Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

Old subthreads
zenbabe
.
.
Posts: 920
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 6:51 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18961

Post by zenbabe »

Jesus christ I was ninjaed by STEERS! lol

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18962

Post by Skep tickle »

Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?

Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?

Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?

If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?

I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.

Garlic

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18963

Post by Garlic »

zenbabe wrote:Jesus christ I was ninjaed by STEERS! lol

Steersman can actually bend space-time by using his superluminal quotemarks, allowing him to post a thousand-word essay with paragraph-long sentences in the time it takes for mere mortals to read an Ophelia Benson post.

Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18964

Post by Mykeru »

James Caruthers wrote:
Mykeru wrote: I'd rather have imaginary this:
antique-nude-s.jpg
I thought what really got your phonograph going was a sandy cnut.
You ever notice about sandy vaginas

http://img.pandawhale.com/67828-damn-th ... -psxS.jpeg

It doesn't matter how fine the sand is or how big the vagina.

http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/lansing ... 0widea.jpg

And all it takes is one grain and then

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/74/74fdd06 ... 3ffa0a.jpg

Karmakin
.
.
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:49 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18965

Post by Karmakin »

Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?

Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?

Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?

If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?

I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
I'd be more inclined to believe it on the tail end of a criminal/civil proceeding, to be honest. But that ties into something a bit larger.

The reason I don't believe most of the claims that come up in the A/S community, is because of the schism. But it's not really from a tribalistic standpoint (at least I try not to be tribalistic), it's that the SJL is a bunch of angle-shooters. There's an angle in everything. Playing all of it off to the highest personal benefit. Needless to say, I have a hard time believing their claims while at the same time so many people are positioning it for personal benefit. Now that's not always the person making the claim. But at a certain point, it's hard to divorce the two.

Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18966

Post by Mykeru »

Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
A police report would be a nice start. I know that logic is subverted by the claim that "the police don't do anything, blah, blah, blah". At which time a rape kit could then be used for "sexual assault" assuming that is anything like rape -- the intentional vagueness of the terminology and baiting and switching between terms being part of the problem -- as physical evidence trumps all. Obviously in the case of rape the presence of semen doesn't prove rape, but the absence does thrown the claim into question. On the other hand, evidence of trauma, ligatures, coercion, physical violence, etc. has no place in what could be claimed was an act of consensual sex. JUst because people can hypothesis grey areas doesn't mean there aren't cases that are unequivocally rape.

I would be more apt to believe a claim where the mechanism of investigation is initiated that, to a degree, is outside the control of the claimant. If one isn't bringing the legal system into it, then what exactly is the claimant trying to accomplish?

Otherwise, a claim of sexual assault is merely a claim like any other claim. And a claim where the person making it actually avoids means of proving or disproving the claim is itself suspect.

Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18967

Post by Mykeru »

Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
A police report would be a nice start. I know that logic is subverted by the claim that "the police don't do anything, blah, blah, blah". At which time a rape kit could then be used for "sexual assault" assuming that is anything like rape -- the intentional vagueness of the terminology and baiting and switching between terms being part of the problem -- as physical evidence trumps all. Obviously in the case of rape the presence of semen doesn't prove rape, but the absence does thrown the claim into question. On the other hand, evidence of trauma, ligatures, coercion, physical violence, etc. has no place in what could be claimed was an act of consensual sex. Just because people can hypothesize grey areas doesn't mean there aren't cases that are unequivocally rape.

I would be more apt to believe a claim where the mechanism of investigation is initiated that, to a degree, is outside the control of the claimant. If one isn't bringing the legal system into it, then what exactly is the claimant trying to accomplish?

Otherwise, a claim of sexual assault is merely a claim like any other claim. And a claim where the person making it actually avoids means of proving or disproving the claim is itself suspect.

Southern
.
.
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:28 pm
Location: Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18968

Post by Southern »

windy wrote:
Apples wrote:
Jonathan wrote:Over at Atheism+ the spirit of April Fool's Day is alive and well.
"No dangerous jokes."

dangerous.

jokes.

srsly. :(
The most dangerous joke in the world:
[youtube]8gpjk_MaCGM[/youtube]
Well, the world is going through a second Cold War, and some jokes may trigger the Russkies into launching their nukes against America. Just saying.

Badger3k
.
.
Posts: 3466
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18969

Post by Badger3k »

Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?

Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?

Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?

If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?

I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
Physical evidence, video footage, physical examination, criminal or business investigation. Actual evidence. Hearsay is not evidence, and it would take a lot of independent accounts - meaning not "my friends all saw it". given the hyperbolic and often insane attitudes of the SJWs, I'm far less likely to believe them, simply because they've lied and distorted things enough that I don't trust them to give me the time of day. In the current situation, Stollznow may be acting honestly and truthfully, but the "gotcha" game she played makes me less likely to believe her, but I'll wait for any real evidence. Carrie Poppy or her boyfriend are completely untrustworthy and have zero credibility.

I'd probably be inclined to believe a woman more, since it usually happens that way more often, based upon what I see, but it's still provisional. When teaching, we had to treat any account as real and investigate what we can, or pass it up, and that applies here as well. Treat the case as plausible without making a judgement, pending investigation.

Extraordinary evidence - video, personal witness (I see it, and understand any complexities such as the relationship of the people involved), a history of reports or complaints against someone (by credible people, not internet SJWs). For someone like Watson, I'd be hard put to believe it even if I see it - she's cried wolf far too many times, and has done enough to piss people off that I'd expect that to be the reason for anyone's actions rather than sexism.

Aneris
.
.
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:36 am
Location: /°\

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18970

Post by Aneris »

Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?

Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?

Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?

If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?

I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
From the many instances we heard over time, I think most of them are probably correct, or have at least have some grain of truth in them. Some were quite off, for a number of reasons, i.e. the wine story. Elevatorgate itself was non-issue that became the manufactuversy because of the Social Justice Warrior element that was unknown (to me at least) at the time. And I never had trouble understanding where Richard Dawkins was coming from. But I also have little doubt that with plenty of alcohol, and perhaps celebrity status some not so nice things happened at various conferences.

Yes, harassment or sexual assault, perhaps even rape very likely happened. However, nobody so far clearly descibed what happened. They say things like "coerced" or that they felt this or that. When it gets slightly more precise, the names are obscured. I am not keeping track of who wears what shorts and appeared on which line-up. What am I supposed to do with this?

As stated elsewhere I also tend to believe Karen Stollznow in this current issue. However, I don't know these people, and don't know what went between them, what their history is. In many cases I never heard of their names before. There are many things that I simply can't know. I really don't like to be manipulated into being a pawn in some ideological game I do not support, especially not that assinine tumblr religion.

In my mind, the course of action must be proportional to the severity of the accusation. If it's really serious, you don't enlist internet warriors from the other side of the globe and push forward your agenda. You go to the authorities, you bring the leaders and organizers or whatever together and you try to sort things out. When a very severe accusation are made, even if true, and the people involved think it a good idea that they need to enlist total strangers from Northern Europe, instead of going to their court in their town, or duke it out among organizers and opinion leaders, then I know something is really wrong. And it is. And I am quite annoyed that any independent thought, any question mark (and there are many) directly counts as being for the harassers. That doesn't sit well, either.

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18971

Post by JackSkeptic »

Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?

Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?

Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?

If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?

I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
Thinking in absolutes is not the right way to think of it at all. It is not an issue of belief or disbelief and lack of belief does not mean disbelief the same as 'not guilty' does not mean innocent.

That is why I find Myers, as a Scientist, particularly dishonest and why his credibility is shot to pieces. He must know that.

Until SJW's have that sorted in their heads they will always look foolish and unreliable. As their definitions are so fluid, their evidence so lacking, their absolutism is so illogical and their hysterical reaction to mundane events so histrionic I naturally tend not to believe them. But even that lack of belief is provisional on further evidence.

So I have no interest in falling for a question that is badly formed in the first place. Belief can have grades depending on the claim. Most beliefs are provisional. I have never personally checked the world is round. It is reasonable to belief someone has a cat just by them saying so. More remarkable claims require some more evidence and therefore it is reasonable for me to withhold judgement until such claims are supported by evidence. And like all evidence, when it is hearsay, it is highly unreliable and even more so when the person making the claim is highly motivated to lie.

With that Radford thing, as an example, I have a belief. But that belief is highly provisional at the moment as it is based on a relationship and people I have no knowledge of and no one else does either except the interested parties.

People should stop judging, its so damn religious and I left that crap years ago.

dogen
.
.
Posts: 2585
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18972

Post by dogen »

Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?

Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?

Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?

If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?

I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
On top of valid criteria laid out by other posters, I'd like to add an important one: that the event as described by the claimant does actually constitute sexual assault.

For instance, no amount of regret can post hoc transform a consensual liaison into sexual assault.

JacquesCuze
.
.
Posts: 1666
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:32 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18973

Post by JacquesCuze »

Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?

Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?

Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?

If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?

I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
Yeah, I am human, so it will be different for different circumstances.

I can't think of anyone that will be believed unconditionally, though I think everyone will unconditionally get my ear and my support.

But I will have to hear about the circumstances, and before I support a person more than taking them to the ER, helping them to the police, and giving them a clean bed to join some mob action including shaming against the person they accuse, I will need to hear the other side.

And that would probably go double for any previously women involved in an ugly divorce (sorry, bitter still) and triple for any women who took more than one women's studies course or is known to have a tumblr.

Witnesses would help, but in the absence of witnesses, emails, texts, and when it becomes a ze said ze said my knowledge of the personal histories of each of zem each and each of zer reputations.

Male vs. female victim? I would say it really depends on the charge and the victim. Stories like today's Harvard Victim: He made me kiss him repeatedly and give him a blow job and I never said no or put my clothes on and left the room because I'm a Harvard college female and so vulnerable will probably get little credibility if said by a guy as well. Stories like my coworkers are assholes and this is why ... will be more easily believed.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and to some extent, yeah, sexual assault and sexual harassment claims are extraordinary.

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18974

Post by JackSkeptic »

If you are referring to the Karen Stollznow/ Radford thing I tend towards Stollznow but as with all things I am willing to change my mind or go more strongly in her direction. What galls me is the way SJW's are painting this as if it is a serious indicator of how terrible Atheist men are. I hate the way they hijack and the first thing that gets damaged is the truth. That is why I am please Karen has got her funds. As said earlier, it needs independent people outside their own echo chambers to evaluate what is true and unfortunately in this world that costs money.

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18975

Post by AndrewV69 »

Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?

Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?

Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?

If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?

I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
Short answer, there was a time I would have believed the account by default. Over the years though, and particularly in the last few I would be skeptical.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18976

Post by KiwiInOz »

Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?

Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?

Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?

If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?

I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
I'd like to think that my first response would be compassion rather than belief or disbelief. Then it would take evidence - being human and not a court of law I would probably take a lower level of evidence at face value from someone I already trust and know, than a stranger.

I would like to think that I would believe a plausible claim from either gender, however my level of sympathy is likely to change depending on the scale of the "offense". Misunderstood social cues and unwanted kissing or one-off groping = meh, get over it, whereas restraint and violence are full on total sympathy.

My level of scepticism will be higher if I know that someone has an agenda, e.g. SJW or is a known exaggerator constantly seeking victim points. But evidence would change that.

Harassment and assault (sexual or otherwise) are a no-no in my book, irrespective of who.

BarnOwl
.
.
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18977

Post by BarnOwl »

For the KiTTYDEiTY and fans of kittehs:

http://www.glamour.com/images/fashion/2 ... s-w724.jpg

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18978

Post by Really? »

Mykeru wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
A police report would be a nice start. I know that logic is subverted by the claim that "the police don't do anything, blah, blah, blah". At which time a rape kit could then be used for "sexual assault" assuming that is anything like rape -- the intentional vagueness of the terminology and baiting and switching between terms being part of the problem -- as physical evidence trumps all. Obviously in the case of rape the presence of semen doesn't prove rape, but the absence does thrown the claim into question. On the other hand, evidence of trauma, ligatures, coercion, physical violence, etc. has no place in what could be claimed was an act of consensual sex. JUst because people can hypothesis grey areas doesn't mean there aren't cases that are unequivocally rape.

I would be more apt to believe a claim where the mechanism of investigation is initiated that, to a degree, is outside the control of the claimant. If one isn't bringing the legal system into it, then what exactly is the claimant trying to accomplish?

Otherwise, a claim of sexual assault is merely a claim like any other claim. And a claim where the person making it actually avoids means of proving or disproving the claim is itself suspect.
WTF, you homophobic transphobic Hitler? When a woman is apparently hypnotized and raped by a EW CISMAN'S evil glare and diseased MONSTER COCK, the right thing to do is WRITE AN EDITORIAL FOR THE SCHOOL PAPER. Then she must CONTACT TWITTER.

How dare you suggest that the police or investigators get involved? Why do you hate women? The accused should simply be rounded up and executed when found.

DeepInsideYourMind
.
.
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:43 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18979

Post by DeepInsideYourMind »

Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?

Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?

Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?

If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?

I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
Fairly simple ... I might be inclined to believe person A or B depending on their prior behaviour and actions ... but for me to believe them would take a judgement from a recognised court of law

Call me silly, but I don't think I am ever qualified or have enough information to make that judgement

The police and the criminal justice system tends to the right judgement, and we (and I) accept the mistakes it makes, and hope that it rectifies itself. It is still 1000000x more accurate than my judgement would be

feralandproud
.
.
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:49 pm
Location: sunny motherfuckin' florida

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18980

Post by feralandproud »

Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?

Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?

Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?

If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?

I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
A little late, but I wanted to answer this too, and share a story.

I was married to a peach of a woman. When we separated, her grandmother informed the two of us that my then 3 year old daughter said her uncle(my brother)molested her. I took a lot of heat from her family because rather than go fucking nuts, I chose to wait for an investigation. A doctor's examination revealed "no interference", and a child psychologist working with the police department made it very clear to everyone involved that my daughter had been coached to say the things she did. She went as far as to suggest my parents could file a lawsuit against those involved.

So, all I require is proof.

DaveDodo007
.
.
Posts: 1322
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:48 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18981

Post by DaveDodo007 »

Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?

Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?

Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?

If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?

I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
I would never believe a feminist or a SJW, anyone else yeah, why not.

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18982

Post by Gumby »


Old_ones
.
.
Posts: 2168
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:46 pm
Location: An hour's drive from Hell.

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18983

Post by Old_ones »

Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?

Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?

Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?

If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?

I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
If we are talking about an accusation where the accused is named, then the bare minimum is a specific accusation. I want to know the date, the context, the specific act, and why it was harrassment/assault, and I want a record of it having been taken seriously at the time it happened (e.g. reports to authorities in the position to do something about it).

Additional factors that help me believe an accusation:
-corroborating witnesses
-surveillance footage or other physical evidence
-a credible accuser (doesn't have a history of blatant attention whoring, isn't ideologically invested in contextualizing EVERYTHING as harassment)
-a harassment incident that could be considered harassment by a reasonable person (blatant advances as opposed to dongle jokes)
-previous accusations against the accused that seemed legitimate

Factors that cause doubt:
-a long time has elapsed since the incident, with no action being taken
-presence of contradictory accounts by people close to the incident
-presence of potential ulterior motives for making claim

Its sticky, because there often isn't a lot of physical evidence associated with sexual harassment/assault. I'm willing to consider the charges though, if it seems like the person making the claim is a rational actor, who isn't being motivated by some cynical motive. Also, if its a named accusation of sexual assault, the accuser better have filed a police report.

If its a claim that the alleged victim has been harassed/assaulted, but no one is being named, then its a much lower standard. I make the distinction, because a made up rape story that doesn't accuse someone has less inherent potential for harm.

I would like to think I apply these standards evenly across gender lines, but I can't remember the last time a man was accusing someone of rape or sexual harassment, so I don't think I have much of a basis for judging my reaction.

John D
.
.
Posts: 5966
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18984

Post by John D »

Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?

Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?

Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?

If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?

I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
When I was first dating my wife she was sexually assaulted. Her and a friend got into a van with three older guys to smoke a joint. She was hesitant, but her friend was all for it. Once they passed the joint around a few times two of the guys started making out with them while the third guy drove around. My wife yelled at them to stop, she hit the guy, she threatened to call the police. Her friend did not fight so hard and while my wife was busy fighting off the one guy in the front of the van her friend had intercourse in the back. The exact circumstance her friend went through is a bit unclear. Eventually the guys let them off after the driver got scared and my wife kept fighting with them.

The two girls then just walked home. They told their parents what happened and they called the police. The guys made a plea deal and got probation. The cops were such idiots they lost all the physical evidence. They lost their torn clothes, soiled panties, everything. It is probably a good thing the prosecutor got a plea deal because they may have lost in court with so little evidence.

The cops asked the girls why they walked home. A cop car drove right by them on the street as they walked. The girls said they were to dazed to stop the cops. They didn't think to stop at a business and call for help. They just wanted to walk home.

The thing is, people act odd when they have been traumatized. They do illogical things. I could easily see some on-line fuck head getting half the facts about my wife's assault, find there was no evidence, ask why they walked home, and then claim that the girls were lying.

So, I try to stay open minded about sexual assault claims.

My wife knows she made a bad choice getting into that van. She does not blame society or rape culture. She blames the men who assaulted her and she is more careful with strangers. She knows that life can be dangerous and that you have to be smart. She had cuts and bruises and torn clothes, but in this case her rage worked and they let her go. She just didn't think these guys would kill her, so she fought and screamed and threatened them.

What really frosts my ass are the damaging ways SJWs act. They really need to give good advice about how to avoid and stop an assault. They really need to fight to improve policing and prosecution. Instead, they bitch and moan about fucking made-up bullshit philosophy. It is not the fault of rape culture and the patriarchy. Crime occurs because some people are wicked and broken and enjoy hurting people. My heart breaks a bit every time I imagine those fucks attacking my wife.

I will say this though... she is a tough woman and this incident was just a bump in the road for her. She doesn't dwell on it. She doesn't claim she is broken because of it. She doesn't blame our culture for it.

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18985

Post by James Caruthers »

Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?

Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?

Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?

If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?

I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
Your Honor, this question is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and I move it be stricken from the record and the jury instructed to disregard it!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gK3QatTPbDE/T ... burger.jpg

No but seriously, it is a pointless question. I don't think rape should be dealt with in a court of public opinion. MY opinion is irrelevant. I am not a forensics expert, police officer, judge or juror. I think criminal charges should be settled in court. Don't tell ME you were raped, SJW feminist, tell the fucking judge. So when feminists put "I was raepd" on their SJW blogs, and they say they didn't even try to press charges because the police are patriarchy, I start to wonder if maybe there's something else going on here. The conversations I've had with real-life SJWs about sex confirm in my own mind that they do not seem to understand what is raep and what is poor sexual decision-making. :?

I have no opinion on the Radford/Stollz thing. I think they've both behaved very stupidly, possibly even maliciously. I hope a judge can figure out who is in the right. Physical evidence like semen, surveillance footage and witness testimony would convince me of probable raep, but who the fuck am I? My opinion isn't worth shit in a court case. Let the courts handle it.

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18986

Post by Really? »

John D wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?

Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?

Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?

If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?

I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
When I was first dating my wife she was sexually assaulted. Her and a friend got into a van with three older guys to smoke a joint. She was hesitant, but her friend was all for it. Once they passed the joint around a few times two of the guys started making out with them while the third guy drove around. My wife yelled at them to stop, she hit the guy, she threatened to call the police. Her friend did not fight so hard and while my wife was busy fighting off the one guy in the front of the van her friend had intercourse in the back. The exact circumstance her friend went through is a bit unclear. Eventually the guys let them off after the driver got scared and my wife kept fighting with them.

The two girls then just walked home. They told their parents what happened and they called the police. The guys made a plea deal and got probation. The cops were such idiots they lost all the physical evidence. They lost their torn clothes, soiled panties, everything. It is probably a good thing the prosecutor got a plea deal because they may have lost in court with so little evidence.

The cops asked the girls why they walked home. A cop car drove right by them on the street as they walked. The girls said they were to dazed to stop the cops. They didn't think to stop at a business and call for help. They just wanted to walk home.

The thing is, people act odd when they have been traumatized. They do illogical things. I could easily see some on-line fuck head getting half the facts about my wife's assault, find there was no evidence, ask why they walked home, and then claim that the girls were lying.

So, I try to stay open minded about sexual assault claims.

My wife knows she made a bad choice getting into that van. She does not blame society or rape culture. She blames the men who assaulted her and she is more careful with strangers. She knows that life can be dangerous and that you have to be smart. She had cuts and bruises and torn clothes, but in this case her rage worked and they let her go. She just didn't think these guys would kill her, so she fought and screamed and threatened them.

What really frosts my ass are the damaging ways SJWs act. They really need to give good advice about how to avoid and stop an assault. They really need to fight to improve policing and prosecution. Instead, they bitch and moan about fucking made-up bullshit philosophy. It is not the fault of rape culture and the patriarchy. Crime occurs because some people are wicked and broken and enjoy hurting people. My heart breaks a bit every time I imagine those fucks attacking my wife.

I will say this though... she is a tough woman and this incident was just a bump in the road for her. She doesn't dwell on it. She doesn't claim she is broken because of it. She doesn't blame our culture for it.
One of the things I hate most about the looneys is that they believe people like your wife are broken and failing and hurting and trying to be human again. The minutes they spent with the evil people should define her life, they believe.

Whereas the sane people like all most of us 'Pitters are pretty bummed that your wife went through such an experience and we're also pleased and grateful that she doesn't define her life by this one event, like the FTB/A+ crazies do.

If only Ogvorbis could give HIS victims the same sense of peace...

Selenite
.
.
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 10:45 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18987

Post by Selenite »

Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?

Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?

Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?

If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?

I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
'Belief' seems like a tricky word here. It has both a direction (what scenario is most likely?) and a strength (how certain am I? are other readings plausible?) component.

I don't generally have real evidence for internet-stories, so I find myself looking at how people are trying to portray themselves. Why are they telling me the story? Why tell it here and now? What do they want the audience to do/believe?

In general, I get suspicious when internet-people's stories read like a Sympathetic Sue from a lazily-written tv show.

There's almost a formula for this on TV. An innocent victim who is attacked by a dog-kicking bully. Where the victim has flaws, the writer is careful to to pick good flaws. The specific tragedies are chosen to be culturally acceptable; they evoke more sympathy than pitty.

I suppose gender would matter in that 'Sympathetic Sue' tropes could be context-dependent.

So, if I'm just making guesses about internet-stories, I'd pretty much rely on the plausibility of the story. Then, I'd look at how much the narrator seems to be trying to win sympathy for themselves. I suppose schism-sides could matter if a story comes off as a 'Me too!' kind of things.

----

Things simplify if we're talking about actionable beliefs. I don't think we can have a system where an unverifiable accusation is enough to get someone kicked out of professional organizaiton. That just creates peverse incentives.

So, for that sense of belief, I'd want some kind of independent corroboration about specific acts. Ideally, these things would come out in a reasonable amount of time.

I'd also give extra weight to accusations that someone is pressing in a formal arena. If someone's willing to put their claims in front of a third-party fact finder, then I'd tend to think they're relatively certain of their own case.

SoylentAtheist

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18988

Post by SoylentAtheist »

Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
1. First off, I would have to know what specifically the person is accused of doing. Legal definitions differ from common usage of the terms, and common usage differs wildly from SJW & feminist use of the terms. It is especially difficult, after hearing those terms so badly abused by the SJWs & feminists. So why someone says assault or sexual harassment, I have to honestly say, I don't know what they are talking about, they have to be more specific.

Even excluding the the whole SJW nonsense, legal usage can be wildly different from common usage, for instance, assault.
Legal definition:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault
At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
vs. everyday usage:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assault
1. a sudden, violent attack; onslaught: an assault on tradition.
Once we get past the whole definition hurdle, I don't see it as really all that different from what it takes to believe anything else in life. Solid observable facts are worth a lot more than hearsay & opinions. And normally in life, I don't outright so much either believe something 100% or disbelieve something 100%. I just kind of assign it a mental probability of being true or not, that can change according to the evidence provided.

2. So, if I observe it first hand, that counts for a lot.

3. Is there any recorded evidence? Videos, pictures, text message logs, emails, voice messages, voice recordings? That counts for a lot in my book.

4. First hand accounts mean a lot more in my book, than any 2nd hand reports from a friend of a friend. To me, the rumor mill is all but worthless. It wasn't very good in grade school, or high school, and it is still shit on the internet, if not worse.

5. I will accept first person accounts of those who have witnessed an act as favorable evidence. The more witnesses, the stronger the case. Especially when they are unrelated to either party and would have no dog in the fight.

6. Do I know the person making the claim well, and have they been reliable in the past? If I don't know someone from Adam, they are not going to get any kind of trust bump just because I saw them on TV. Obviously someone I know that has been a straight shooter in the past and has done stuff like admitting their mistakes will be seen as far more reliable than someone who makes shit up all of the time.

7. Having a coherent detailed story. The more facts & details that jive with itself, the more reliable the story is in my ears.

8. Hearing the other side of the story is important. I tend to withhold judgement until I have heard the other persons account of an event or set of events. Any person, through emotion alone can paint a terrible story until you hear the other person's side of an event. Sometimes hearing the other person's side will shine a completely different light on the subject. Individuals have biases. And many times opponents will sink themselves with their own testimony. I have found that what someone says, tells me more about themselves than someone else.

9. Knowledge of negative motivations may lower the probability that something is true in my ears.

10. Having a recorded solid history of engaging in the same behavior would lend credibility. The rumor mill still doesn't count here.

11. Knowledge that people have been past lovers or have had strained relations in the past, would make me more skeptical. This is where I really have to hear both sides of the story. Quite a few people act very irrationally when it comes to affairs of the heart. It isn't unusual for people to give as well as they got.

12. Did the person report it to the police & file a report? I would find that far more credible. The person obviously saw it as serious adn would be taking a risk (albeit small) if they were lying to the police. Reporting it to some other authority that isn't the police would add some credibility, but not as much as a report to the police. There could be some consequences for fibbing to say conference organizers. Merely gossiping to your friends, doesn't add much credibility in my eyes, because the consequences are much smaller for dishing a tale.

13. Of the accused person has a chance to speak out (i.e. no lawsuit or court case in the works) but opts to say nothing, I would tend to view that as lending more credibility to the person making the accusations.

14. Anonymous accusations are shit. I may lend a little more credibility to "anonymous" reports from decent newspaper or news program that should have an obligation to check their facts.
Skep tickle wrote:Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?
On insofar as it may possibly contradict a claim. For instance, if a person of the opposite gender claimed a dyed-in-the-wool gay or lesbian had mauled them and tried to drag them up to the bedroom & screw them, I might find that less credible. Beyond inconsistencies such as that, I find no reason to treat either men or women as more or less believable.
Skep tickle wrote:If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?
Hmm.... here is the thing. "Sides" of The Schism are kind of grey. I wouldn't consider someone with one idea that I don't like to be on the "other side," nor would I consider someone with a larger set of ideas that disagree with my opinions to be on a different side from me. As long as they are an honest actor, not hyping things up with hyperbole, painting a different view of someone in a dishonest way or dodging facts or lying, I just can't view them as some sort of enemy. So simply being on the "other side" of the Schism would not be sufficient. It really would boil down to how honest their communications have been throughout. If they have been dishonest, or frequently stretched the truth, of course I am going to find them less credible.

Karen S. for instance, I don't view as having been on the opposite side of the Schism. She has some claims of sexual assault & harassment, but I don't see that as making her be on the other side. If anything, I have viewed her as having been a neutral party.

When she initially made her claims, and we didn't hear anything from Ben Radford, my assessment was that it was more probable that they were true, than not. Sure he may have been keeping quite due to some hypothetical employer requirements, but that would at best be conjecture. However, now that Ben Radford has come out and finally made a public counter claim denying these allegations, I don't know which side is telling the truth, but I suspect that the truth probably lies in a grey area that doesn't make either one look good.

Rebecca Waton's (definitely on the other side of the Schism) claim that she was invited up to a man's room for coffee at a convention after a full night out drinking? I find that completely plausible.
Skep tickle wrote:I anticipate there will be rude answers,
I am sorry if I have disappointed you. But I can promise you that if some SJW out there reads my response, they will be "literally shaking with Rag tears."

As a side note, one item that you didn't ask about, but I think is relevant to this discussion is the question of how likely we are to put much effort into determining how true something is. If something is not relevant in my day-to-day life and doesn't pique my natural curiosity, I am much less likely to put much effort into really finding out how plausible a story is.

SoylentAtheist

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18989

Post by SoylentAtheist »

SoylentAtheist wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:
What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
My blah blah blah

Oh. One more point.

15. If someone tells me that I am not allowed to ask questions, or I can't hold my own opinion, or that I am not allowed to hold certain thoughts, I view it as an instant red flag to be suspicious of their motivations. I see it as the equivalent of a car salesman telling me they they have just offered me the lowest price possible in town, but it is only good if I buy the car before I leave the lot. I see that as a sign that I need to leave the lot right now as I have (according to the salesman) their lowest offered price, and that another lot may offer me a lower price and I need to investigate further on my own. If the salesman was willing to offer me the price then, they will offer it when I come back. I see it as a bullshit statement and walk. Yes. I have done that before. And the price goes lower. But I still walk. (My method of purchasing cars is different now. I solicit bids from home. But at that time, it was a great method.)

mordacious1
.
.
Posts: 1061
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:33 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18990

Post by mordacious1 »

Charles H. Keating Jr., dead at 90. Only the good die young...

SoylentAtheist

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18991

Post by SoylentAtheist »

AndrewV69 wrote:Short answer, there was a time I would have believed the account by default. Over the years though, and particularly in the last few I would be skeptical.
Interesting. I wonder how much of an impact SJWs are having on society. Are their efforts actually making people far more skeptical and more likely to disbelieve claimed victims?

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18992

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Skep tickle wrote:What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
I'd of course believe without question someone I knew personally and trusted.

I'd have to remain agnostic with a stranger, but my leaning would depend on:
* A conviction;
* A police report/rape kit results;
* Whether the actions of the persons involved made sense to my understanding of human nature;
* The consistency of the timeline;
* The extent of detail provided;
* any possible ulterior motivations for lying or exaggerating.

The person's track record for reliability would also be a big factor. For that reason, I don't trust a single goddamn thing any A-plusser says.


With Stollznow, here's what pushed me from initial credulity to strong doubt:
* Near complete lack of details, including her failure to specify the date of her final consensual sexual relation with Radford;
* Reliance instead on vagaries and innuendo;
* A disjointed timeline;
* Third party investigation which did not find that Radford's behavior constituted sexual harassment;
* Her mistaken description of Beckybooze getting mildly hit on in an elevator as "sexual harassment";
* The alleged assaults allegedly occurred repeatedly, with Stollznow making no real effort to stop them (beyond "repeated" pleading) or to avoid Radford;
* Her willingness to work with Radford, sit smack dab next to Radford, despite four years of alleged harassment and assault;
* Her failure to report these alleged felonies to police, to TAM, to anyone but Radford's employer;
* The fact that Radford allegedly sexually assaulted her "several times" at three consecutive TAMS, yet she continued to attend and to interact with Radford;
* Her surlies;
*That creepy, head-down, glaring eyes up pose she always makes in photos.


In short, the consistency, precision, & quality of Stollznow's claims are no better than those of the paranormal which she and others mock at TAM.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18993

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Skep tickle wrote:What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
I'd of course believe without question someone I knew personally and trusted.

I'd have to remain agnostic with a stranger, but my leaning would depend on:
* A conviction;
* A police report/rape kit results;
* Whether the actions of the persons involved made sense to my understanding of human nature;
* The consistency of the timeline;
* The extent of detail provided;
* any possible ulterior motivations for lying or exaggerating.

The person's track record for reliability would also be a big factor. For that reason, I don't trust a single goddamn thing any A-plusser says.


With Stollznow, here's what pushed me from initial credulity to strong doubt:
* Near complete lack of details, including her failure to specify the date of her final consensual sexual relation with Radford;
* Reliance instead on vagaries and innuendo;
* A disjointed timeline;
* Third party investigation which did not find that Radford's behavior constituted sexual harassment;
* Her mistaken description of Beckybooze getting mildly hit on in an elevator as "sexual harassment";
* The alleged assaults allegedly occurred repeatedly, with Stollznow making no real effort to stop them (beyond "repeated" pleading) or to avoid Radford;
* Her willingness to work with Radford, sit smack dab next to Radford, despite four years of alleged harassment and assault;
* Her failure to report these alleged felonies to police, to TAM, to anyone but Radford's employer;
* The fact that Radford allegedly sexually assaulted her "several times" at three consecutive TAMS, yet she continued to attend and to interact with Radford;
* Her surlies;
*That creepy, head-down, glaring eyes up pose she always makes in photos.


In short, the consistency, precision, & quality of Stollznow's claims are no better than those of the paranormal which she and others mock at TAM.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18994

Post by Skep tickle »

Thanks for all the comments, including the double-post replies :) - and feel free to comment further, if so inclined.

However, it seems not to have convinced d4m10n that there's a single person in the Pit who hasn't drunk the (to quote him) "bitches be lying" Koolaid about any claim of sexual harassment & assault. (Course I'm not sure he even looked, despite direct links via twitter.)

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18995

Post by Really? »

Skep tickle wrote:Thanks for all the comments, including the double-post replies :) - and feel free to comment further, if so inclined.

However, it seems not to have convinced d4m10n that there's a single person in the Pit who hasn't drunk the (to quote him) "bitches be lying" Koolaid about any claim of sexual harassment & assault. (Course I'm not sure he even looked, despite direct links via twitter.)
The ironic thing is that we're the ones who actually care about the "bitches." We want real rapists and harassers to suffer for their crimes in line with the laws of the local municipalities and the policies of the applicable employers.

We'd also love for Ogvorbis to, you know, apologize to the girls he raped.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18996

Post by Lsuoma »

Skep tickle wrote:Thanks for all the comments, including the double-post replies :) - and feel free to comment further, if so inclined.

However, it seems not to have convinced d4m10n that there's a single person in the Pit who hasn't drunk the (to quote him) "bitches be lying" Koolaid about any claim of sexual harassment & assault. (Course I'm not sure he even looked, despite direct links via twitter.)
To paraphrase Sandra Day O'Connor, "Oh, that's just DayDays!"

SoylentAtheist

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18997

Post by SoylentAtheist »

Skep tickle wrote:Thanks for all the comments, including the double-post replies :) - and feel free to comment further, if so inclined.

However, it seems not to have convinced d4m10n that there's a single person in the Pit who hasn't drunk the (to quote him) "bitches be lying" Koolaid about any claim of sexual harassment & assault. (Course I'm not sure he even looked, despite direct links via twitter.)
Well he is free to hold whatever opinion he wishes. I respect him more for asking questions and reviewing evidence, even if I disagree with his (as phrased by you) determination.

The issue is that all people lie at times for all sorts of reasons. No specific gender should be sanctified to the level that we should think that they are any less human that the rest of the population.

Selenite
.
.
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 10:45 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18998

Post by Selenite »

Karmakin wrote: I'd be more inclined to believe it on the tail end of a criminal/civil proceeding, to be honest. But that ties into something a bit larger.

The reason I don't believe most of the claims that come up in the A/S community, is because of the schism. But it's not really from a tribalistic standpoint (at least I try not to be tribalistic), it's that the SJL is a bunch of angle-shooters. There's an angle in everything. Playing all of it off to the highest personal benefit. Needless to say, I have a hard time believing their claims while at the same time so many people are positioning it for personal benefit. Now that's not always the person making the claim. But at a certain point, it's hard to divorce the two.
I think this makes sense. And you could abstract away from the merits of any specific side to just:

[Community] has recently splintered into two acrimonious factions. Recently [Person A] accused [Person B], a member of the other faction, of having committed [Felony]. Members of [Person A]'s faction have called for [Person B], and [Persons B]'s supporters, to be excluded from the community.

That could be filled in Mad-Lib style until it's 100% divorced from this particular fight. We could imagine that, instead, the debate involved Botanist, or Pizza-Chefs or whatever else. The fact that there's pre-existing acrimony messes with the incentives.

SoylentAtheist

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#18999

Post by SoylentAtheist »

SoylentAtheist wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:Thanks for all the comments, including the double-post replies :) - and feel free to comment further, if so inclined.

However, it seems not to have convinced d4m10n that there's a single person in the Pit who hasn't drunk the (to quote him) "bitches be lying" Koolaid about any claim of sexual harassment & assault. (Course I'm not sure he even looked, despite direct links via twitter.)
Well he is free to hold whatever opinion he wishes. I respect him more for asking questions and reviewing evidence, even if I disagree with his (as phrased by you) determination.

The issue is that all people lie at times for all sorts of reasons. No specific gender should be sanctified to the level that we should think that they are any less human that the rest of the population.
So Skep tickle,
I went to view the twitter feed because I wanted to see your direct quote of him in his own context. Obviously I have drunk the "bitches be lying" Koolaid... (or perhaps sometimes people can't always accurately rephrase someone else's thoughts, so it doesn't hurt to check when it's easy.)

Sadly his twitter feed to blocked & marked private.

However on the plus side, I think he has a hilarious twitter profile pic' so it wasn't all for naught.

http://i.imgur.com/tHn2X62.jpg

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#19000

Post by James Caruthers »

I just realized FTB is kind of brilliant.

If your audience is comprised of some of the most sensitive and easily-trolled individuals on the internet, requiring mods to approve all comments is a sweet policy.

I guess the midnight marauder must have some sweet tricks to get around that.

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#19001

Post by rayshul »

dogen wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?
On top of valid criteria laid out by other posters, I'd like to add an important one: that the event as described by the claimant does actually constitute sexual assault.

For instance, no amount of regret can post hoc transform a consensual liaison into sexual assault.
Yes. Absolutely. This is the number one thing that came into my head. I would also want clarity about exactly what happened. I find it hard to accept sexual assault can occur between grown adults if both concede to the act and there is no objection voiced at the time, during or immediately subsequent to the act, and I don't think it's acceptable to assume that someone can read that their partner is uncomfortable or distressed all the time. I also don't think several other things people call sexual assault actually are - eg, sex while drunk, someone touching your pregnant stomach, etc.

If something is sexual assault as defined as sexual assault, I'm more inclined to believe the person claiming it. That said, I would believe Woody Allen over Mia Farrow.

SoylentAtheist

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#19002

Post by SoylentAtheist »

James Caruthers wrote:I just realized FTB is kind of brilliant.
If your audience is comprised of some of the most sensitive and easily-trolled individuals on the internet, requiring mods to approve all comments is a sweet policy.
I guess the midnight marauder must have some sweet tricks to get around that.
Are you suggesting that the Midnight Marauder on FtB is an inside job... by a mod? :lol:

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#19003

Post by rayshul »

I will say this though, which I think may suggest Damion is right to an extent - I am definitely more inclined to believe a man who says he's been sexually assaulted than a woman.

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#19004

Post by James Caruthers »

SoylentAtheist wrote:
James Caruthers wrote:I just realized FTB is kind of brilliant.
If your audience is comprised of some of the most sensitive and easily-trolled individuals on the internet, requiring mods to approve all comments is a sweet policy.
I guess the midnight marauder must have some sweet tricks to get around that.
Are you suggesting that the Midnight Marauder on FtB is an inside job... by a mod? :lol:
Hmm... Could be, could be. Maybe PZ is tired and angry, and he needs to vent a little bit. :lol:

I mean, you need an account to comment on Pharyngula, so that means you have to give Peez your dox. Seems inefficient to troll that way, unless you're certain you can never be caught. 8-)

SoylentAtheist

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#19005

Post by SoylentAtheist »

James Caruthers wrote:
SoylentAtheist wrote:
James Caruthers wrote:I just realized FTB is kind of brilliant.
If your audience is comprised of some of the most sensitive and easily-trolled individuals on the internet, requiring mods to approve all comments is a sweet policy.
I guess the midnight marauder must have some sweet tricks to get around that.
Are you suggesting that the Midnight Marauder on FtB is an inside job... by a mod? :lol:
Hmm... Could be, could be. Maybe PZ is tired and angry, and he needs to vent a little bit. :lol:

I mean, you need an account to comment on Pharyngula, so that means you have to give Peez your dox. Seems inefficient to troll that way, unless you're certain you can never be caught. 8-)
As much as I enjoy all of the above scenarios, isn't it possible that certain threads are mod free, such as his thunderdome?

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#19006

Post by James Caruthers »

The thunderdome? Mod free? Hahaha! PZ moderates the thunderdome every fucking day.

No, the real answer is I was misinformed on how logging in works. If you're logged in through wordpress or some other nonsense, you can post on the thunderdome or anywhere else. Peez just isn't holding comments for mod approval.

So the midnight marauder is logging in via wordpress or some other system, which explains why he can keep making wordpress and yahoo accounts no matter how many times he gets binned.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#19007

Post by Skep tickle »

SoylentAtheist wrote:
SoylentAtheist wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:Thanks for all the comments, including the double-post replies :) - and feel free to comment further, if so inclined.

However, it seems not to have convinced d4m10n that there's a single person in the Pit who hasn't drunk the (to quote him) "bitches be lying" Koolaid about any claim of sexual harassment & assault. (Course I'm not sure he even looked, despite direct links via twitter.)
Well he is free to hold whatever opinion he wishes. I respect him more for asking questions and reviewing evidence, even if I disagree with his (as phrased by you) determination.

The issue is that all people lie at times for all sorts of reasons. No specific gender should be sanctified to the level that we should think that they are any less human that the rest of the population.
So Skep tickle,
I went to view the twitter feed because I wanted to see your direct quote of him in his own context. Obviously I have drunk the "bitches be lying" Koolaid... (or perhaps sometimes people can't always accurately rephrase someone else's thoughts, so it doesn't hurt to check when it's easy.)

Sadly his twitter feed to blocked & marked private.

However on the plus side, I think he has a hilarious twitter profile pic' so it wasn't all for naught.

[.img]http://i.imgur.com/tHn2X62.jpg[/img]
I won't link the tweet because his account is private (& the link might not work for everyone, anyway). But I don't recall having agreed through the "follow" button never to quote his tweets, & in the spirit of his free speech absolutism, here are 2 snippets from a conversation he started with this tweet:
d4m10n wrote:So @Aneris23 and @Ellesun I am curious why you guys continue to defend the Pit. The posters seem to revel in a sort of blind rage approach.
Several tweets later, one thread of that conversation, with Notung, included this:
d4m10n wrote:@SIN_Notung There we continue to disagree. When all the non-fence-sitters are in the "bitches be lying" camp, that is strongly indicative.
(The "bitches be lying" was his comment, though in quotes in his tweet. I added the Koolaid part, hence it wasn't in quotes in my comment you quoted above.)

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#19008

Post by Skep tickle »

James Caruthers wrote:
SoylentAtheist wrote:
James Caruthers wrote:I just realized FTB is kind of brilliant.
If your audience is comprised of some of the most sensitive and easily-trolled individuals on the internet, requiring mods to approve all comments is a sweet policy.
I guess the midnight marauder must have some sweet tricks to get around that.
Are you suggesting that the Midnight Marauder on FtB is an inside job... by a mod? :lol:
Hmm... Could be, could be. Maybe PZ is tired and angry, and he needs to vent a little bit. :lol:

I mean, you need an account to comment on Pharyngula, so that means you have to give Peez your dox. Seems inefficient to troll that way, unless you're certain you can never be caught. 8-)
Maybe that's the real reason Physioproffe has been asked to leave.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#19009

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?

Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?

Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?

If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?

I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
Interesting question.
There are a couple of things that would instantly increase my confidence in a claim, no matter who is making the claim.

1. Immediate reporting the incident to the police.
and
2. Absence of consumption of alcohol or drugs by the person claiming the charge.

But, of course, the question is not a simple one.
If we are discussing the subject of the kind of rapes that have inflamed the online community over the past three years, we are really not talking about the sort of stranger rapes that generally get immediately reported to the police and which yield obvious evidence of assault.

Those kinds of rapes or sexual assaults, while a minority of overall incidents, tend to be more believable because of the evidence available (and conversely, they can be disproven by the absence of evidence.)

The more common kinds of rapes, however, date rapes, and in particular those rapes that occur while one or more of the participants are inebriated or high, are problematic because they often occur without obvious signs of violence - the thing that would most easily convince the police - and an unbiased jury at a trial - that a crime has occurred.

Still, my two indications above still stand. A prompt reporting of the incident to the police, and the absence of alcohol having been consumed by the victim would greatly strengthen their case in my mind.

My problem is not one of thinking people are lying about rape.
It is that situations where the accuser and accused have been drinking and where the accuser wakes up, realizes sex has taken place but cannot remember consenting, therefore assumes rape, are going to be indistinguishable from situations where the accuser HAS actually consented but has had an alcoholic blackout and simply failed to register memories of an event in which she had given consent.

I am not talking about situations where the accuser remembers the assault and recalls saying no, resisting but being overpowered or threatened in some way. I am talking about situations where she has no memory whatsoever of the incident.

In this situation I don't think she is lying about believing she has been raped.
In fact I think there is actually a possibility that she was raped.
But I also think there is a possibility that she wasn't - she has just suffered a blackout.

This is a highly problematic situation.
Drunken passed out sex is rape.
Drunken enthusiastically consented to sex is not rape.
But if you fail to remember consenting then how are you going to be able to tell the difference the following morning?

It seems to me that it's going to be very difficult to know how to approach these situations using the law.
The SJWs seem to assume that every case of non-remembered sex equates to rape.
But approaching every accusation in this way is bound to lead to miscarriages of justice - you'll definitely send some real rapists to prison, but you'll also likely condemn some innocents.

I don't know the proportions involved here - and I have seen no good statistics that tells us whether the ratio of real rapes to alcoholic blackouts is high or low.

Of course there may be ways to increase the likelihood that a crime has occurred - for example witnesses that saw the accuser passed out drunk prior to the crime, or knowledge about the accused (whether he has been convicted previously of raping passed out women, which would show a pattern that fitted the accusation.)
But many cases will show no difference in evidence between the rape and non-rape scenarios.

And therefore, unfortunately, we may have to regard these incidents as unprovable, one way or the other.
It is a situation where must force ourselves to remain skeptical.

The big danger I see with the SJWs obsession with these types of cases is that it may convince many women to think back through their sexual history and to view all incidences of misremembered sex as cases of rape. Some of these may have been rapes - but some may not.
The consequence of convincing someone that their former lover, past boyfriend or even current boyfriend or husband may have raped them are going to be highly traumatic and so we had better be absolutely certain of the evidence before we start down this path.

JacquesCuze
.
.
Posts: 1666
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:32 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#19010

Post by JacquesCuze »

Skep tickle wrote:
d4m10n wrote:So @Aneris23 and @Ellesun I am curious why you guys continue to defend the Pit. The posters seem to revel in a sort of blind rage approach.
Several tweets later, one thread of that conversation, with Notung, included this:
d4m10n wrote:@SIN_Notung There we continue to disagree. When all the non-fence-sitters are in the "bitches be lying" camp, that is strongly indicative.
(The "bitches be lying" was his comment, though in quotes in his tweet. I added the Koolaid part, hence it wasn't in quotes in my comment you quoted above.)
I don't know what "bitches be lying" even means:

+ "non-fence-sitters" would NEVER believe a woman's complaint of sexual harassment? That sounds like a terrible bet to make, even for d4m10n!
+ d4m10n! doesn't think it's reasonable for "non-fence-sitters" to be appropriately skeptical of claims of sexual harassment?

I read all the responses, and I think there are several of such high quality that I wish someone would take the best of each of them and turn them into a good blog post about what a reasonably skeptical examination of a claim of sexual harassment or sexual assault would be.

And for those of you who conference, hell, I think there is a conference session in that topic.

zenbabe
.
.
Posts: 920
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 6:51 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#19011

Post by zenbabe »

Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?

Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?

Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?

If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?

I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
Jumping ahead, so apologies if this has already been mentioned, but when someone posts accusations of criminal behavior online, if there has been no independent investigation of some kind, then I wonder what's motivating the accuser. Further, I assume those motivations are highly emotional, and because emotions cloud reason and twist truth, I'm not likely to trust the accuser (accuser as identified as the random person who is blurting it out, grabbing the attention and sympathy of everyone possible).

People on that side of the schism are more likely to be controlled by their emotions, and have shown themselves to be unwilling to try to mitigate the blurring effect of emotions with large doses of reason and research. They kind of glory in their feelings. Taking this into account, I'm less likely from the outset to believe them. The more false accusations (of whatever nature) there are, then that colors my opinion about how believable the accuser is as well.

The gender the accuser or the accused doesn't matter much to me. Both are plenty capable of playing either role.

zenbabe
.
.
Posts: 920
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 6:51 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#19012

Post by zenbabe »

Skep tickle wrote:Jumping ahead to ask people here, based on a twitter conversation just now:

What would it take for you to believe a claim of sexual harassment or assault?

Are there certain circumstances in which you'd be more likely to believe it (evidence, etc) & if so what type of circumstance(s) would that/those be, in general?

Do you think the person's gender would influence your likelihood of believing the claim?

If the claim were made by someone on one side or the other of The Schism, would the side she or he is on influence your belief in the claim?

I anticipate there will be rude answers, but am also interested in a couple of serious/straightforward responses. Thanks.
Jumping ahead, so apologies if this has already been mentioned, but when someone posts accusations of criminal behavior online, if there has been no independent investigation of some kind, then I wonder what's motivating the accuser. Further, I assume those motivations are highly emotional, and because emotions cloud reason and twist truth, I'm not likely to trust the accuser (accuser as identified as the random person who is blurting it out, grabbing the attention and sympathy of everyone possible).

People on that side of the schism are more likely to be controlled by their emotions, and have shown themselves to be unwilling to try to mitigate the blurring effect of emotions with large doses of reason and research. They kind of glory in their feelings. Taking this into account, I'm less likely from the outset to believe them. The more false accusations (of whatever nature) there are, then that colors my opinion about how believable the accuser is as well.

The gender the accuser or the accused doesn't matter much to me. Both are plenty capable of playing either role.

SoylentAtheist

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#19013

Post by SoylentAtheist »

JacquesCuze wrote:I don't know what "bitches be lying" even means:

+ "non-fence-sitters" would NEVER believe a woman's complaint of sexual harassment? That sounds like a terrible bet to make, even for d4m10n!
+ d4m10n! doesn't think it's reasonable for "non-fence-sitters" to be appropriately skeptical of claims of sexual harassment?

I read all the responses, and I think there are several of such high quality that I wish someone would take the best of each of them and turn them into a good blog post about what a reasonably skeptical examination of a claim of sexual harassment or sexual assault would be.

And for those of you who conference, hell, I think there is a conference session in that topic.
Here is the deal. Is it bad that some people here are equally skeptical of denials of sexual harassment? Skepticism goes both ways.

Is d4m10n!'s approach "dicks be lying"? Is it bad for people who NEVER believe a man's denial of sexual harassment?

SoylentAtheist

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#19014

Post by SoylentAtheist »

In honor of a double-day of double-posts!
http://i.imgur.com/AGE7BTq.jpg

zenbabe
.
.
Posts: 920
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 6:51 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#19015

Post by zenbabe »

In my defense my damn lying phone claimed the operation had timed out. :( apologies

zenbabe
.
.
Posts: 920
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 6:51 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#19016

Post by zenbabe »

In my defense my damn lying phone claimed the operation had timed out. :( apologies

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#19017

Post by Brive1987 »

I am quite confident women are raped by men across of spectrum of consent definitions.

I am equally confident that the ideological explanation of said rapes by the SJL is bankrupt.

Out can deride one without rejecting the other.

Is this so complex?

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#19018

Post by Brive1987 »

That's actually beer talking. But I did have a point.

Søren Lilholt
.
.
Posts: 1025
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:41 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#19019

Post by Søren Lilholt »

I think the description of Budweiser as "beer" is fair enough. It's not like it's actually beer, is it?

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#19020

Post by AndrewV69 »

Right! And this is why when I could set my hours it was from 4:00pm to midnight:

[youtube]BKorP55Aqvg[/youtube]

Locked