Did you know that surveys are actually really hard to design well? » « What rude beast…

The end of the @micknugent saga

There has been a rather one-sided ‘conversation’ going on with Michael Nugent for the past month or so. It’s a little bit disturbing, and I provide here a chronology. If it’s too long for you, I’ll understand — I’ve found it hopelessly tedious — and the bottom line is that I won’t be talking to him again, and it ends here, as far as I’m concerned.

But here’s where it started.

• 19 August email, 510 words.

It’s an odd email in which he berates me for my rudeness and my habit of naming people I criticize…who, apparently, I shouldn’t criticize. I stopped reading here: In the last year or so, you have publicly accused Michael Shermer of multiple unreported serious crimes. This will be a theme; do not accuse people of doing bad things publicly. Yes, there’s an element of irony to that.

I did not reply. After a long hiatus, the deluge of blog posts and twitter rebukes begins.

• 17 September, Recent media misrepresentations of the atheist movement, and the role of PZ Myers in the culture of demonising people. 2053 words.

Weirdest part of his article: While publicly attacking me by name in a personalized way, he writes:

I have no idea what PZ thinks he will gain by continuing to publicly attack named people in this personalised way.

Hmm. OK.

• 19 September, The atheist movement is global. It is not defined by the mostly American ‘deep rifts’ disagreements. 2329 words.

• 19 September, The LBJ legend and my email to PZ Myers. 712 words.

Here’s where the problem becomes acute.

The context of the discussion is don’t allege on blogs that named people have committed serious unreported crimes.

No, I am saying *do* talk about sexual harassment, and tackle it robustly and sensitively, but don’t name people on blogs.

I want all allegations of crimes investigated robustly and sensitively, without naming alleged criminals on blogs.

This is ridiculous. Michael Shermer is accused of rape, with multiple witnesses to the aftermath and coverup; Michael Nugent says we must be silent about it. We’ve got instances of sexist remarks, and of ongoing harassment; Michael Nugent tells us to hush.

Michael Nugent may want an illusion of decorum, and so wants to defend the right of rapists and harassers to thrive in anonymity, but I’m more interested in seeing the sexism stop, and the only way to do that is to expose it to the light.

• 25 September, PZ Myers’ unfair and hurtful misrepresentations of Richard Dawkins’ comments about being abused as a child. 1585 words.

• 7 October, The smears get increasingly serious as PZ Myers crosses a new line. 1444 words.

• 8 October email: Can you please withdraw and apologise for your allegation that I am defending rapists?

I made the mistake of replying. “No, because you are.”

So course he immediately fires back:

Can you please withdraw and apologise for your other allegations

– That I am providing a haven for rapists;

– That I am defending harassers and misogynists;

– That I am providing a haven for harassers and misogynists?

Again I replied, which answers all of his demands, although not to his satisfaction:

But you do provide a haven for harassers and misogynists — your blog commentariat is almost indistinguishable from the slymepit.

Look here: https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/10/07/turning-over-a-rock-and-exposing-slime-to-the-light/ . These are the people nestling happily beneath your wing. Yet you choose to write thousands of words repudiating me because I specifically criticize the actual words and actions of people like Dawkins, Harris, and Shermer, while turning a blind eye to the rot festering in your own place.

And you have defended Michael Shermer, preferring to demand that others not publicize his well-documented behavior, rather than criticize a big name in skepticism.

Shermer is not commenting on your blog, so I will say that you aren’t providing a safe harbor for him, yet. But I don’t know — I get the impression that if a rapist were chattering away there, you’d rather everyone kept silent about it.

Really, the commentariat on his blog consists almost exclusively of familiar names from the slymepit: people who have been harassing me, Rebecca Watson, Ophelia Benson, Melody Hensley, Stephanie Zvan, and others for years. That they have found a welcoming environment at Nugent’s place tells me all I need to know about his commitment to ending harassment within the atheist community.

But it was a big mistake to reply at all. He wrote back demanding that I define “rapist”, “haven”, “harasser”, etc., and name all the people involved. I could see this was a waste of time — do not wrestle the gelatinous cube — and dropped it.

• 13 October, PZ Myers has failed five times to justify his smear that I am defending and providing a haven for rapists on my blog. 4687 words.

• 14 October email: “PZ, can you reply to this please?”

My reply: “Not interested.” I won’t be communicating further with him. Those are the last words I have written or will be writing to Michael Nugent.

• 17 October, Thank you to Latsot for apologising for alleging that I defend rapists. PZ Myers, can you please also apologise?. 3391 words.

• 27 October, My Twitter conversation today with Latsot, who like PZ Myers has falsely accused me of defending rapists. 2370 words.

• 29 October, Anatomy of a smear – how PZ Myers concocted a new smear when challenged about his previous smears. 4460 words.

• 30 October email, in which he demands that I reply to his 5 questions. Whatever they were. They’re kind of buried under all the verbiage, most of which I haven’t bothered to read.

• 31 October, Why Stephanie Zvan’s defence of PZ Myers’ ‘haven for rapists’ smear is not reasonable based on the evidence. 1281 words.

There you go. Nugent has written over 20,000 words about me in the last 6 weeks, and made 35 twitter comments. I’m not counting all the arguments he’s had with other people about my wicked behavior, nor am I including the hundreds of twitter posts from Nugent fans and slymepitters that I’ve been flooded with, all of which ignore the core problems: that Michael Nugent shelters and encourages harassers, and thinks the problem of sexism within atheism is purely American, and is best dealt with by silence.

So gosh, no, he won’t be getting a retraction or an apology. What he has gotten is blocked on Twitter and email, and a listing of his obsessive behavior.

Did you know that surveys are actually really hard to design well? » « What rude beast…

Comments

  1. says

    Michael Nugent @micknugent
    .@clinteas Who appointed you guardian of my behaviour?

    The guy’s just a walking, tweeting “tu quoque” isn’t he? Do as I say not as I do!!

  2. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    Is there any oversight at Atheist Ireland? Like, anybody who could tell him, “Hey, Michael… it’s gettin’ a little creepy now, you may want to back off.” Cause he’s not really making them look very good right now.

  3. says

    As I was reading this, one thought kept intruding: Why haven’t you blocked this twit? Then at the end you did. I would have blocked him weeks ago.

  4. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    MN is just another dudebro who needs to shut the fuck and listen. But is incapable of doing either.

  5. auraboy says

    If I were the fabled impartial observer I’d probably be wondering when Nugent was going to get to the crying into a camera for PZ to come back to his lovin’ arms…

    Those diatribes are written in panic and desperation.

  6. rorschach says

    I was disappointed to see my twitter handle plastered over Mick’s blog in a post he actually wrote as a reply to something latsot said the other day, and it has discouraged me from any further communication attempts, because I feel that I can’t be certain at this stage that any private discussion might not end up there as fodder for his less than pleasant commenters, should it not go the way he wants.

  7. Morgan says

    Well, all that accomplished one thing that might look good from Nugent’s perspective, I guess. When he started complaining that people were linking Dawkins’ tweets about rape to the allegations against Shermer – you know, as they were obviously intended – I thought it was unlikely he could be that obtuse, and therefore he must be acting in bad faith. Now after seeing just how fixated he’s been on you, I’m back to thinking, huh, maybe he really is just that obtuse. Which I guess is… better? Kind of?

    Still leaves me needing to find a different group in Ireland through which I can support secularism. Thanks, Mick.

  8. zenlike says

    How many words did he write about actually ending sexism? I guess it’s a lot less then 20,000.

  9. HappyNat says

    It’s amazing how much Nuge can write with he head so far up his own asshole. Calling him tedious is an insult to the word tedious.

    I would just like to add another voice saying Michael Nugent provides a safe haven for rape aplogists.

  12. Saad says

    No, I am saying *do* talk about sexual harassment, and tackle it robustly and sensitively, but don’t name people on blogs.

    I expect him to feel the same way about arson and vandalism.

    What does he mean by doing it sensitively? Protect the feelings of the harasser? Do sexual predators have some special privacy rights that I didn’t know about?

  13. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    There is no sexism in Ireland, or Europe, or Australia, or Asia, or South America. It is only an American problem.

    How about we listen to the women in those areas, and not the mansplainers? Women, at least I’m listening….

  14. says

    And even there it’s probably entirely imaginary, concocted by a bunch of SJWs and Professional Victims.

    I think I’ve got the tone down right.

  15. twas brillig (stevem) says

    Does Nugent only conceptualize the active voice for every word in the dictionary? I see passive voice in the “defends rapists” statement. That is, Nugent is not actively defending rapists as a lawyer in a courtroom would (i.e. active voice), but shushing people from mentioning the name of the rapist is the passive voice sense of the word. Same with “providing a haven”. Active voice is equiv. to having signs, “All rapists, over here is a playground for you.”, while passive voice “haven” is providing a space that anyone can come into, while NOT kicking out people that are accused of rapism.

  16. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    Narcissus just read Nugent’s tweets and called to say, “Dude, not everything is about you.”

  17. says

    He seems pretty confident that PZ is the one who looks ridiculous and will be ignored. But MN is just repeatedly shooting himself in the foot in the eyes of any Social Justice minded people. I always see SJ people take PZ’s position, and decry positions/actions similar to that of Nugent.

    He’s really out of touch.

  19. gijoel says

    Honestly, I think he should be called the Parrot from now on. Because all he can do is spout the same line over, and over again.

  20. doubtthat says

    When he demands that PZ apologize to Shermer, what exactly is that if not defending a rapist? He posted the demand on his blog, ergo his blog is a place where he defends rapists.

    It does also provide a nice little haven for the usual band of dunderheads to babble endlessly about how things the law defines as rape aren’t really rape. I guess I don’t get why Nugent is upset. He just doesn’t like the descriptor attached to the behavior he’s obviously engaging in?

  21. Athywren says

    Well.
    He clearly believes he’s in the right. That’s nice. Personally, though, I tend to prefer to address the criticisms that are levelled against me looking at whether my behaviour matches up with the criticism, and then, if necessary, changing my behaviour. I try to avoid looking for ways in which the criticism can be interpreted so that I can just dismiss it as a smear. Maybe there are different rules when you’re a public figure?

  23. Jackie says

    MN has spent alot of time and effort stridently tellingthe victims of rapists that telling on those rapists on blogs is the immoral. People who support and even believe those rapist’s victims are also immoral, according to Michael Nugent. He’s displayed no such outrage or fixation on telling rapists not to rape and liars and harasser not to lie and harass. His priorities are very telling. I’m surprised it took this long for You to stop engaging with him.

    He wants to be protect and defend misogynist assholes for a reason. They’re birds of a feather. He’s a misogynist asshole. Sure he’s clueless too, but it doesn’t stop there. He’s willfully ignorant like any other bigot. It doesn’t matter why he is actively trying to silence the victims of rapists like Michael Shermer. It doesn’t matter why he provides a place for liars and harassers to sit around and swap lies and encourage each other’s shitty behavior. It only matters what effect that has on the people he and his slimy friends are targeting. Of course he thinks PZ is the one looking bad right now, just like creationists always think they look like geniuses because they have no understanding of science and refuse to listen or learn from people who do. They ruminate on the same ridiculous talking points and feel far too superior to non-creationists to ever give any credence to what they try to explain to them. That’s MN. He knows better than women and he will tell them what they are allowed to do when they are raped. He will tell people how to treat those victims (and it isn’t well) because he KNOWS how much better and smarter he is than them. He will never listen. He will never change. He should be completely chagrined by his own behavior, but he won’t be. Just like the most hardened racists will never admit they are racist, Nugent will will die on this hill a thousand times before he’ll even consider that he might be a sexist fuck up.

  25. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    This guy Michael Nugent has raised tedium to a new art form. I never imagined so much monotony could be packed into 140 characters. Were Chalres Dickens alive today, he’d be obliged to doff whatever steampunk top-hat he favored in the direction of the Nuge.
    Thanks for sharing all this, PZ.

  26. lancefinney says

    If only Nugent would spend as much time combating sexism and harassment as he does at telling us how much his feewing were hurt, he might be quite formidable!

  28. says

    One of the nastier bits is that Nugent always paints criticism of himself (and rapists who he defends) as being mindless smears orchestrated by The Peez. There’s never been a hint of consideration that people might come to that rational conclusion based on his words and deeds, rather than because we’re just looking to “smear” people on orders from FtB.

    That, and the whole “don’t name rapists in public you’re making us look bad, here let me name names and assign sinister motives to my critics” hypocrisy. Dude can piss up a rope, he’s really a shitty person and a coward.

  29. says

    @ doubtthat

    It does also provide a nice little haven for the usual band of dunderheads to babble endlessly about how things the law defines as rape aren’t really rape.

    The same dunderheads who want to hold children culpable for those same actions they wish to excuse in adults. Again, working in the exact opposite direction to legality.

    …
    [Michael Shermer] I understand that, at least in the case of Alison Smith, the legal system in Nevada means that there is a statute of limitations on rape (something that is rather disconcerting in the first place). This means that pretty much anything that he did to her will be swept under the carpet in a legal sense. Saying Michael Shermer is innocent in terms of the law then, does not amount to saying very much. The state in which the alleged crime occurred has already given him a get out of jail free card.

    My litmus test is as such: If anyone I know said they would attend a function that he would be present at, I would immediately be concerned, and warn that person about him. The balance of probability is not in his favour.

  31. Kevin Kehres says

    Geez, if Nugent put that much energy into fighting for secular causes, the Catholic Church in Ireland would have disbanded by now.

    This is “Write a Novel Month”. The challenge is to write 50,000 words in the month. Nugent could do that standing on his head. Not saying the quality would be anything worth reading, but man-oh-man does he have quantity down.

    All makes me wonder how many skeletons are in his closet. This feverish obsessiveness with silencing voices against sexism, sexual harassment, and rape has to come from somewhere other than mere friendship with a creep.

  32. rorschach says

    Does Atheist Ireland know how their chairman is making them look?

    Yes, and he makes them look good most of the time. With regards to dictionary atheism and the narrow scope of pressing secular issues in that country anyway, as far as I can tell. The social justice component is definetely on the agenda with the younger guard, and Atheist Ireland will have to have that discussion sometime soon.

    And that may be where Mick might get into heavy surf one day. Lots of angry, motivated and combative SJ-aware atheists in that country. Somewhat similar to Australia I think, where you have a male-dominated dictionary troglodyte atheist organisation, and a social justice aware younger generation that is appalled at what the organised movement gets up to(or not).

  33. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    This feverish obsessiveness with silencing voices against sexism, sexual harassment, and rape has to come from somewhere other than mere friendship with a creep.

    I don’t think so, I just think he’s a desperate social climber, certain that Dawkins will let him into the cool kids club if he sticks up for him enough.

  34. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    Kevin Kehres @ 31

    All makes me wonder how many skeletons are in his closet. This feverish obsessiveness with silencing voices against sexism, sexual harassment, and rape has to come from somewhere other than mere friendship with a creep.

    I don’t think there’s any reason to start wildly speculating that Nugent is harboring a bunch of dirty little secrets about himself. People defend the status quo for all kinds of perfectly mundane reasons.

  35. smhll says

    Stretching charity almost to the snapping point, I imagine Michael Nugent doesn’t want to host possibly libelous comments on his blog. And, related to that, I understand that newspapers (for example) have less protection from libel suits in Great Britain than in the US. I don’t know what the specific situation is in Ireland.

    Would M. Nugent allow sneering ‘allegations’ about venereal disease to stand on his website? Is he consistent about this, or is he applying his protections unevenly? (I don’t have enough data. I can’t really stand to read the slymepit sort of comment that is appearing on his blog. And I hope I’m not the only person repulsed enough to close the window to his pages because of that.)

    How would his commenting, um, guidelines apply to other crimes or scandals? For example, what about the broadcaster (Jian?) who was recently fired in Canada? If no one had spoken, the problems there would have stayed as never prosecuted whispers. What about sexual abuse in the Catholic church or physical abuse in the Magdalene laundries in Ireland? Should those issues have been excluded from blog conversations until after prosecutions happened?

    In social justice discussions, there are often problems that are not crimes, but that still need to be discussed. (Taking sexual advantage of a very drunk person is a crime, I’m not trying to say it isn’t.) We need to be able to discuss those things as well.

    Simple rules for “what we don’t talk about, dear” still allow a lot of latitude for shit to stand.

    And speaking of shit, when I look at #gamergate and regular atheist hate, it seems like some people are trying to take the free speech that the claim to value and abuse it so much that all feeling people are repulsed and somewhat tempted to take the free speech car keys away. When you love free speech, dudes, try a bit harder not to use it for evil. Sheesh. (And I’m off topic, aiming this bit at the most toxic people, with the newest and freshest and most multitudinous accounts on Twitter.)

  36. Jacob Schmidt says

    I gotta admit, I was turned off by the “he defends rapists” thing. I had no idea he wanted people to be quiet about who is sexually abusive, though. Jesus fuck, does he actually not see the connection?

    Yeah, Mick, you defend rapists. You defend sexual abuse. If people abided by the policies you want, it would only serve to enable them. Talking a big game but letting people go on with their behaviour without calling attention to it is not acceptable.

  38. says

    Yes, Nugent would allow such allegations to stand. On one of those posts (the one about Latsot), there was a slymepitter diagnosing Martin with schizophrenia, and quoting the DSM. There is a hell of a lot of insulting abuse directed at FtB and specific individuals in those comment threads, and Michael Nugent, Brave Defender of Online Civility, does nothing about them…not even when people like Ophelia or Stephanie point out specific lies.

    He must have noticed that when he gives an open space for ‘pitters to fill threads with bullshit, they flock to the manure pile. I guess he’s doing it for the clicks.

  39. Al Dente says

    Nugent thinks it’s more important not to embarrass Shermer by calling him a rapist than to warn potential victims about Shermer’s raping.

    When Nugent presided over the debate debacle between Stephanie Zvan and the slymepit, I thought he was naive but well-meaning. I didn’t realize he actually thought the ‘pitters had legitimate concerns and complaints against SJWs. Now I see that Nugent, while pretending the “great rifts” only exist in one part of the world, has firmly planted his banner on one side of the rift.

    So long, Mick. Have a nice rest of your life basking in the admiration of sexists, misogynists and rapists.

  40. Kevin Kehres says

    @33 and 34.

    You may be right. Though the vehemence with which he seems to want to enforce the status quo seems quite outsized to me.

  41. lutzifer says

    wow, that guy seems really obsessive in his need for attention.

    i m not sure about how much slyme he has in his blog comments, because i do not want to go anywhere near it now, but maybe there actually is a difference in culture at play here. I.e. the usa is very open about information about criminals (rapist databases etc) while in europe personal information in the press is way more “policed”. With policed i mean, that in a lot of countries the press isnt actively reporting on details of cases to avoid prejudice / pre-judgment by the public. Not sure, if that is what his beef is with PZ’s articles. And he sure as hell looks like a douchebag even without having read any of his actual blogposts, just from what is offered here.

  42. bryanfeir says

    You know, there’s an extra level of hypocrisy in the Irishman calling all of the ‘deep rifts’ a mostly American problem when the elevator incident that started to kick over this rock and expose the crawling beneath happened in Dublin.

  43. says

    smhll @ 35 –

    Stretching charity almost to the snapping point, I imagine Michael Nugent doesn’t want to host possibly libelous comments on his blog. And, related to that, I understand that newspapers (for example) have less protection from libel suits in Great Britain than in the US. I don’t know what the specific situation is in Ireland.
    Would M. Nugent allow sneering ‘allegations’ about venereal disease to stand on his website? Is he consistent about this, or is he applying his protections unevenly?

    Ha. Michael Nugent is perfectly happy to host possibly libelous comments on his blog, as long as they’re aimed at people other than Dawkins, Shermer et al. There are comments on his blog announcing that I’m deep into dementia (I’m not) and that I didn’t write any of Why Truth Matters (I wrote 2/3 of it). There are possibly libelous and definitely loathsome comments about the rest of the usual suspects too – PZ, Stephanie, “FTB” – you get the idea.

  46. rorschach says

    there was a slymepitter diagnosing Martin with schizophrenia

    I knew that Martin Wagner fellow had something wrong with him!

    But seriously, I didn’t read the post nor the comments. Blood pressure and all.

  47. says

    One thing though, PZ (@ 38) –

    He must have noticed that when he gives an open space for ‘pitters to fill threads with bullshit, they flock to the manure pile. I guess he’s doing it for the clicks.

    We know he’s noticed, because we had those two long Skype conversations with him about it in May or June 2013. He has noticed because we’ve told him, but he refuses to accept that there’s anything wrong with that. Our mentioning of what Shermer is widely reported to have done is Evil, but his encouragement of brazen lies about us is just fine.

  51. Andy Groves says

    Nugent’s position is pretty clear: Silence about rape unless you go to the police and the rapist is charged; silence about harassment unless you you go the police and the harasser is charged; silence about abuse unless you go to the police and the abuser is charged.

    I am not sure whether he is actively supporting the motives of some of the vile characters that have attached themselves to him or whether he is too dense to understand that he is being used by them. Vile or deluded? It’s not a pretty choice.

  52. bryanfeir says

    Vile or deluded? It’s not a pretty choice.

    Given Ophelia’s comment above about lengthy skype conversations, it’s not so much ‘vile or deluded’ as it is ‘vile or wilfully, insistently ignorant’.

    And, at some point, you’ve got to admit that as long as there’s no practical difference between the results of the two mindsets, there’s no real reason to care WHY he’s doing it.

  53. Andy Groves says

    …adding, I wonder what Nugent’s comment on the Jian Ghomeshi story will be? Pleading for temperance and silence until this goes to court?

  54. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Secondign Saad’s question.

    No, I am saying *do* talk about sexual harassment, and tackle it robustly and sensitively, but don’t name people on blogs.

    Why not?

    I admit my eyes crossed a bit reading those tweets, so maybe I missed that part.

  55. Anri says

    I think he shouldn’t have named who he wanted to have apologize to him.
    Consistency and all that y’know.

    Or is it just that in his mind “Should apologize to Michael Nugent” is a crime that everyone should be alerted about, while “Probable sexual predator” is something that should be kept hush-hush?
    …I’m asking an obvious question, aren’t I?

  57. Jackie says

    You know what pisses me off most about Michael Nugent? He won’t say outright that he thinks Michael Shermer’s victims are lying and he thinks we should all treat them as though they are. He dances around it, but he is not a stupid man. He knows he’s passionately implying it over and over again. (At least Dawkins admits that either he thinks incapacitated women are asking for it and so deserve to be raped and silenced or that fucking them without their consent isn’t rape. He has yet, to my knowledge, to deny the events that the victims call rape occurred.) WHY is it immoral to post people’s experiences on blogs if those experiences are rapes? More accurately, why is telling the identity of the rapist the part of their experience of being raped that it is morally wrong and a complete outrage that brings shame upon the house of Atheism?

    Because there is a chance he might not have done the things all of those people said he did. Maybe all of the people who complained to James Randi were lying to? Shermer blames mass hysteria caused by women enjoying lying about being raped by guys as cool as him. How exactly does Nugent explain away all of those people coming forward to tell the things Micheal Shermer did to them and how other prominent atheists kept it hushed up for him? I’d really love to know.

    Why isn’t he decrying that actual horrible shit that people have done and are doing that is documented and has been explained to him over and over again? Why this? Why is treating these women (and one man) as if they “might all be” lying the drum he won’t stop beating?

    What and who, exactly does Nugent think he’s taking this stand for? Can he sum it up without a few thousand weasel words? Can he explain why a rapist or harasser of women would not feel welcome on his blog (after he actually reads Meet the Predators and cops to several of the commenters on his blog being harassers of women who have been active, slur-slinging rape apologists in this community for years?)?

    You know what I’m starting to think?
    I’m starting to think that this is not about ethics in videogame journalism.

  59. Sili says

    And, at some point, you’ve got to admit that as long as there’s no practical difference between the results of the two mindsets, there’s no real reason to care WHY he’s doing it.

    Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.

  60. carlie says

    Anyone who says we need to talk “sensitively” about rape seems to always mean “don’t say things that make me feel squeamish or yucky, including any details about what happened to you especially if it was someone I like who did it to you”.

  61. says

    ….holy balls

    It’s like if he stacks enough bullshit high enough, it’ll turn into gold.

    It’s like he exists under the “he who dies with the most words wins” rule, without given any care to what those words mean.

    It’s like he cares more about his obviously hurt feels than any of the victims here.

    Oh wait, it’s exactly like he cares more about his obviously hurt feels than any of the victims here. None of which are actually Nugent.

  63. says

    Is there going to be another “Empowering Women Through Secularism” conference?

    If there is, maybe he’ll just invite a fine selection of slymepitters. Gotta get their side of the story, you know!

  64. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    “Empowering Women Through Mansplaining”
    OR
    “Empowering Non-Filthy-American Women Through Secularism (Seriously, No Americans)”

  66. r3a50n says

    Funny how the guy that claims your credibility is so diminished is also so obviously desperate for your approval.

  67. Jackie says

    Attitudes inform actions. I’m sure there are people who think this is not nearly charitable enough, but why wouldn’t you believe that you were condoning and even encouraging rape when you host rape apologists and spend hundreds of words in defense of rapists? Does he think his words and actions are invisible to rapists?

    Does he think there is no wifi in the back alleys of “bad” neighborhoods he assumes they inhabit?

    That’s rape culture. That’s what MN is calling morality.

    Why don’t these assholes drop the pretense and just wave pom-poms for the rapists already?

  69. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    Jackie @ 67

    Because there is no connotation. Only denotation. The words “I condone and even encourage rape” were not uttered at any point! Smear tactics, I say! I demand you apologize to Mick Nugent forthwith.

  71. says

    Things I have learned about Michael Nugent from the last few years:
    * He is incredibly paternalistic. Rebecca had his number on this one back when he started the Dialogue over harassment in the community. He waded into the Slyme Pit, pulled out a few quotes, then decided he a) was now an expert and b) could solve this problem by declaring himself mediator. I suspect his recent obsession over PZ started similarly; his original list of talking points about PZ’s bad behavior was almost word-for-word taken from a post by Tim “Gurdur” Skellet, who’s had a grudge at least since the You’re Not Helping/Wally Smith days. When he became the target of criticism rather than the impartial observer and authority figure that he wants to be seen as, other aspects of his personality kicked in.

    * He loves attention. Check out every time he posts (or at least, every time before he landed on this little obsession). He doesn’t just have an automated thing to tweet about new blog posts or videos, he makes sure to spam prominent people with those links to spread the word. Not long ago, his spam targets included folks like Ophelia and PZ, but not so much anymore. (Examples: 1 2 3 4 5 6) He really wants to be noticed, and feuding with PZ? Painting himself as the victim of smears and the defender of important people in the movement? Well, it sure seems to have worked. Alexa says his pageviews are up 20% from the previous three months, and he’s got a brand new commentariat who have colonized his comment section. Again.

    * He’s very proper. There’s a proper way to do things. That proper way involves going to, listening to, and trusting authorities. The fact that he continually positions himself as an authority has, I’m sure, nothing to do with this. People who disrespect authorities and disregard the proper way of doing things? Who don’t go through those official channels? Well, he’s not going to come right out and say that they don’t deserve justice or consideration, but they certainly haven’t proven themselves trustworthy and there’s nothing we can or should do until they go through the proper channels, you know. Propriety is paramount, and everything can be solved either through police intervention or a structured debate.

    * He obviously thinks both sides are (or have been) the problem. I don’t know if he thinks that the Dialogue fixed all the problems we had before, and that this is a new problem caused mostly by PZ, or if he thinks that the reason the Dialogue fell apart was because of Freethoughtbullies behaving badly, but he’s obviously fine now with people he called out before now annexing his blog comments, and thinks that the offense done to him outweighs any usage of slurs in his presence. I suspect it has a lot to do with a just-world fallacy (which fits with his authoritarianism). Shermer doesn’t deserve to be called a rapist, because he’s never been convicted of anything in a court of law! Nugent doesn’t deserve to be called a rape apologist, because he’s just being fair and legalistic and respecting the official channels when he deletes/edits comments so Shermer isn’t named on his blog. Alison Smith deserves to be protected by Nugent (which involves ignoring her wishes), but she doesn’t deserve to be considered a reliable source for her own experience, because she didn’t go through the proper channels. PZ deserves to be the subject of a month-long badgering campaign because he said something untoward and Nugent is just holding his feet to the fire, and anything that happens in Nugent’s comments is as a result of PZ’s bad behavior and refusal to acknowledge it.

    The sooner atheists start rejecting this idea that people generally get what they deserve, the sooner the movement will start becoming more empathetic. Until then, it’ll just remain pathetic. Especially with guys like Michael Nugent at the top of it.

  72. says

    Tom, you hit all the points right on the head. Now I’m wondering just where the fuck does he get off declaring himself the Atheist Moderator of we bickering children? No one asked him to. No one invited him. And now he’s all hurt because we don’t recognize his “authority”?

    I believe the term “Bye Felicia” is one of the many appropriate responses.

  73. opposablethumbs says

    LOGIK: 1) Clearly all rapists are slavering sabre-toothed hunchbacked monsters deserving of terrible punishments.
    LOGIK 2) Anyone the Pitters and their ilk know and like is not a slavering sabre-toothed hunchbacked monster and couldn’t possibly be deserving of terrible punishments,
    LOGIK 3 therefore they are not rapists.
    LOGIK 4) therefore we will hound and harass and threaten anyone who criticises sexist behaviour and sexual harassment or who makes references to (relatively) powerful people who have raped.

    The logic and clarity of thought is really sterling stuff here. I never heard of Nugent in any other context myself, but it’s reasonable to infer he’s pro-Pitter if a lot of them regularly hang out on his blog and are welcome there, so I guess that makes him their ilk – plus being a Brave Defender of Shermer … gives me a clear enough idea of what he stands for. Funny how wedded he seems to be to the idea that he’s entitled to police what others say, while complaining about anyone else daring to criticise his chosen ones. Has he ever said a word against the actual threats and abuse coming from the Pit?

  75. says

    Seven of Mine @69:

    Because there is no connotation. Only denotation. The words “I condone and even encourage rape” were not uttered at any point! Smear tactics, I say! I demand you apologize to Mick Nugent forthwith.

    You’re not being obsessive enough in your demand for an apology. Oh, and you also failed to use enough words. You’re shy by about 19, 967 words..

    ****
    On a serious note, Nugent is just being an utter asshole at this point. He has provided a platform for the worst the atheist movement has to offer. That alone was enough for me to dislike the guy. Then he has to go and top his shittiness with rape culture apologetics. Reading the OP, I’m left wondering
    A: does he not know how obsessive this is?
    B: Why is it such a bad thing to name names and does this policy apply only to rape and sexual assault or all crimes?

  76. says

    Nugent had the great Dialogue to try and heal the rifts between both sides (not realizing that many of us are perfectly happy staying away from the misogynistic shitspigots), and in the end realized that he should ally with the Pitters? It’s like he didn’t pay attention to (or more likely doesn’t care about) the concerns many of us have over the harassing and bullying in the movement.

  77. says

    his original list of talking points about PZ’s bad behavior was almost word-for-word taken from a post by Tim “Gurdur” Skellet, who’s had a grudge at least since the You’re Not Helping/Wally Smith days.

    You don’t know the half of it. Since the 90s, when I noted that Gurdur’s appearance in any online forum was a harbinger of the death of the group — I’ve been comparing him to Leland Gaunt (of Needful Things) for years.

  78. says

    I’m wondering if he understands that constantly tweeting at somebody who obviously isn’t interested in the conversation is kind of textbook harassment…
    But yeah, Nugent has a very particular way with words. He asked me several times why I linked PZs and latsot’s behaviour to lying even after I clearly said that I was talking about him.
    Also, his claim that somebody who was no longer interested in talking to him was trivialising rape is disgusting.

  79. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    Has he ever said a word against the actual threats and abuse coming from the Pit?

    Of course not, most of those guys are just like him: Pompous windbags who fetishize “debate” over all else.

  80. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Reading the comments by MN, it was obvious he was an oblivious bully who doesn’t and can’t understand the concept that women are people too, and the implication thereof.

    So the following type “dialogs” happen
    MN, “women are equal, the law says so”
    FTB, “then show us the evidence that equal opportunity equals equal results”
    MN, “try this, linking to an obviously bad study that also can’t explain why equal results aren’t achieved”
    FTB, “the study can’t explain the final 4% differential, which is prima facie evidence for institutional sexism and misogyny”
    MN, “you SJWs won’t be happen until women tell men what to do, fuck off”, finally showing the paranoia behind the fear that drives the bullying.

  81. says

    That dialogue thing? It gets better (for some values of “better” that mean “worse”).

    He asked me who I suggested take part on the other side. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I named people who should have a vested interest in the health of the atheist movement. Skep Tickle, who was/is on a board; Peter Ferguson (Humanisticus), who was running a student group or something like that; and Russell Blackford, who’s invested an awful lot of time and effort.

    I was just tweeting with Ferguson (not an activity I recommend), and I took the opportunity to ask him about the dialogue. Nugent never asked him to participate. The asshole just set me up to argue directly with pitters. There was little enough chance of the dialogue accomplishing anything more than an airing of positions. This doomed it. Pitters only fixed position is that they don’t like us.

  82. Athywren - Social Justice Spellsword says

    Nugent had the great Dialogue to try and heal the rifts between both sides (not realizing that many of us are perfectly happy staying away from the misogynistic shitspigots), and in the end realized that he should ally with the Pitters?

    Well they’re so clearly the more reasonable party! They’d welcome us back with open arms if we’d only shut up about all this “justice” nonsense! We, on the other hand, are always wittering on about “rape” and “sexual assault” and other things that obviously never happened because nobody involved has horns sprouting out of their scalps. Only unreasonable people want to change things for the better, as you would know if you weren’t so busy with trying to destroy masculinity!

  83. Al Dente says

    Can you please withdraw and apologise for your other allegations

    – That I am providing a haven for rapists;

    – That I am defending harassers and misogynists;

    – That I am providing a haven for harassers and misogynists?

    Mick, I’ve read your blogs and some of the comments on them. You are:

    –Providing a haven for rapists by insisting that an identified rapist not be named because it could ruin his reputation. When a rapist’s reputation is more important than alerting possible victims to the rapist’s activities then you can reasonably be described as providing a haven for the rapist.

    –You have ignored evidence that many of the commentators at your blogs are harassers and misogynists. You specifically deleted several of my comments on your blog when I gave examples of slymepitters’ harassment and misogyny in their comments on your blog posts. This is both defending the harassers and misogynists and giving them haven.

    Your hypocrisy in complaining how mean everyone is to poor you and your harassing, misogynist, rapist buddies while actively ignoring and deleting evidence you find distasteful is obvious to those of us paying attention.

  84. says

    Oh, Peter Ferguson, another person who doesn’t understand harassment.
    I was in a Twitter conversation with him, too, and I agree on the verdict.
    Chapter 1:
    I say good night and ask to be removed from the mentions, so does another person.
    Chapter 2:
    He tweets at me, without removing the other person. “Just answer me this one thing…”
    I stupidly think that this would be the end of it and reply.
    Chapter 3:
    He keeps tweeting at me, I tell him to stop.
    Chapter 4:
    He keeps tweeting at me, I tell him to stop harassing me.
    Chapter 5:
    He still keeps tweeting at me, now whining that I was falsely accusing him of harassment.
    I shake my head and go to bed.
    Chapter 6:
    I wake in the morning to a new follower…

    Here’s a hint: if you do not understand that insisting on having a conversation with somebody who repeatedly told you to leave them alone is harassment, you are lacking the fundamental qualifications needed for this conversation

  85. mudpuddles says

    I am disgusted by Nugent’s hypocrisy, and that someone I thought was a level-headed spokesperson for atheism in Ireland has so plainly taken sides with harassers. I will never spend another cent on Atheism Ireland membership or conferences as long as he has anything to do with them.

  86. A. Noyd says

    Holy snake tits, what a whiny baby. I think my favorite is the “nugentian” tweet. PZ retweets an example of the sort of revolting person Nugent favors, and Nugent essentially accuses PZ of making the guy up as a distraction.

    I’m not going to read more of Nugent’s excessive verbal spew, but if someone else has, can they say if he manages to come up with any examples of accused rapists and harassers in this community suffering genuine negative consequences for being named?

    ~*~*~*~*~*~

    Nerd of Redhead (#4)

    MN is just another dudebro who needs to shut the fuck and listen. But is incapable of doing either.

    The kind of dudebro who’s done sooooo much for social justice but has aggressively petulant, self-centered meltdowns when asked to listen to oppressed people telling him what’s wrong and what they want done about it.

    ~*~*~*~*~*~

    Al Dente (#39)

    Nugent thinks it’s more important not to embarrass Shermer by calling him a rapist than to warn potential victims about Shermer’s raping.

    I don’t even understand why. Because he thinks the atheist/skepticism movement benefits more from retaining yet another libertarian white dude over keeping women safe?

  88. Tethys says

    He asked me who I suggested take part on the other side.

    I have no desire to discuss the issue further with those on the other side of the rift. Those on the other side of the rift are malicious, sociopathic shit-flingers. This is the key point where Nuge’s train of logic fails, every time. We have discussed the sexism and misogyny issues loudly and endlessly for years, and they insist on their right to be willfully blind sexist slime. It is simply stupid that Nuge insists that we who have walked away are somehow obliged to discuss this, or apologize for anything. Ye shall know them by their victim blaming. Book of Abusius 4:11 As long as his blog happily hosts those shit flingers, and he keeps trying to be the brave hero to mediate a reconciliation, all MN deserves is a hearty “Fuck Off Creep!”.

  89. says

    Tethys, I do not suggest that anyone has or should have a desire to talk with the other side. I was simply tired of it being used as a club that we weren’t interested, as though talking would solve intractable differences. I didn’t expect it would succeed, but I was willing to give it its best shot.

    It pisses me off that Nugent, who insisted the talks occur, didn’t give it even the same chance I did.

  90. R Johnston says

    The end of the Mick Nugent saga was when he “moderated” the great debate by letting the slymepitters run amok. After that he deserved no benefit of the doubt or time of day. Whether he was malicious or radically foolish didn’t and doesn’t matter; either way there was no hope for any good coming from his quarter. He provided a haven for harassers and misogynists, throwing in his lot with the lowest of the low, and he had the temerity to be a tone troll at the same time.

    Michael Nugent, mediator and promoter of politeness, is a fraud, pure and simple. Michael Nugent chose his side badly and there was never anything polite about his choosing.

  91. ChasCPeterson says

    oh, my. I took a look at the longest and most over-the-top obsessive ‘Anatomy of a Smear’ post and marvelled at the denizens of the comments. Like moths to flame, flies to shit. (btw has Jack Rawlinson confirmed or denied the persistent rumor that he is Elevator Guy?)

  92. Tethys says

    Stephanie Zvan

    It pisses me off that Nugent, who insisted the talks occur, didn’t give it even the same chance I did.

    I think you made every effort to discuss in good faith, and your patience for educating the obtuse is far greater than mine. When Rebecca Watson and elevators happened, we discussed it. We have been discussing it ever since, and now the issue of feminism is being discussed and taken seriously by multiple large bastions of male privilege. The NFL is discussing it. The tech industry is discussing it, Colbert and Beyonce and Emma Watson are discussing it. The Pentagon and the Federal Government are discussing it. The CBC is discussing it. Mick Nugent doesn’t want to discuss anything but how right and brave Mick Nugent is. He refuses to recognize the behavior that perpetuates a culture of toxic male behavior as a problem, but using bad words on his blog will get you banned. What else can you do but shrug and walk away?

  95. fatpie42 says

    I haven’t read the entire twitter feed. (I’ve skimmed it.) No wonder arguments break down when discussed over a medium which limits the number of characters and thus has people chucking sound bites at each other.

    I just wanted to note that there’s a good reason not to announce people’s names across blogs along with strong accusations. The reason not to “name and shame” is that it might promote vigilante justice. I considered this to be Nugent’s point since he says that crimes should be dealt with robustly by the proper authorities.

    I’m not sure that this rules out eyewitnesses blogging freely about their own personal experiences. Still, it would be worth noting that releasing an account of a criminal action and naming the culprit publicly could potentially compromise the trial, so there are good reasons for the victims and witnesses to abstain from naming and shaming for that reason.

    Perhaps I’ve missed some rather more concise posts on this issue before. Showing me an endless stream of comments on a Twitter feed makes it hard to keep track of the salient points of the discussion. Still, I’m definitely now even LESS likely to bother with the hassle of a twitter feed. Looks like a blooming nightmare.

  96. doubtthat says

    I read some of the comments over at Nugent’s site for entertainment – they’re all incredibly well-reasoned and thoughtful, as you can imagine – and they’re doing something now that I find so hilarious and so illuminating that I felt a need to share it:

    They are reposting comments from this thread into the thread at Nugent’s so they can bitch about the comments (Hi guys! Sorry this place isn’t as accommodating to your misogyny and harassment).

    I’ve yet to see one of those comment sections that didn’t include someone bitching about being banned from FTB or complaining about Myers’ moderation policy. In a scientific calculation, I have determined that 78.68% of their position derives from frustration over the fact that not everyone listens to their insightful diatribes.

    The rest of the 21.32% is just plain old asshattery.

  97. says

    Cripes, and I thought thunderm0uth was obsessed with you during his FtB tenure. Nugent’s constant badgering for attention and his collected novella of “Respond! Respond! Apologise! Apologise!” histrionics also smacks of youtube Christian “ShockOfGod” and his badgering of atheists to “prove that atheism is accurate and correct!”

    I’m struggling to understand how certain people in elevated organisational positions actually got there in the first place. I’m also struggling to understand how someone I used to respect has so fucking gleefully thrown in his lot with the ‘pit, the very very worst of unapologetic stalkers, harassers and rape-apologists the atheo-net has to offer the world. And his “investigate and discuss but don’t name names!” approach to harassment and abuse is eerily reminiscent of the behaviour of the Irish Church.

  98. says

    @fatpie42

    The reason not to “name and shame” is that it might promote vigilante justice.

    Because there have been so many rapists who have had no absolutely no adverse effects from being accused in social media of sexual assault been victims of mobs of vigilante feminists out for blood.

    Still, it would be worth noting that releasing an account of a criminal action and naming the culprit publicly could potentially compromise the trial

    What trial?

    he says that crimes should be dealt with robustly by the proper authorities.

    Which, of course means almost certainly not at all. http://wendycooper.org/2014/10/out-of-every-1000-sexual-assaults-there-are-three-convictions/

  99. omnicrom says

    fatpie @95 you seem to have missed the point significantly, and possibly deliberately.

    There is that positive spin you brought up about not naming names to avoid improper responses and libel and etc. but it doesn’t work here. As PZ @38 and Ophelia @43 point out Michael Nugent has had absolutely no problem with allowing defamatory false remarks to stand as comments on his blog, and Al Dente @83 points out several of their posts on Nugent’s blog that provide specific and supported claims of bad behavior by Nugent’s commentors were deleted by Nugent. When Michael Nugent calls for rapists and other victimizers to go unnamed it’s not because is interested in being ethically sound and careful, it’s because MIchael Nugent is interested in silencing what he doesn’t want to hear.

    That’s what it amounts to. We don’t live in the ideal world you outlined fatpie, I can’t speak for the world but in America the overwhelming vast majority of rapists go free and unpunished. If there are allegations raised against a rapist the depressingly common response is widespread scorn, harassment, and blame against the victim while the rapist receives hand-wringing sympathy and worry over how these allegations will harm the rapist. Men and women who report sexual abuse usually get thrown through the wringer by law enforcement and have their reputations dragged through the mud to see if they were “Asking for it”, and in the minds of the public the answer is always “Yes”.

    I explain all this because Rape is a crime that is NOT “dealt with robustly by the proper authorities”. There are no trials to compromise because in the public’s mind no Rapist is guilty of rape. When you wave your hands and say that we should defer rapists to the proper authorities you are in accord with Michael Nugent in that rapists should go free and unfettered. Raising our voices and warning the world that Michael Shermer is a rapist is the only possible reaction and the only way to get some small measure of justice.

  100. Al Dente says

    fatpie42 @95

    I just wanted to note that there’s a good reason not to announce people’s names across blogs along with strong accusations. The reason not to “name and shame” is that it might promote vigilante justice. I considered this to be Nugent’s point since he says that crimes should be dealt with robustly by the proper authorities.

    Shermer was identified as a serial rapist not to “shame” him but as a warning to women “watch out for this guy, he’ll get you drunk and rape you.” Nobody expects Shermer to be arrested for his past behavior. However it’s hoped that he won’t be able to rape any more women because he’s been publicly named as a rapist. Nugent is taking the same attitude as you, that a rapist’s reputation is worth more than preventing women (and men) from being raped. Many of us disagree with you and Mick.

    Still, it would be worth noting that releasing an account of a criminal action and naming the culprit publicly could potentially compromise the trial, so there are good reasons for the victims and witnesses to abstain from naming and shaming for that reason.

    As has been noted previously, the statute of limitations for rape has run out on Shermer. He’s not going to trial. So your concern about “compromise” is baseless.

  101. opposablethumbs says

    fatpie42, have you at any point considered – who are the only people who actually have taken “vigilante” action already? Who have been doxxing women who dared to speak out, who have been issuing rape threats, who have been issuing murder threats?
    Nobody has threatened the harassers. Nobody has photoshopped their heads onto animals or porn or corpses. On the contrary, it is they who have been threatening the victims for daring to protest.
    And the point of naming serial harassers and rapists is to protect other potential victims. Would you rather they be left without even the protection of a warning?

  102. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Fatpie42 #95

    Please describe how you would at every conference, help protect women from known rapist and harassers. That is trying to prevent problems due to lack of knowledge.

    Personally, I like the idea of bulliten board with names, faces, and incidents for the last few years.

    Do you have any other mechanism for distributing this information you consider more appropriate?

    If you don’t want the information distributed, you are promoting harassment and rape due to continued ignorance. You are part of the problem.

    Either you are part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

  103. says

    fatpie42 @95:

    I just wanted to note that there’s a good reason not to announce people’s names across blogs along with strong accusations. The reason not to “name and shame” is that it might promote vigilante justice. I considered this to be Nugent’s point since he says that crimes should be dealt with robustly by the proper authorities.

    The world doesn’t work the way you and Nugent think. Law enforcement is often no help to victims of rape or sexual assault. In some cases, they make things worse (by blaming the victim for one). Victims are often not believed and dismissed.
    So law enforcement is no help, and Nugent doesn’t like it when victims of rape or sexual assault choose to speak up about their experiences in an effort to warn others of rapists. So what does that leave?
    Victims staying silent.
    Great job keeping Rape Culture alive.

  104. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Dang, missing a “or” after the comma in last sentence in #101.

  105. Al Dente says

    Either you are part of the solution [or] you are part of the problem.

    Nerd, you’re a chemist. You know it’s “either you’re part of the solution or part of the participate.”

  106. says

    fatpie42:
    My suggestion would be for you to not comment further on the subject of rape and sexual assault until you educate yourself first.
    You can start here:
    Out of reported rapes, only 3 out of 100 rapists will serve time
    or here:
    Why victims of rape don’t go to the police

    1. They don’t want anyone to know. In the round table, confidentiality was the most often sighted goal of both victim’s advocates and police officers and prosecutors who work most closely with victims. Survey data backs them up. Contrary to Washington Post columnist George Will’s bizarre theory that reporting sexual assault could confer a “coveted status” for victims, research shows that college victims don’t report sexual assault to the police because they don’t want anyone to know. In the 2007 study, 42% of the “physically forced” victims who did not report the incident to the police said it was because they “did not want anyone to know.” Nearly half of the victims gave the same answer in an earlier survey (also funded by the National Institute of Justice) that randomly surveyed 4, 446 women attending two or four year colleges during 1997.

    Victims, especially those in college, know that reporting rape comes with a social risk, especially when the perpetrator is someone they know. At a small or midsize college, the rapist is likely to be part of the victim’s social circle. “I’ve seen this in every single case. The victim lose friends or becomes a social pariah. If you report on a really small campus, its really difficult to re-integrate after you report,” says Bruno.

    Interestingly, even as the attitude towards victims has improved over the last several years in the broader culture and by police, self-blame and shame has persisted among victims, leaving them just as unwilling to come forward. Years ago, says Scott Berkowitz, the founder and president of the Rape Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), the most common reason victims gave for not reporting was: “‘I think I won’t be believed. I think I will be blamed.’ We hear that less often. Now it is much more common to hear: ‘I want to keep this private. I don’t want people to know. I’m embarrassed.’”

    2. They don’t understand what constitutes rape. The 2007 survey showed that just over 35% of victims said that they didn’t report to law enforcement because it was “unclear that it was a crime or that harm was intended” (44% gave that same answer in the earlier 1990’s study).

    The victims’ confusion does not mean that all of these crimes fell somewhere in the gray. More likely, their confusion reflects shame, denial, and internalized misconceptions that rape is always perpetrated by a stranger and involves physical violence, when often, rape happens between acquaintances and involves alcohol, threats, or other kinds of coercion.”Victims don’t often identify it as a crime because they know the person, they trusted the person, sense of denial or disbelief that it happened,”says Colby Bruno, Senior Legal Counsel at the Victim Rights Law Center, who represents victims of sexual violence in civil matters, with particular expertise in representing college students.

    3. They are afraid the police won’t believe them. In the more recent 2007 study, 21% of physically forced victims and 12% of incapacitated victims did not report because they didn’t think the police would take the crime seriously and 13% of forced victims and 24% of incapacitated victims feared the police would treat them poorly. Victims have also reported that their colleges discouraged them from reporting.

    Victims aren’t wrong in their perception. According to research funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, only 18% of reported rapes result in a conviction.

    4. They don’t know how much control they will have after they report to the police. Victims are afraid of going through a public rape trial because of how awful it can be for the victim. Media portrayals of rape trials show how often they are about the victim’s character and credibility. Given the low rate of conviction, victim’s naturally decide it isn’t worth the risk. Unfortunately, there is wide discrepancy between how prosecutors and police officers in various jurisdictions handle sex crimes. Some will give broad power and control to the victim, while others may pursue the case against the victim’s wishes. Predicting those outcomes are difficult for victims and the advocates who advise them (a theme reflected in today’s round table). According to Carrie Hull, a detective with the Ashland Police Department in Ashland Oregon who attended the round table, said reporting was up 106% from 2010 to 2013 after the implemented a program called “You Have Options,” designed to decrease barriers in reporting, which gives women three options when reporting to police – to give information only, to trigger a partial investigation, or to trigger a complete investigation that will be referred to the prosecutor.

    Bruno says that prosecutors are more likely than they were a few years ago to follow the victim’s wishes to drop a case. Still, it is impossible to predict the outcome, and victims are rightly scared by what they know of the system.

    Here’s an all too familiar story about how cops respond to victims of rape.

    I hope you’ll read this stuff, or do your own digging. What I hope you DON’T do is dig any further. You’ve already made egregiously fucked up statements, don’t compound it.

  107. coffeehound says

    Kevin Kehres @ 31,

    Not saying the quality would be anything worth reading, but man-oh-man does he have quantity down.

    Right. Think Jack’s novel in ” The Shining” and substitute the words ” PZ, say you’re sorry”.

  108. says

    I can’t help noticing how quickly self-styled rationalists and intellectuals will derail an argument, even one they’ve started, to demand their bruised ego be attended to. “Apologize to me for the thing you said that I didn’t like! I’m waiting! I will not go away until you apologize! Look everyone, the mean person is refusing to apologize!” You’d almost think there was some kind of link between being a blowhard and being deeply insecure and needing constant validation.

  110. chigau (違う) says

    Al Dente #104
    I’ve always liked that variation.
    I picture those who are not part of the solution as weird, blobby stuff on the bottom of the beaker.

  111. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Nerd, you’re a chemist. You know it’s “either you’re part of the solution or part of the participate.”

    Gack, a palpable hit! *does a dramatic swoon onto the heavy duty fainting couch*

  113. says

    @Sili, #59

    Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.

    I’m totally stealing that because it’s awesome.

  116. chigau (違う) says

    1. Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
    2. Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.
    —
    #2 has, for a looong time, been my favoured catch-phrase.
    but I think I prefer #1.

  117. Jackie says

    Huh. I don’t remember taking ‘shrooms, but I must have. Maybe it was in the Halloween candy? I know I just hallucinated someone defending the right of rapists to not have the merest hint of stink attached to their names against the right of women not to be raped.
    Again.

    I know that no one came into a FTBs comment section to accuse the people HERE of vigilante tactics when it is the people agreeing with the very silencing tactics they are suggesting who are also harassing, threatening and spreading malicious lies about the writers and commenters at FTBs.

    That couldn’t have happened because no one anywhere could be so obtuse.

    So, I’m just going to have a hot mug of apple cider and watch a screen saver until I stop seeing things.

  118. says

    OT
    ::peers up at Jackie with puppy shoop eyes. Can haz hot apple cider please?::

    (btw, don’t know if you’re a fan of liquor, but honey flavored whiskey-Jack Daniel’s Honey or Evan Williams Honey-tastes divine in hot or cold apple cider)

  119. Wowbagger, Heaper of Scorn says

    Ipetrich wrote:

    The Atheist Skeptic Dialogue | on atheist and skeptic communities and advocacy has not had any updates for a year and a half. Its only posts so far have been in “Strand 1 – Areas of Agreement”. There were to be five strands, the others being
    2: freedom of expression vs. avoiding hurting people
    3: how much of social-justice issues should we pursue
    4: how we can unilaterally be well-behaved
    5: any other issues.

    So, it’s accurate to describe Monsignor Nugent as “failed atheist mediator, Michael Nugent”? I think every time his name is mentioned from now on it should take that form.

  120. Jackie says

    Would you rather they be left without even the protection of a warning?

    But opposablethumbs, we’ve already been warned so many times. They’ve told us to limit our lives so that we don’t get ourselves raped. What more warning do we want? If we women want to be a a position to accuse a man of rape (and who doesn’t!?!), we better alter our lives as we are told and then shut up if that doesn’t work. Haven’t these Brave Heroes done enough to warn us already?

    http://dvdmedia.ign.com/dvd/image/StepfordWives_pic5_1102968115.jpg

  122. Jackie says

    Internet ciders for all my friends!

    (btw, don’t know if you’re a fan of liquor, but honey flavored whiskey-Jack Daniel’s Honey or Evan Williams Honey-tastes divine in hot or cold apple cider)

    *drools*

  123. Sili says

    I chose “stupidity” because that’s how Hanlon’s Razor is usually quoted. I agree that “ignorance” is better.

  124. R Johnston says

    Wowbagger @118:
    To fail at being an atheist mediator Michael Nugent would have to first try to be an atheist mediator. Despite his announced intentions and his formation of a website, he never made any kind of an actual effort. He picked a side and ran with it hard. He’s not a failed mediator so much as he is a fraudulent mediator.

  125. Sili says

    And aside from that it’s just Clarke’s Third Law applied to Hanlon’s Razor.

    I find it hard to believe it’s original to me, but you’re welcome to call it Sili’s Corollary.

  126. Sili says

    “either you’re part of the solution or part of the participate.”

    I woulda thought the solution *was* the “participate”. What does the solute do, if not participate in the liquid phase?

  129. chigau (違う) says

    I usually use ‘ignorance’ to mean ‘that person does not have access to that information’.
    ‘stupidity’ means ‘that person has access to that information but ignores it’.

  130. Badland says

    Interesting that Nugent obsesses over the rape smear and not the harassers and misogynists bit. Almost like he’s conceded the point on those two

  134. mildlymagnificent says

    Tom Foss @71

    I suspect it has a lot to do with a just-world fallacy (which fits with his authoritarianism).

    And, of course, harassers and rapists of the atheist persuasion are monsters from everyone’s worst nightmares. He’s never seen one so anyone who reports sighting one must be deluded or lying.

    This distinguishes them quite neatly from the harassers and rapists in the monstrous ranks of the clergy. We can believe any and every report we hear about them because they’re not like us. (The uncontested fact that such reports were routinely disbelieved and ignored for decades – in Ireland, Australia, USA, Canada, Britain, everywhere – until recently is a trivial coincidence.)

    He’s just like all the head-shaking neighbours in communities who just can’t believe that the nice Mr WhiteCollarWorker at number 27 was a rapist/ peeping tom/ abuser/ pedophile. He made a misery of the lives of women and/or children for 20 years!!! I still can’t believe it! Nugent is like the miserable old woman who’s lived there longer than anyone else who adamantly refuses to believe it and won’t allow any such disgusting conversation within her earshot.

  135. rorschach says

    @94,

    Of which Australian organizations are you talking about?

    If you have to ask, you are either too far removed, blind or stupid. But I guess you could always google “Jim Jefferies Melbourne Atheist Convention” for a starting point. Or look at the 2010/12 speaker lists. (I don’t usually comment here anymore, so don’t expect an answer)

  136. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    fatpie42 @ 95

    The reason not to “name and shame” is that it might promote vigilante justice.

    What vigilante justice? I mean, other than that women will know to avoid finding themselves alone with Michael Shermer or to never drink alcohol in his presence or trust him to walk them back to their hotel rooms or, ya know, NOT RAPE THEM? So far as I can tell, that’s the only actual consequence Shermer stands to incur from being named and shamed. And um, hello…if he raped people HE OUGHT TO BE FUCKING ASHAMED. And given that he’s told a different tale to every different person he’s spoken to about it, it’s pretty obvious he did something he wants to pretend he didn’t do.

    could potentially compromise the trial

    Which trial would that be, then?

  137. Radioactive Elephant says

    A couple things I noticed:

    Martin, this isn’t about my blog. I’ve talked to PZ privately about his behaviour for years, but it has got worse not better.

    Show of hands, who else got the image of grandpa Mick pulling little PZ aside during thanksgiving dinner to tell him how poorly he’s behaving at the dinner table? And he just won’t listen!

    @pzmyers and @latsot are trivialising rape by casually accusing people they disagree with of being rapists or defending rapists.

    Is he implying PZ posted about the rape because Shermer disagrees with PZ? And casual? Really? Or am I missing something?

    Tom Foss #71:
    I’m not a big fan of accusations that somebody is doing it for attention. it’s such a cheap way to imply someone’s not sincere. I have no problem thinking that Nugent is completely sincere, regardless of the attention he gets. But other than that, I thought you were right on.

  138. We are Plethora says

    Al Dente @83,

    You have ignored evidence that many of the commentators at your blogs are harassers and misogynists. You specifically deleted several of my comments on your blog when I gave examples of slymepitters’ harassment and misogyny in their comments on your blog posts. This is both defending the harassers and misogynists and giving them haven.

    Nugent and many of the pitters seem to be following this place rather obsessively, so we encourage you to name and shame these harassers here, where Nugent is not able to wield his mighty Irish ban-hammer. Who knows, it may even result in a 5,000 word response.

  140. Al Dente says

    PZ Myers @130

    It’s “part of the solution or part of the precipitate“.

    So I can’t spell a technical term. Send me a thousand word email chastising me at [email protected].

  141. says

    @lpetrich

    The Atheist Skeptic Dialogue | on atheist and skeptic communities and advocacy has not had any updates for a year and a half.

    That is actually quite interesting, the site was offline for months as I’ve been linking to it via webarchive. Why is it back now?

  142. fatpie42 says

    I think people have confused my lack of understanding on the situation as being deliberately obtuse. I didn’t have anti-harassment policies at conferences in mind, nor was I genuinely suggesting a band of rape-victim vigilantes. Both are very reasonable points which I am able to take on board positively. I don’t see my lack of attention on those two points in a single comment on the thread to be a sign that I am promoting rape culture.

    I would suggest that some people are perhaps reacting a little overly hostile because of a significant number of commenters who come here with the intention of trolling. Trust me, I am not one of them. I was genuinely hoping for some clearer explanations of the Nugent situation without having to spend hours googling – and to some extent I am definitely more enlightened on that, regardless of how unnecessarily abrasive some of the responses have been. (Though I also note that this is a sensitive topic for many and many are not so fortunate as I in being so far removed from the subject matter. So I understand the reactions and have some level of sympathy even though I think that, in my case, the hostility was a little unfair.)

    If there’s no chance of a trial then yes, absolutely, witnesses should be free to say whatever they want about their own experiences. I don’t see why they should have to avoid naming names. So long as no one is setting up a lynch mob (which clearly they aren’t) then yes, I agree, what Nugent is asking for is that people be silenced.

    If it was a recent crime that we were referring to, then it would be important to let the authorities deal with it and victims might actually do themselves a disservice by naming and shaming during that time. If Nugent was talking about that then I might have some sympathy. However, if we are talking significantly after the fact about events which are clearly not going to trial, then there is no reason why people should not be able to discuss events which have happened to them. I can absolutely see why Nugent is being criticised for preventing people openly describing events in their own lives.

    Thank you to everyone who has helped clear up the details for me. Sorry to anyone who felt I was flippant or insensitive, since that was not my intention. If I still appear confused on anything or if you think I could be further enlightened on the background of this issue, I would love to hear what anyone has to say. I hope it is clear that I am not trolling.

  143. rq says

    Recent or not recent (why does this matter at all?), fatpie, “let the authorities deal with it” is a bad tactic – did you read the links above, about how the Authoritehs treat victims of sexual abuse? And going to the authorities is not a 100% guarantee that there ever will be a (court) trial. Trial by public opinion, sure, which usually swings in favour of the rapist / abuser, not the victim, unless you can show me exactly how (in this case specifically) Michael Shermer is having just such a terrible time of it right now?

    victims might actually do themselves a disservice by naming and shaming during that time
    By trying to warn other about certain people, victims will do a disservice to themselves? Yes, this is true, since the shaming part is usually turned on the victim(s) themselves, and the naming part, too, even when they strive for anonymity.
    Here’s the thing: if there’s going to be a trial, the accused (unless underage) will be publicly named anyway. The victim has a right to anonymity. So you’ve got it backwards: trolling or not, it’s not the victim who should be examined out in the open, but the (even-only-accused) abuser/rapist. Which, let’s face it, doesn’t really happen in the real world. (Legal people, am I remembering this right??)

    Oh, and fatpie?

    I was genuinely hoping for some clearer explanations of the Nugent situation without having to spend hours googling

    Your hours of googling were already condensed into this one fine post by PZ. Read all the links and be enlightened, don’t expect the commenters here to regurgitate back at you the information right in front of your nose.

  144. rq says

    Also, fatpie, this link, from this comment by Atheist Powerlifer on a different yet not-unsimilar thread, might tell you a lot more about victims and naming and shaming and who gets what out of it all.

  145. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I don’t see my lack of attention on those two points in a single comment on the thread to be a sign that I am promoting rape culture.

    Obtuse is they name. Either you are working actively against the rape culture, or you are part of the problem. And you are part of the problem. Prima facie evidence:

    If it was a recent crime that we were referring to, then it would be important to let the authorities deal with it

    Given the harassment women who go the authorities are given, this is supporting their harassment for reporting things. Obtuse if you can’t see that. You offer no solutions. Just concerns. And there is a term for those who agree, but have concerns. You can guess what the term is.

  146. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    fatpie42 @ 140

    I would suggest that some people are perhaps reacting a little overly hostile because of a significant number of commenters who come here with the intention of trolling. Trust me, I am not one of them. I was genuinely hoping for some clearer explanations of the Nugent situation without having to spend hours googling – and to some extent I am definitely more enlightened on that, regardless of how unnecessarily abrasive some of the responses have been. (Though I also note that this is a sensitive topic for many and many are not so fortunate as I in being so far removed from the subject matter. So I understand the reactions and have some level of sympathy even though I think that, in my case, the hostility was a little unfair.)

    If you’re going to continue posting here in the future, I recommend you cure yourself of this habit of talking out of both sides of your mouth. “You’re being overly hostile but I know you get a lot of trolls.” “I have some sympathy but you’re being unfair to me.” “I’m more enlightened but you’re unnecessarily abrasive.”

    We’re not fucking psychic. If you saunter in here and sound indistinguishable from a million other trolls who’ve passed through, we’re going to make use of our pattern detection. It’s not unfair. It’s not unnecessary. It’s not overly hostile. Nobody here owes you anything.

  148. says

    fatpie42 @142:

    If it was a recent crime that we were referring to, then it would be important to let the authorities deal with it and victims might actually do themselves a disservice by naming and shaming during that time.

    Did you ever read the damn responses you got? For instance, my comment @106 lists six reasons victims don’t go to the police. It also mentions that even among rapists that are reported, very few of them wind up in jail.
    RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT ARE NOT SOMETHING THE AUTHORITIES TAKE SERIOUSLY.
    Seriously, quit digging.

  149. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    fatpie42 @ 142

    If it was a recent crime that we were referring to, then it would be important to let the authorities deal with it and victims might actually do themselves a disservice by naming and shaming during that time.

    The victims are a better judge than you are of the best way to deal with what happened to them. You said you came here for answers. There are posts in this thread, addressed to you, explaining why the expectation that victims go to authorities is misguided at best. Fucking read.

  150. omnicrom says

    fatpie42 @142

    I was genuinely hoping for some clearer explanations of the Nugent situation without having to spend hours googling – and to some extent I am definitely more enlightened on that, regardless of how unnecessarily abrasive some of the responses have been.

    So you don’t want to spend hours googling? Okay, that’s fine, but by your own admission from your first post you didn’t bother to actually read PZ’s post explaining in detail the Nugent situation, and by your actions you indicate you haven’t bothered to read the links anyone else has posted. This casts doubt on whether you came to learn in the first place. I think it’s much more likely you came here to tut-tut all those atheists who are being improprietary and not being deferential enough to rapists and sexual abusers. Intent in not magic, if you were interested in learning I would suggest you shut up and learn. You’ve been provided a good number of very incisive links, if you were interested in learning why saying “Rapists should be reported to the proper authorities” reinforces our incredibly rape-friendly culture you have the information at your fingertips provided. No hours of googling necessary.

    I hope it is clear that I am not trolling.

    No it is not.

  151. Al Dente says

    fatpie42 @ 142

    Before you write another answer you seriously need to do some reading of the links already given to you. Read and learn before you dig your hole even deeper.

  152. says

    @Radioactive Elephant #137:

    I’m not a big fan of accusations that somebody is doing it for attention. it’s such a cheap way to imply someone’s not sincere. I have no problem thinking that Nugent is completely sincere, regardless of the attention he gets.

    I’m generally right with you, and I don’t doubt that he’s sincere. But I follow over 1500 people on Twitter, and until fairly recently, Michael Nugent was one of them. He’s the only one I’ve ever seen who targets multiple people with spammed links every time he writes a blog post (another example, from the pre-“PZ was a meanie” days: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). He’s done this for as long as I followed him, which started back when he called out the Pit for inappropriate behavior. Maybe there’s another reason, but I can’t help but see that as him shouting “Notice me! Notice me!”

  153. ChasCPeterson says

    So I can’t spell a technical term. Send me a thousand word email chastising me at [email protected].

    dude, in light of the fact that use of the correct technical term is the entire punchline and point of the joke you tried to make, I’d urge you to keep the day job.

  154. Saad says

    fatpie, the point of talking about sexual abusers on forums and other gatherings is to spread awareness and prevent people from becoming victims, not to convict the sex offender in court. These forum posts are aimed at judges, they’re aimed at the public to alert them to dangerous people.

    If my house was vandalized and I knew who did it, shouldn’t I be telling people in my neighborhood to watch out for that person? That I be required to give proof in court to get the vandal convicted is a separate issue. One of my concerns is to help prevent the same happening to my neighbors.

  156. Jackie says

    Tom Foss,
    Well, he definitely thinks this is all about him and his feels and the rape victims he’s trying to silence do not even factor in. It’s been pointed out that no one asked for him to weigh in on any of this. He’s inserted himself into the situation in order to chastise the victims and anyone listening to them. I want to know why. What dog does he have in this fight? Why is it so important that people listen to him shush and shame and not listen to Shermer’s victims?

    Is he an opportunist who saw these people’s mistreatment as an opportunity to gain brownie points and an active following in addition to being a clueless misogynist rape apologist? Maybe. I think I’d like him better if that were so. At least then he would not be working so hard to silence the victims of Michael Shermer just because he sincerely thinks they need to shut up and let Shermer keep right on raping men and women who don’t know to stay out of his way.

  158. HappyNat says

    fatpie,

    People here have already done a good job explaining why saying report to authorities and worrying about a trial are bullshit. We aren’t concerned about a court or conviction, we are concerned about informing people of creepy and rapey behavior. I just saw another antidote to add to the huge pile of why women don’t go to authorities. Two cops were caught joking about rape on their cameras, including the line “they can’t unrape you”. How do you think these two would handle a woman who reported that she had been sexually assaulted?

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/texas-police-officer-caught-on-video-go-ahead-call-the-cops-they-cant-un-rape-you/

  159. Jackie says

    HappyNat,
    Then there was this cop:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/31/okla-cop-charged-raping-8-black-women-naacp-seeks-/

    This cop:
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/29/she-dialed-911-the-cop-who-came-to-help-raped-her.html

    These cops:
    http://thefreethoughtproject.com/trial-date-set-cop-accused-raping-teenage-girl-officers-watched/

    and from last Thursday, this cop:
    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-boynton-beach-officer-rape-20141030-story.html

    There’s always this judge:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/03/1296542/-Dallas-Judge-Asks-Victim-If-She-Cried-During-Rape-5-More-Actions-That-Make-This-Judge-Unfit#
    This judge:
    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/10/29/judge-tells-assault-victim-that-this-is-what-she-gets-for-going-to-a-bar/

    This judge:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-judge-prompts-outrage-after-saying-if-she-didnt-want-sex-her-body-should-have-just-shut-down-in-rape-case-and-reducing-sentence-of-attacker-by-ten-years-8414674.html

    These authorities:
    http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/2013/01/judge-says-rape-victim-let-herself-down-badly/

    Is any of this getting through, fatpie?

    What’s your next suggestion, that black people experiencing police brutality should only tell the names of the officers who brutalized them to the proper authorities?

  160. Markita Lynda—threadrupt says

    Trigger warning: rape circumstances.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    May I recommend the buddy system? Word of mouth of the friend-of-a-friend variety also speaks of police raping a victim who comes to them directly after a rape, especially if she is young or poor. I haven’t heard of any men being treated that way.

  161. F.O. says

    @rorschach #135

    If you have to ask, you are either too far removed, blind or stupid.

    Wow. I love you too rorschach. <3
    I moved to Oz quite recently, so I guess I'll pick "far removed".

    Thanks for the hints, I'll check.

    @Markita Lynda: That is the same thing I was thinking.
    The police can be trusted less and less.
    A woman has been abused by someone she trusted, how can we ask her to go into a nest of law-covered bros and trust them?

  162. riley says

    PZ – Blocking MN on twitter and email as well as avoiding engagement is a very good strategy. Hopefully, over time the change will lessen MN’s urges to write obsessively about FTB and specific bloggers, and allow him to refocus his attention on more productive endeavors like his Atheist Ireland projects. On his blog, unfortunately, he receives far more recognition and encouragement from commenters for his negative posts about FTB than his other writings.

  163. fatpie42 says

    @Saad
    “These forum posts aren’t aimed at judges”.

    I understand what you are saying, but it doesn’t matter who the blog post is aimed at. A criminal case will have a jury and if it is believed that their perspective has been skewed by hearsay spread around in the media before the trial, the case will be thrown out. As has been noted above (along with links suggesting that America is perhaps particularly bad for this) trying to take a rapist to trial is already a pretty tough (or even futile) endeavour.

  164. says

    @Jackie #156:

    He’s inserted himself into the situation in order to chastise the victims and anyone listening to them. I want to know why. What dog does he have in this fight? Why is it so important that people listen to him shush and shame and not listen to Shermer’s victims?

    To me, it reads as damage control. I feel like Nugent’s insistence that all this be handled in the proper way by the proper people, and not mentioned outside of those proper channels, along with his attempt to say that this is a purely American problem, is his way of waving his arms and telling the world at large “no, no, nothing to see here! Everything’s fine in atheism! A teensy little problem in America, you know how those Americans are, but it’s all being taken care of by the police. Now let’s all stop talking about it and get on with the business of taking down religion, shall we?”

    Look back to article #1 in this tirade (the only one I’ve bothered to read in any detail). He has a lengthy digression about how much good the atheist community is doing, particularly overseas, even though it’s not actually relevant (nor, incidentally, were his points about PZ in said article–he’s not a very focused writer). He sees this as the PR nightmare that it is, and his solution is not to deal with it (his one half-assed attempt at that fizzled out, after all, no doubt due to people being improper and insufficiently reverential to his authority) but to keep it all out of sight. It’s the same tactic that accommodationists in the skeptic movement used on atheists–“no, no, skepticism doesn’t lead you to reject religion! Sure, there are some silly New Atheists in the movement, but they’re just doing skepticism improperly. Now let’s all stop talking about it and get on with the business of taking down woo-woo, shall we?”

  165. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    A criminal case will have a jury and if it is believed that their perspective has been skewed by hearsay spread around in the media before the trial, the case will be thrown out. As has been noted above (along with links suggesting that America is perhaps particularly bad for this) trying to take a rapist to trial is already a pretty tough (or even futile) endeavour.

    This is a trope use by the MRA contingent. It is not used by anybody trying to anything about rape culture. Which is YOU.
    Either show you can shut the fuck up and listen, or don’t bother to post again. It is obvious you aren’t trying to solve the problem, but rather trying to obfuscate the problem with slogans that only hide the problem.

  166. says

    @fatpie42:

    A criminal case will have a jury and if it is believed that their perspective has been skewed by hearsay spread around in the media before the trial, the case will be thrown out.

    1) Bullshit. It may make jury selection harder, or it may lead to forum shopping, but I’d really like to see some examples of cases being thrown out because an impartial jury couldn’t be found. I mean, they found a jury for OJ Simpson.

    2) A victim’s testimony isn’t hearsay. Victims of crimes, or their representatives, frequently tell their stories to news media. This isn’t some uncommon event.

    As has been noted above (along with links suggesting that America is perhaps particularly bad for this) trying to take a rapist to trial is already a pretty tough (or even futile) endeavour.

    And recent evidence has shown that going to social media may be the best way for victims to get justice in some cases. Look at the Steubenville trial, for instance, which only happened because the rapists posted evidence to social media sites, and Internet vigilantes made the case national news, shaming the local police into actually taking the case. See also: Trayvon Martin, Marisa Alexander, VonDerrit Myers, John Crawford, and so forth. When victims aren’t straight white men in the upper echelons of the socioeconomic ladder, justice comes slowly if at all, unless there’s outcry and outrage.

    But, again, this case isn’t one that’s going to trial, so your point is moot. No one is charging Shermer with anything. He will not have his day in court, at least, not for what he did to Alison Smith. This police-or-nothing approach to justice ultimately favors only the privileged, and puts people in danger for future victimization by known predators. Speaking out is necessary, and no amount of pretending like silence is for the good of the victims actually makes that the case.

  167. Vicki, duly vaccinated tool of the feminist conspiracy says

    fatpie42 @163: Have you already forgotten that there will be no jury to taint because the statute of limitations has expired in at least one of the situations where Shermer is accused of rape?

    For that matter, if you know even a little about the American legal system, you should have heard of change of venue. And you should remember that both the prosecution and the defense can have any potential juror excluded from the jury for cause. Saying yes to questions like “do you have an opinion about the defendant’s guilt?” is cause. This is why they start by handing questionnaires to hundreds of potential jurors in cases that have gotten a lot of publicity–which, by the standards of the American legal system, none of the accusations against Shermer is. (If the Canadian system is similar, they may eliminate a lot of people before seating a jury if the charges against Jian Ghomeshi go to trial. Not for Shermer.)

  168. says

    If the investigation into Ghomeshi goes to a trial, he might opt for a trial by judge. It worked so well for Amitabh Chauhan and Suganthan Kayilasanathan. Frankly, unless he’s stupidly failed to destroy the Teddy Big Ears video stash by now (cuz we know there was one right?), I think a trial will be very unlikely. Hell, even with a confession made in a news conference, the police have not charged Rob Ford for smoking crack or for trying to extort the tape (cuz we know Lisi didn’t do that crap on his own right?).

  169. toska says

    fatpie42 @163

    As has been noted above (along with links suggesting that America is perhaps particularly bad for this) trying to take a rapist to trial is already a pretty tough (or even futile) endeavour.

    This is why it is completely up to the victim whether they want to report the crime to the police and various other institutions or whether they want to talk about it on social media. Or even keep it private. The thing is, talking about sexual assault and harassment on social media is one of the driving forces used to combat rape culture today. It is how victims and allies have been making sure rape isn’t just swept under the rug anymore, even when the police/universities/convention planners/etc. are happy to do lots of sweeping at the expense of potential future victims. This is why these conversations NEED to take place outside of courtrooms, and it’s up to the victim to decide where they want their case to be discussed.

  170. Saad says

    fatpie42, #163

    I understand what you are saying, but it doesn’t matter who the blog post is aimed at. A criminal case will have a jury and if it is believed that their perspective has been skewed by hearsay spread around in the media before the trial, the case will be thrown out.

    Legal systems aren’t so stupidly constructed that a case is completely at the mercy of what people are talking about outside the courthouse.

    There was a ton of discussion, both online and offline, about the Zimmerman/Martin situation too. The case didn’t get thrown out there.

    Why do you feel this way specifically about rape and sexual assault cases?

  171. says

    fatpie42 @162:

    I understand what you are saying, but it doesn’t matter who the blog post is aimed at. A criminal case will have a jury and if it is believed that their perspective has been skewed by hearsay spread around in the media before the trial, the case will be thrown out. As has been noted above (along with links suggesting that America is perhaps particularly bad for this) trying to take a rapist to trial is already a pretty tough (or even futile) endeavour.

    Are you just selectively reading the responses you’ve received? People have already told you that the statute of limitations has expired for Shermer’s rape of Alison Smith. There won’t *be* a trial.
    Secondly, even in the cases where the statute of limitations has NOT expired, it has been explained to you that rapists often do not go to the authorities, so a great many rapists never even get charged with a crime.
    You keep droning on about how name and shame is such a bad thing and it jeopardizes a trial, yet you haven’t produced on shred of evidence to support your point. You have assertions, and those have been refuted with evidence. So please, present some evidence to back up your position, or shut up, bc I’m fucking tired of your Rape Culture apologetics.

  172. says

    Secondly, even in the cases where the statute of limitations has NOT expired, it has been explained to you that rapists victims often do not go to the authorities, so a great many rapists never even get charged with a crime.

    Fixed That For Me.

  173. omnicrom says

    Fatpie @ 163

    I understand what you are saying, but it doesn’t matter who the blog post is aimed at. A criminal case will have a jury and if it is believed that their perspective has been skewed by hearsay spread around in the media before the trial, the case will be thrown out. As has been noted above (along with links suggesting that America is perhaps particularly bad for this) trying to take a rapist to trial is already a pretty tough (or even futile) endeavour.

    So because rapes rarely make criminal cases we shouldn’t talk about rapes because of what happens when they become criminal cases? No comprende Fatpie42.

  174. sawells says

    Fatpie42’s position, like Nugent’s, is actually quite easy to understand. Their position is: shut up shut up shut up stop talking shut up shut up. It makes them feel uncomfy when people talk about bad things.

  175. Jackie says

    Fatpie wants rape victims to know that naming their rapists harms other rape victims, which is a lie and fucking awful too. Stop pretending fatpie. You don’t give the tiniest shit about rape victims. If you did you’d spend your time addressing the real reasons why victims of rape do not get justice, but instead get harassed and terrorized sometimes to the point of committing suicide.

    Their silence is not the solution to this problem. It is a symptom of the problem.

    Just wondering: Do you think naming Darren Wilson made it less likely that Mike Brown’s murderer would be brought to justice?

  176. Jackie says

    Also, fatpie, what criminal trial?

    You keep talking about a trial and there is no trial. You are inventing excuses to shame rape victims who are already receiving harassment into keeping their rapist’s secrets for them for a lifetime.

  177. Jackie says

    Fatpie,
    What about Jimmy Savile’s victims? Should they shut up? Victims of Catholic priests? Dylan Farrow? Should she have kept her dad’s dirty secret for him too? What about the victims of Jerry Sandusky? Were they immoral for telling the world what he did to them?

    These people know who raped them. They have every right to say who raped them. Being raped does not sentence you to a lifetime of protecting the “good name” of your rapist.

  178. Jackie says

    Did Nugent tell the victims of the Magdelen Laundries to stop coming forward with the truth about what happened to them outside of the courtroom?

  179. Saad says

    Jackie, #178

    These people know who raped them.

    It really is as simple as that. That rape defenders like Nugent (and apparently fatpie42) still want to tell us this is somehow a complicated nuanced issue is quite pathetic and gives away their true motives.

    If a crime is committed against someone (especially if it’s against their very person), nobody on the planet should be able to tell them not to talk about in whatever way they want.

  180. Crimson Clupeidae says

    Jackie@57:

    You know what I’m starting to think?
    I’m starting to think that this is not about ethics in videogame journalism.

    No!! Say it isn’t so.

    I’m shocked. Shocked, I tells ya!! to discover gambling…errr…it’s not about journalism in gaming!

    Funny (not in a ha ha kinda way, mind) how similar all this ties together. I guess they slimers are consistent in their way.

    And Sili@59 wins ‘best quote that wasn’t quite’ of the day. :-) (The award needs a better name, I admit.)

    And putting together the rest of the comments:
    I think what I’m getting out of this is that failed</strike? fraudulent atheist mediator Michael Nugent's blog provides a haven for misogynists who would defend alleged rapists, like Shermer.

    ….mission accomplished?

  181. Crimson Clupeidae says

    And of course, I borked the tag.

    Jackie@57:

    You know what I’m starting to think?
    I’m starting to think that this is not about ethics in videogame journalism.

    No!! Say it isn’t so.

    I’m shocked. Shocked, I tells ya!! to discover gambling…errr…it’s not about journalism in gaming!

    Funny (not in a ha ha kinda way, mind) how similar all this ties together. I guess they slimers are consistent in their way.

    And Sili@59 wins ‘best quote that wasn’t quite’ of the day. :-) (The award needs a better name, I admit.)

    And putting together the rest of the comments:
    I think what I’m getting out of this is that failed fraudulent atheist mediator Michael Nugent’s blog provides a haven for mysoginists who would defend alleged rapists, like Shermer.

    ….mission accomplished?

  183. EigenSprocketUK says

    I’m very late to this posting. I thought I’d read all Mick Nugent’s stuff before reading PZ’s narrative. Tried to stay open-minded and see it from Nugent’s point of view if possible. Could it be possible, I asked myself, that PZed has thrown his toys from the pram?
    So I read it all with a mind as open as I dared, lest the slyme infect me. And reading all Nugent’s stuff made me even later to this posting. There’s a lot of it.

    I think I remember thinking that there were a few nascent good points.
    But whatever good points Nugent had, he drowned them in whine.

  184. says

    EigenSprocketUK,

    your fortitude does you credit. I believe there are even more words to read now that we are a week or so into November. Drowning in whine doesn’t sound pleasant.

  185. EigenSprocketUK says

    Xanthë, oh I dunno, i s’pose I can imagine a scenario where drowning in wine could be the least bad alternative. As long as I die before the hangover. Hmmm.
    But so much of the whine I was reading was just unfit for human consumption.