a lawyer to clear his name, he knew that I could not afford the same. In my attempts to settle out of court he has tried to bully me into signing a retraction, which claimed that I had lied about the whole ordeal, including his ongoing harassment of me, and assaults at one of our professional conferences. Although I didn’t sign the retraction, he posted the document on his very public Facebook page and announced victory over me. This also lead to false public edits being made to my Wikipedia page.

I never lied about the harassment I endured and I have evidence and witnesses to attest to my experiences. The only crime I have committed is not being rich enough to defend myself. If you believe in justice and in protecting victims who are bullied into silence, please dig deep and help support this legal fund. I must raise $30,000 in the next two weeks in order to find legal counsel to fight these allegations and clear my own name. If my harasser succeeds in bullying me into silence, it will only serve to embolden harassers, and teach victims that they should never speak up, lest it ruin their lives.

Any money raised through this campaign that is not spent on these legal expenses will be donated to Colorado's Sexual Assault Victim Advocate Center.
Thank you for listening to my story, and please give as you can. To contact me about this fundraising campaign, email...

Thank you.

[Scented Nectar]

Hulu usually doesn't work in Canada, but that one did. I hope they've changed their rules about that.

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/easily-byp ... al-filter/

Thanks. :)

[John Greg]

Jesus. This is just blowing up all over the place. Maybe all involved parties are insane, or something. It no longer makes sense to me at all.

[another lurker]

I can definitely see scenario 1 happening, since that's actually one of the goals of much of the more draconian abortion restrictions in the US that aim to shut down clinics in order to make it as difficult as possible for a woman who wants an abortion to obtain it. In such cases the woman has my full sympathy. She's not waiting til the last minute because of laziness, but because of political meddling.

Red states are also banning telemedicine abortions, which are prescribed prior to 9 weeks. This means that low income rural women are basically fucked unless they can 1) get time off work 2) find a babysitter 3) drive up to 24 hours (multiple times because of politically motivated waiting times 3) add extra money for the forced ultrasound, hotel room etc 4) as gestational age increases, the abortion becomes more expensive (and not many clinics will do late term abortions, they are dangerous, some will only go up to 12 weeks, 16 weeks etc).

This is why women went to Gosnell. They were poor, uneducated and desperate. Canada and European countries have lower rates of late term abortion because it is 1) taxpayer funded 2) no restrictions put in place of early termination 3) low income women in socialist countries can actually receive proper prenatal care (maternal and infant mortality are rising in the USA, in MS it's at third world levels). And I will repeat, Gosnell induced birth and killed the babies once they were born. Pro-choice groups reported on him and registered complaints for months before anyone would do anything. He also operated illegally and was unlicensed. There is a law prohibiting abortion with the intent to induce birth and leave the prenate to die of exposure.


And when discussing late term abortions, it is always wise to define our terms. *We* mean post-viability. Pro-lifers generally mean anything past 8wks to 16wks. Some anti-abortion embryological development experts have even told me that 8wk embryos are fully conscious and that such twins can cuddle one another in the womb, as a show of love for one another.

[Crabman]

Now Karen wants 30 000 dollars in donations.

Next up is a son nobody knew about, somebody gets amnesia and there's a love triangle involving PZ.

[Guestus Aurelius]

From the comments on Adam Lee's blog post:

Surely I'm not the only pro-choice person here who gets the willies thinking of an 8th month abortion.

This frequently sets off my misogyny alarm bells. Meaning, what exactly are we saying about women here?

The point being, an abortion so late into the pregnancy happens because something's gone horribly wrong and it's no longer viable, or it's killing the woman. Women don't just wake up on the morning of their 8th month and decide, on a whim, to have an abortion.

This example implies that they do, and that enough of them do to justify outlawing the procedures regardless of need.

To be clear, I'm not attempting to accuse you personally of such. Just absolutely do not understand why would anyone would "get the willies" about a procedure that exists to save the life of a pregnant woman when her wanted pregnancy has gone wrong.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat ... 1305737092

Yes, because acknowledging that a miniscule subset of women might voluntarily abort late-term implies that all bitches be crazy, and don't you know that all women are saints and that to suggest otherwise is misogyny? Certainly no woman has committed infanticide ever in the history of Homo sapiens. And even if that's not true, surely infanticide occurs so infrequently that blah blah blah Bob Loblaw's law blog blah blah blah Bob Loblaw lobs law bomb.

Also, why do so many of these SJW pro-choicers feel the need to point out how vanishingly rare voluntary late-term feticide is? If there's no ethical gray area here, then why does its incidence matter at all?

(And by the way, I think that women should have the right to terminate their pregnancy at any point, but I agree with Adam Lee that that doesn't equate to the right to kill a viable fetus on a whim.)

[Dick Strawkins]

$200USD raised out of $30,000 goal (15 days left)

My name is Karen Stollznow. I am an author and researcher with a PhD in Linguistics. In recent months, I wrote an article for a Scientific American Mind blog in which I spoke out about sexual harassment I’d endured from a male colleague for several years. I did this to highlight the wide problem of sexual harassment in the workplace for women, including those in scientific and academic fields. Many people who read the article immediately identified my harasser by name, and spoke publicly about my situation on their own blogs and other social media. They knew who my harasser was because he had recently been disciplined by his employer for his behavior.

As a result, my harasser filed a defamation suit against me, trying to bully me into silence. Although he’s spent thousands of dollars on a lawyer to clear his name, he knew that I could not afford the same. In my attempts to settle out of court he has tried to bully me into signing a retraction, which claimed that I had lied about the whole ordeal, including his ongoing harassment of me, and assaults at one of our professional conferences. Although I didn’t sign the retraction, he posted the document on his very public Facebook page and announced victory over me. This also lead to false public edits being made to my Wikipedia page.

I never lied about the harassment I endured and I have evidence and witnesses to attest to my experiences. The only crime I have committed is not being rich enough to defend myself. If you believe in justice and in protecting victims who are bullied into silence, please dig deep and help support this legal fund. I must raise $30,000 in the next two weeks in order to find legal counsel to fight these allegations and clear my own name. If my harasser succeeds in bullying me into silence, it will only serve to embolden harassers, and teach victims that they should never speak up, lest it ruin their lives.

Any money raised through this campaign that is not spent on these legal expenses will be donated to Colorado's Sexual Assault Victim Advocate Center.
Thank you for listening to my story, and please give as you can. To contact me about this fundraising campaign, email...

Thank you.

Karen, if you're reading, I'm willing to fund your entire defense.
I've got the contract drawn up now that guarantees you all the necessary funds.

I just need to get it signed and notarized.

http://i.imgur.com/JxaiJdh.png?1

;)

[feralandproud]

Straight out the playbook! Guess it's finally sinking in that this shit is real. Let's see if the SJL will put their money where their mouths are. Just the fact that they were willing to settle this out-of-court(judging by the exchange between Baxter and Radford)makes me think that her evidence may not be too convincing.

[Really?]

Straight out the playbook! Guess it's finally sinking in that this shit is real. Let's see if the SJL will put their money where their mouths are. Just the fact that they were willing to settle this out-of-court(judging by the exchange between Baxter and Radford)makes me think that her evidence may not be too convincing.

What's the over/under? More or less than Sarkeesian?

This is lulzy, but fucked up. And I love how donors are "giving a voice to harassment victims" even though Stollzy is the only one named.

[AndrewV69]

Jesus. This is just blowing up all over the place. Maybe all involved parties are insane, or something. It no longer makes sense to me at all.

WTF indeed.

[another lurker]

Jesus. This is just blowing up all over the place. Maybe all involved parties are insane, or something. It no longer makes sense to me at all.

WTF indeed.

I am barely paying attention. I prefer content free posts such as this one:

http://www.cutedaily.com/wp-content/upl ... umouse.jpg

[Really?]

$200USD raised out of $30,000 goal (15 days left)

My name is Karen Stollznow. I am an author and researcher with a PhD in Linguistics. In recent months, I wrote an article for a Scientific American Mind blog in which I spoke out about sexual harassment I’d endured from a male colleague for several years. I did this to highlight the wide problem of sexual harassment in the workplace for women, including those in scientific and academic fields. Many people who read the article immediately identified my harasser by name, and spoke publicly about my situation on their own blogs and other social media. They knew who my harasser was because he had recently been disciplined by his employer for his behavior.

As a result, my harasser filed a defamation suit against me, trying to bully me into silence. Although he’s spent thousands of dollars on a lawyer to clear his name, he knew that I could not afford the same. In my attempts to settle out of court he has tried to bully me into signing a retraction, which claimed that I had lied about the whole ordeal, including his ongoing harassment of me, and assaults at one of our professional conferences. Although I didn’t sign the retraction, he posted the document on his very public Facebook page and announced victory over me. This also lead to false public edits being made to my Wikipedia page.

I never lied about the harassment I endured and I have evidence and witnesses to attest to my experiences. The only crime I have committed is not being rich enough to defend myself. If you believe in justice and in protecting victims who are bullied into silence, please dig deep and help support this legal fund. I must raise $30,000 in the next two weeks in order to find legal counsel to fight these allegations and clear my own name. If my harasser succeeds in bullying me into silence, it will only serve to embolden harassers, and teach victims that they should never speak up, lest it ruin their lives.

Any money raised through this campaign that is not spent on these legal expenses will be donated to Colorado's Sexual Assault Victim Advocate Center.
Thank you for listening to my story, and please give as you can. To contact me about this fundraising campaign, email...

Thank you.

Karen, if you're reading, I'm willing to fund your entire defense.
I've got the contract drawn up now that guarantees you all the necessary funds.

I just need to get it signed and notarized.

http://i.imgur.com/JxaiJdh.png?1

;)

This "signing" talking point is really annoying me. The lawyery language was agreed upon at some point. Sure, her chubby hubby fucked over Radford, but it's not like Radford just made up the statement. With the "I didn't sign" thing, she's implying Radford made the whole thing up. The terms of the agreement were not yet to YOUR liking, though your negotiator gave Radford the go-ahead.

[Guestus Aurelius]

Yes, because acknowledging that a miniscule <snip>

*minuscule (although I guess miniscule is now pretty much an accepted variant)

As for the Karen–Ben saga: I hope first and foremost that the truth comes out in court and that justice is served; I hope second and nextmost that the truth turns out to be that Karen's accusations were false, and I hope this only out of a selfish desire to see the "always believe the accuser victim" meme blow up in the SJL's stupid asshole faces.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Yes, MRAs are accurate in claiming that women commit domestic violence roughly as often as men do, but because that fact doesn't distinguish the severity of the violence, it is a misleading claim.... If Jane slaps her husband and John kicks his wife down a flight of stairs, I am comfortable in assuming that most people would with agree with me in calling John more abuse than Jane.

There's a line, and if you cross it, it's abuse. AFAIK, the law (US) doesn't have grades of spousal abuse.

That women are more often the initiator is telling. Many of them, realizing that people like Linus consider slapping and scratching inconsequential, and that goading their male partner into punching or shoving them might put him in the slammer overnight, may be emboldened to commit abuse.

... Instances of minor to moderate violence between couples are typically not attempts at severe to fatal violence that simply failed due to lack of strength. Your argument might have some merit if it were the case that men and women engage in the exact same type of attacks but with differing results. But that is not the case. As the Jezebel article you linked to points out, women are more likely to engage in slapping and scratching while men are more likely to engage in punching and choking.

Linus, is is safe to assume you've never been the victim of DV? I have. I've been scratched, slapped, punched, given an indian burn, nearly run down by a truck, had a glass of beer thrown in my face, a carving knife brandished at me, rocks thrown at my head. (Not to mention having my personal possessions damaged or destroyed.) None of this I consider 'minor.'

Also, I'm big and I'm strong. Had I reciprocated, I could have easily sent my abusers to the hospital in just a few unrestrained seconds.

Women are also more likely to be shot to death by their partner with a gun.

That's manslaughter/murder, a different class of crime.

[AndrewV69]

Meanwhile:
Targeted by Firebombing, Legislation, and Now Vandalism, Montana Abortion Provider Shutters Clinic

The accused vandal, Zachary Klundt, is the son of a former board member of the anti-choice group Hope Pregnancy Ministries. Twyla Klundt resigned after her son’s arrest.

[Garlic]

The lawyery language was agreed upon at some point.

Says Radford. Baxter and Stollznow say it wasn't.

It's a classic situation where you know for sure that at least one of the two sides is a psychopathic manipulative bastard - you just don't know which one. Makes for good Hollywood movies, but if one of the sides is actually being sincere it must suck being them right now...

[JayTeeAitch]

The line between offensive and obscene can be remarkably fine.

Just in case, I'm obviously referencing the gratuitous display of alcohol behind her here. ;)

Watson did mention on Twitter . Surprized?

Rebecca Watson ‏@rebeccawatson Mar 21
Waiting for my producer to set up today's YT video shoot. Passing time with this prop bottle of red wine. This should go well.

Well, a functional prop. RT @BillKossmann: Just a prop? Bummer.

Waiting for my chef to empty a tin of beans onto 2 slices of toast.

[Really?]

The lawyery language was agreed upon at some point.

Says Radford. Baxter and Stollznow say it wasn't.

It's a classic situation where you know for sure that at least one of the two sides is a psychopathic manipulative bastard - you just don't know which one. Makes for good Hollywood movies, but if one of the sides is actually being sincere it must suck being them right now...

In the e-mails he released, Baxter made it clear that the revisions were satisfactory in a preliminary manner. Yes, he fucked Radford over, but it's not like Radford wrote the whole thing and uploaded it in a fit of pique.

[Lsuoma]

Jesus. This is just blowing up all over the place. Maybe all involved parties are insane, or something. It no longer makes sense to me at all.

$4760 now.

[JayTeeAitch]

Jesus. This is just blowing up all over the place. Maybe all involved parties are insane, or something. It no longer makes sense to me at all.

$4760 now.

First donor was PZ for $100. Hyperdeath's put $250 in!

[spiffigt]

Rising fast. Over $8000 now. And I thought so many in the SJL never had any money.

[JayTeeAitch]

Jesus, she'll hit that target and more in an hour or so :popcorn:

[zenbabe]

Ah, I see. So the problem is that men don't experience damaged self-esteem from such misadventures, and we need to "break down double standards" in order to fix that. :doh:

Here's an idea - maybe we could break down some quadruple-standards, and everyone would have better self esteem, if we weren't promoting "expectations of femininity and sexual desire" that combine whorish-slutwalk-manbashing-prudishness with selfish and logically-bankrupt victorian-weaker-sex PTSD-from-Twitter bordello-party victim-militancy.

Ha
That was a great flash of imagery depicting the barrage of impossibly dissonant viewpoints so firmly and simultaneously held by.. Them.

[Gumby]

I've been scratched, slapped, punched, given an indian burn, nearly run down by a truck, had a glass of beer thrown in my face, a carving knife brandished at me, rocks thrown at my head. (Not to mention having my personal possessions damaged or destroyed.

Well, you *are* a Pitter, so no doubt you deserved every bit of that.

Seriously, if what you described happened to a woman, the SJW brigade would be going nuclear. But since it happened to you, they would doubtless assume with 100% certainty that you deserved it... either that or they simply wouldn't care. And gibberers like Chanty Binx would be positively happy to hear you had been attacked like that.

We Pitters are supposed to be the bad people in this community, but not one person here would condone such abuse being visited upon *any* woman. But as we all know, as far as the SJW brigade goes, the rule "it's OK when we do it" always applies.

[zenbabe]

I'm probably ninja'd.

But Stollznow DID learn, over the weekend, that a lot of people would have helped her out financially if only they'd known she needed it.

[JacquesCuze]

Yeah, well, atheists do need to ramp up their PR. Historical holocausts against mass populations of atheists is still relatively unknown. Property restrictions forbidding sell or rental to atheists even as late as the 50s are also more unknown than they should be.
Historical immigration quotas against atheists also languish in our classrooms.

I mean here I am a Jewish agnostic, and I honestly do not know much of the organized oppression and daily microaggresions against atheists. I wander around town daily, and though I have certainly felt immersed in #GodCulture, I have never faced any oppression against me for my agnostic views.

So yes, I probably would be more sympathetic if this happened to a rabbi who can demonstrate this is a common and consistent issue, than for anyone who can only show some asshole was being an asshole to them but otherwise fail to show any case that this is a real issue.

So, in less you've had it as bad as the Jews, STFU? This is about discrimination based on religion -- doesn't matter against whom.

To be pedantic, it's only discrimination based on religion if AA is prepared to claim atheism is a religion.

But I didn't say unless you've had it as bad as the Jews, you need to STFU, I was explaining why I would be more sympathetic to a rabbi that

A) had demonstrated this was a common and consistent issue in the context that we commonly know of many incidents of anti-semitism involving "denial of service"

as opposed to this person and AA who

B) had said this was the first time in a dozen visits this had occurred, was served just by a different bank representative, and produced NO evidence this was any sort of issue at all in the context that I certainly don't know nor do most americans of ANY incidents of anti-atheism involving "denial of service"

That also means I would be fairly unsympathetic to a rabbi who went to the press and tried to make a new law after making the same claim as these two, a bank he had been served at a dozen times had a jackass who didn't serve him personally and insulted him but did get another notary to help him. I would still be more sympathetic to that rabbi, I admit, both because we belong to the same false karass as well as because there is still a much better known more sympathetic context to place the rabbi's experience in than the atheists.

Look, I didn't set up the analogy and ask about sympathy towards atheists versus Jews. But if you do ask someone why they are more sympathetic to Jews than atheists, well don't be surprised or act shocked when they mention the war.

A better example that would have exploited my ignorance would have been to use a religion that I am very ignorant of in terms of its travails. 7th Day Adventism perhaps, or Quakers.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Jesus. This is just blowing up all over the place. Maybe all involved parties are insane, or something. It no longer makes sense to me at all.

$4760 now.

First donor was PZ for $100. Hyperdeath's put $250 in!

I contributed $100. Check's in the mail, Karen.

[Really?]

Jesus. This is just blowing up all over the place. Maybe all involved parties are insane, or something. It no longer makes sense to me at all.

$4760 now.

So is Radford going to have his own fund? He's already borrowed thousands to try and clear his name.

Maybe he can borrow Shermer's...

[mordacious1]

Seems like a good strategy: Claim you can't afford a lawyer even though the other side hires one. Get your husband to negotiate with other party and their lawyer. Drag it out, running up lawyer fees for the other party. Refuse to sign the retraction agreed upon by both parties. Claim victim status (again). Then, and only then, plead for help paying for an attorney because the other side has been bullying you with a lawyer and you're just a defenseless schoolmarm on the prairie, all alone among wolves. Now you are the one that can afford a lawyer and the other side has spent all their money. Smart.

[zenbabe]

Cuntrollzford Gate.

[JacquesCuze]

Jesus. This is just blowing up all over the place. Maybe all involved parties are insane, or something. It no longer makes sense to me at all.

$4760 now.

So is Radford going to have his own fund? He's already borrowed thousands to try and clear his name.

Maybe he can borrow Shermer's...

It is a real problem that "us poors" have a very different civil legal system than the rich. And I don't doubt that a libel suit's cost could be $30K, I was surprised Shermer was only looking for $5,000 to begin with. I spent $2700 in just one day of "court ordered pre-hearing settlement talks". Custody challenges apparently commonly cost $50,000 - $N00,000s of dollars.

And even if you can afford a lawyer in the first place, my suspicion is that unless you can afford that lawyer full time, or half time, don't expect to go to court with a lawyer who is fully briefed on your case, knows your case by heart, knows your positions intuitively, and doesn't fuck up some important details if he is lucky enough to even be in the ball park of remembering them, because your lawyer is clearly having to service 10, 20, 30, 40 clients or more at the same time just make his rent.

I am both sympathetic to turning towards crowd sourcing for funds for a suit as I am horrified by that. I certainly don't think a world of SJW or indiegogo lawsuits brings us closer to equity and justice, it just shifts us to a different position in space away from where we are now, justice for the rich.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

To be pedantic, it's only discrimination based on religion if AA is prepared to claim atheism is a religion.

The discrimination was motivated by the fact that the client did not share the agent's religious beliefs.

I was explaining why I would be more sympathetic to a rabbi that ....
... Look, I didn't set up the analogy and ask about sympathy towards atheists versus Jews. But if you do ask someone why they are more sympathetic to Jews than atheists, well don't be surprised or act shocked when they mention the war.

A better example that would have exploited my ignorance would have been to use a religion that I am very ignorant of in terms of its travails. 7th Day Adventism perhaps, or Quakers.

I interpreted that as Oppression Olympics. But if you were focusing on the "worst experience ever" hyperbole, then I totally agree it was over the top. :D

I do not believe that incidents of discrimination need to accrete until reaching some ill-defined critical mass. A single incident of discrimination is worthy of complaint.