Sexual harassment at TAM?!

[RandFan]

My apologize for this ot post. I feel that my contributions have moved the discussion in the wrong direction. I'm going to excuse myself from the thread.

So, my apologies to everyone but I don't think I can be helpful here. Good luck and all the best to everyone. I mean that sincerely.

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by RemieV

The Shermer article has been updated with corroboration:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...you-a-grenade/

Either a) I've met this woman or b) two women had similar experiences.

Please take this seriously. If victims come forward, please support them.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

Either a) I've met this woman or b) two women had similar experiences.

Please take this seriously. If victims come forward, please support them.

So perhaps you can give an opinion then, what we should make of "coerced me into a position where I could not consent"?

I'm trying to parse that.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by RemieV

The Shermer article has been updated with corroboration:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...you-a-grenade/

Yup.

Ka-boom!

Well, this is all going to make Dragon*Con really interesting this year.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So perhaps you can give an opinion then, what we should make of "coerced me into a position where I could not consent"?

I'm trying to parse that.

I too am curious about this.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So perhaps you can give an opinion then, what we should make of "coerced me into a position where I could not consent"?

I'm trying to parse that.

Any chance it's a typo and she meant "dissent"?

~~ Paul

[epepke]

The plot s^Hthickens.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So perhaps you can give an opinion then, what we should make of "coerced me into a position where I could not consent"?

I'm trying to parse that.

I'm going to guess, and it is only a guess, that it's supposed to mean that he took advantage of her after she was too drunk to consent.

Either that, or the words "date rape drug" spring to mind.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

I'm going to guess, and it is only a guess, that it's supposed to mean that he took advantage of her after she was too drunk to consent.

But that would be too drunk to dissent.

Oh wait, I understand. If I am too drunk to consent, then, by default, I am dissenting.

~~ Paul

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

But that would be too drunk to dissent.

Oh wait, I understand. If I am too drunk to consent, then, by default, I am dissenting.

Yes.

"The automatic default is that I consent to sex unless I specifically say otherwise, so if I'm too drunk to say yes you can go ahead and assume I consent anyway" is not the way this works.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

But that would be too drunk to dissent.

Oh wait, I understand. If I am too drunk to consent, then, by default, I am dissenting.

~~ Paul

Bingo

[Badger3k]

Originally Posted by RemieV

The Shermer article has been updated with corroboration:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...you-a-grenade/

I'm just curious - how is it corroboration? PZ Myers says that two women have come forward and said these things. Two anonymous women. We have absolutely zero from these women themselves. For all we know, Myers is making this whole thing up to get back at Shermer, it's no secret he doesn't like him. If these women would come forward and make their cases, then we would have evidence. Until then, all this is hearsay.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Yes.

"The automatic default is that I consent to sex unless I specifically say otherwise, so if I'm too drunk to say yes you can go ahead and assume I consent anyway" is not the way this works.

It's just an odd phrasing. If one did not consent, one could just say "I did not consent", and it's unambiguously a case of rape if the accusation is true. Saying that one could not consent is vaguer, and it's habit with me to suspect that when a speaker is being vague that something important is being concealed by the vagueness. It seems like a construction one might use if one did actually consent, but believes that consent should not count. Or, as I said, it could just be odd phrasing.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Any chance it's a typo and she meant "dissent"?

~~ Paul

Neither dissent not consent resolves the issue that I have a question with. What does it mean "coerced me into a position"? I was trying to picture some physical position one could not scream or cry out from. Others seem to think the meaning was "got me drunk" which makes sense but brings up other questions. Unless someone is exploiting your known drinking problem or slipping you a roofie, how does one coerce you into becoming drunk?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

I'm going to guess, and it is only a guess, that it's supposed to mean that he took advantage of her after she was too drunk to consent.

Either that, or the words "date rape drug" spring to mind.

Sure, but how is Shermer coercing at that point?

I am of the unquestionable opinion taking advantage of an intoxicated woman is rape. Don't put me in the victim blaming category because I don't belong there. If a woman is drunk, a gentleman protects her, he doesn't take advantage of her and later blame her for his assault.

On the other hand, I can't blame every guy who has sex with an intoxicated woman if they were drinking together. Every single case is not clearly victimizing. People drink. They have sex. It happens in lots of non-abusive situations.


Where the question comes in here in particular in this case is how is Shermer to blame for a choice to drink? Maybe he was. But I'm having trouble with the claim as it is stated.

[Badger3k]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Neither dissent not consent resolves the issue that I have a question with. What does it mean "coerced me into a position"? I was trying to picture some physical position one could not scream or cry out from. Others seem to think the meaning was "got me drunk" which makes sense but brings up other questions. Unless someone is exploiting your known drinking problem or slipping you a roofie, how does one coerce you into becoming drunk?

Maybe someone just keeps buying drinks even after you want to be done, but drink out of some misguided sense of politeness, or you just want a few drinks but they buy strong ones without telling you, and as you get drunker they keep putting drinks in front of you. Drinks and smooth talking can get someone to do something they might not want to (or might regret later).

[Orphia Nay]

I keep getting 503 errors (service unavailable) from the last two FTB links.

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So perhaps you can give an opinion then, what we should make of "coerced me into a position where I could not consent"?

I'm trying to parse that.

Sorry. I can't weigh in. I didn't ask for specifics. It didn't seem appropriate.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Badger3k

Maybe someone just keeps buying drinks even after you want to be done, but drink out of some misguided sense of politeness, or you just want a few drinks but they buy strong ones without telling you, and as you get drunker they keep putting drinks in front of you. Drinks and smooth talking can get someone to do something they might not want to (or might regret later).

So an adult female is a child or what here? The implication is rather insulting to women, IMO.

Like I said, taking advantage of an intoxicated person is wrong and the intoxicated person does not deserve any blame for that. But blaming the guy for putting drinks in front of you, I have a harder time with that part of the "I was a victim" in the story.

[Estellea]

Originally Posted by Cleon

...Because the accuser lied. That fact is central to the entire case, and is the first thing people think of when it comes to mind.

The reason RandFan was oh-so-burned () by it is because the accuser lied. The reason why those boys were arrested is because she lied. Mike Nifong abused his office because she lied.

Everybody lost their **** because a woman lied about being sexually assaulted.

And now he wants to keep saying "remember the Duke Lacrosse case" every five minutes, and not sound like he's accusing Karen, Ashley, etc of lying?

No, I'm really not buying that for a minute.

Sorry, I was referring to specifically named and described incidents, not abstract generalities. In the general case, you are of course correct. In the incidents I'm discussing (specifically, Karen's and Ashley's), I'm not seeing it.

RandFan is a very thoughtful member. I took his example of the Duke LaCrosse scandal as a cautionary tale of forming a lynch mob before all (or as much as possible) of the evidence is in. He has been very sensitive of the victims and I didn't see a single accusation or even subtle innuendo that the victims were lying. I think you are painting him with the wrong brush.

Este

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

I keep getting 503 errors (service unavailable) from the last two FTB links.

I get to the web sites just fine.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I get to the web sites just fine.

Ditto

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

Sorry. I can't weigh in. I didn't ask for specifics. It didn't seem appropriate.

I don't quite follow, sorry. How you you know that the person you talked to "had a similar experience", if you don't know what the woman you talked to experienced, nor what the anonymous complainant experienced?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Set the strawman up...



And burn that **********!

No, RandFan. I'm saying that if you think she's lying, just say so. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, and hiding behind terms like "skepticism" and "critical thinking" without actually applying either.

I think RandFan's point is that we shouldn't assume anything. The point of the justice system is that we're skeptical of the accuser, and we have to be, especially in cases where we have an emotional reaction to the very accusation, like in sexual assault cases. We want to protect victims and that's great, but in our zeal to do so we must also avoid making new victims out of the accused.

Anyone can accuse anyone else. But that's not enough to convict.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Show me some evidence that she is. I mean, you may think me obtuse, but I haven't seen a smoking gun.

The problem is that you seem to think the null hypothesis, the default assumption, is the presumption of innocence, as in a court of law. In the specific cases of Ashley and Karen, that presumption carries with it an inherent accusation of lying on their part.

Well let's turn that around, then. Do you think that courts presume that the prosecution is lying ?

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by Estellea

RandFan is a very thoughtful member. I took his example of the Duke LaCrosse scandal as a cautionary tale of forming a lynch mob before all (or as much as possible) of the evidence is in. He has been very sensitive of the victims and I didn't see a single accusation or even subtle innuendo that the victims were lying. I think you are painting him with the wrong brush.

Este

Agreed.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Frau Farbissina

Did you even read what you linked? "This is an open event in a public area of the hotel and is not an official part of TAM." This type of disclaimer works against your point. Everything else on that page is either precisely what I said (an officially sponsored event) or the JREF has a disclaimer that it's not an official TAM event.

Yes I did. And the disclaimer notwithstanding, it is evidence that the JREF acknowledges that social gatherings organized by TAM attendees for fellow attendees are an important part of the TAM experience.

Originally Posted by Frau Farbissina

So the guy people are 'aware of' who had a mirror on a stick taking up-skirt pictures should be banned?

Maybe you could first point out that that actually happened? From this blog post by Greta Christina, based on testimony of one of the people reporting it, there was no evidence at all of actual picture taking. And it was not a mirror on a stick, but a camera on a monopod. You might be more careful in researching an old story before you help destroy a promising political career.

But given that this behavior creeped out other attendees, yes, he should have been at least talked to by the organization and made clear this behavior is unwanted. And there should be a paper trail of the handling of the incident.

Originally Posted by Frau Farbissina

You can call it playing games if you want. It just shows how seriously you take your ethics. Your basic answer seems to be you'll do whatever feels right. Nobody can know in advance what behavior outside of the JREF is deemed acceptable for attending JREF events.

The attendees should feel safe during the conference.

Originally Posted by Frau Farbissina

CFI did not conclude that anything was a crime. That's a lie.

CFI can't outright conclude anything was a crime. They did suspend Ben Radford. So they acknowledged the validity of (part of) Karen Szollnow's story.

Originally Posted by Frau Farbissina

As for JimBob admitting to a crime, can you link to what you mean?

Did you see Ashley's video, or did you also get distracted by the parrot? She said that the organization talked to several witnesses and to JimBob, and they all corroborated her story. If Ashley egregiously lied in that video about the handling of the "incident", we would know by now.

Originally Posted by Frau Farbissina

I challenge you to demonstrate where I referred to the events themselves as interpersonal issues rather than the interactions after the events. If you can't, then I would appreciate an apology for calling my explanation a cop-out and for making the accusation in the first place. I don't appreciate this kid of harassment.

You did so right here:

Originally Posted by Frau Farbissina

If the incidents happened outside of TAM proper, then there's no legal or ethical obligation to investigate or enforce what is essentially an interpersonal issue. There are pragmatic reasons for getting involved, but that's different.

The "incidents" you're talking about constitute sexual harassment and/or assault. Those are crimes.

But if you think I am harassing you, feel free to file a police report, or to sue me. I'll even disclose to you my full name and address for the purpose.

Originally Posted by Frau Farbissina

You're mixing things up again. If the guy is a serial ass groper at parties, that doesn't mean he's a serial ass groper during conferences. The JREF is responsible for the conference. Whoever hosted the party is responsible for who attends. It's not a difficult concept.

No I'm not mixing up again. If TAM feels responsible of what goes around TAM n, they also feel responsible of what goes around TAM n+1.

Originally Posted by Frau Farbissina

Should JimBob be fired from his job over this? After all, according your logic, he might do some ass grabbing at work.

TAM has a responsibility towards the TAM attendees, not toward JimBob's colleagues.

Originally Posted by Frau Farbissina

But what about all those other things I listed that you called playing games? If somebody is a screaming titty flasher at a party, how do we know she won't do it the next day or next TAM? Never mind, I know your answer. You'll just make it up as you go along.

First make a case that somebody doesn't feel safe by someone else titty flashing. Anyway, there's quite a chasm between someone titty flashing (at most a victimless misdemeanor) and someone feeling up someone else's skirt (which has a definite victim).

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

I don't quite follow, sorry. How you you know that the person you talked to "had a similar experience", if you don't know what the woman you talked to experienced, nor what the anonymous complainant experienced?

Sorry. You must not interact with people in the real world very often. When someone discloses to you that they were sexually assaulted, the appropriate reaction isn't to immediately ask them for a detailed account. That's called "empathy".

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

Sorry. You must not interact with people in the real world very often. When someone discloses to you that they were sexually assaulted, the appropriate reaction isn't to immediately ask them for a detailed account. That's called "empathy".

Yes, "please tell me exactly what happened so I can objectively determine for myself whether calling what happened a sexual assault is hyperbole on your part" doesn't seem to me like it would roll very well off the tongue in that situation.

On the other hand, this seems like an odd nit that Kevin is picking. Surely guessing, upon reading the anonymous allegation of sexual assault, that it's the same individual who personally told you earlier of her own sexual assault by the same perpetrator, is the interpretation that's most charitable to Shermer - after all, the alternative is that he's (allegedly) done this more than once!

[Locknar]

Folks, stick to the topic and keep the discussion civil/polite. To put another way, please keep rule 0, rule 11 and rule 12 in mind while posting.

Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:Locknar

[Doubt]

Originally Posted by Cleon

.

To me, the claim that they have been harassed/assaulted is not an extraordinary claim, but the claim that they are lying is.

Why are you creating claims for other people? Strawman much?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's a nice summary of all the recent revelations and accusations.

[meg]

Looks like both the links referring to Krauss have been removed.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by meg

Looks like both the links referring to Krauss have been removed.

Not this one from the above link:

Quote:

Jen McCreight at BlagHag has reported — among other things — that “When women come to me to warn me about what speakers to avoid at conferences or confide in me sexual harassment they’ve experienced, Lawrence Krauss is by far the most common name I hear.” She has also reported that Ron Lindsay, president and CEO of CFI, knew about this — because she’s the one who told him, at the first Women in Secularism conference in March May 2012. Before the cruise that was discussed by Ed Cara. (CORRECTION: Women in Secularism 1 was in May 2012, not March; the CFI cruise in question was in May 2011, after and not before before and not after Women in Secularism 1.)

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

Sorry. You must not interact with people in the real world very often. When someone discloses to you that they were sexually assaulted, the appropriate reaction isn't to immediately ask them for a detailed account. That's called "empathy".

I want to second what Delphi is saying. I have personally been told about similar experiences by two people I know (and they haven't been the topic of any discussion in this thread) about how they were sexually assaulted at skeptic conferences in recent years.

They told me this information in confidence, and I didn't bother to ask for titillating details. But suffice it to say what I was told pretty much fits the definition of sexual assault.

[meg]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Not this one from the above link:

If you go to the link, you find this at the bottom:

Quote:

EDIT: Part of this post has been removed for reasons described here.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by meg

If you go to the link, you find this at the bottom:

You must be looking at something else.

Because it's still there in the link I'm quoting from.

[Badger3k]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So an adult female is a child or what here? The implication is rather insulting to women, IMO.

Like I said, taking advantage of an intoxicated person is wrong and the intoxicated person does not deserve any blame for that. But blaming the guy for putting drinks in front of you, I have a harder time with that part of the "I was a victim" in the story.

What a bizarre thing to say. I've had many times where I've been drinking, say to myself I'm going to stop. and a friend comes up with a drink. Guess what - down it goes. And that was when I (a man) was in my 20s and 30s. Pretty much gave it up in my 40s except for one time at a convention where a coworker kept buying drinks. The music and conversation was great, so I just kept drinking. NExt morning was not fun. **** like that happens. If you feel insulted, that's your problem. Nobody is immune to making poor decisions when drinking.

I have to edit that I was responding to the first part. I mostly agree with the second, except to say that we are all responsible for our own decisions as well. Not blame, just responsibility. If someone takes advantage of you they have the responsibility for their actions, not you.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Badger3k

What a bizarre thing to say. I've had many times where I've been drinking, say to myself I'm going to stop. and a friend comes up with a drink. Guess what - down it goes. And that was when I (a man) was in my 20s and 30s. Pretty much gave it up in my 40s except for one time at a convention where a coworker kept buying drinks. The music and conversation was great, so I just kept drinking. NExt morning was not fun. **** like that happens. If you feel insulted, that's your problem. Nobody is immune to making poor decisions when drinking.

I have to edit that I was responding to the first part. I mostly agree with the second, except to say that we are all responsible for our own decisions as well. Not blame, just responsibility. If someone takes advantage of you they have the responsibility for their actions, not you.

Here's the thing, a person is intoxicated, that's a condition. A guy sexually assaults her. That's an act. He acted, she didn't. He bears 100% of the guilt.

A drink is in front of you, you drink it, that's an act. You acted. And unless someone slipped a roofie in it, you made that decision.

I don't find evil in the guy who poured the drink, sorry. It might be a fine line, it could be a difference in philosophy, but if you can't say no because of social pressure or just bad decision making, you are still the one that acted. Take some responsibility.

If after all that drinking you got in your car and killed someone, would you still be saying, it wasn't your fault because someone kept filling the glass?


I don't think we are that far apart here. The unnamed woman put all the blame on Shermer for her intoxication. If it turns out this is his conscious, purposeful, recurring plan, I might reconsider.

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Here's the thing, a person is intoxicated, that's a condition. A guy sexually assaults her. That's an act. He acted, she didn't. He bears 100% of the guilt.

A drink is in front of you, you drink it, that's an act. You acted. And unless someone slipped a roofie in it, you made that decision.

I don't find blame in the guy who poured the drink, sorry. It might be a fine line, it could be a difference in philosophy, but if you can't say no because of social pressure or just bad decision making, you are still the one that acted. Take some responsibility.

If after all that drinking you got in your car and killed someone, would you still be saying, it wasn't your fault because someone kept filling the glass?


I don't think we are that far apart here. The unnamed woman put all the blame on Shermer for her intoxication. If it turns out this is his conscious, purposeful, recurring plan, I might reconsider.

The article has been updated with a story of a completely different woman.