The push-back against equality is now trying to rewrite history and retroactively rehabilitate Bora Zivkovic. In a terrible article that ignores all the facts and instead throws around sexist terms (“witch hunt”, “bitches”, “pussies”, “harpies”) utterly oblivious to the fact that they undermine her own argument, we get this ignorant bullshit.
As I noted above, what Bora did in no way met any legal or reasonable standard for sexual harassment — a crew of harpies who accused him just said it did; and all these supposed “skeptics” who make up the science-writing community just piled on.
To recap the incident, Bora was widely recognized as an important gatekeeper to the online science writing community — he knew everyone, was a real activist in building communities and bringing diverse writers together, and was also widely liked. But that all came crashing down when it was discovered that he treated men and women differently, that women were subjected to uncomfortably sexual talk, and that maybe he wasn’t such a great community builder after all, if women were feeling reluctant and betrayed.
There were no legal issues. This was not brought to court. He is not currently in jail. All it was was that he was discovered to be biased in the execution of his work, and therefore wasn’t doing the job he was expected to do — so, like a dishwasher who does a poor job washing dishes, he lost his position as a community manager at Scientific American, and resigned from his position on the board of Science Online. This was right and appropriate — when you lose the trust of a community in a position that is all about the community, of course you should lose that position.
What’s beyond crazy and what’s sick is that we’ve gotten to the point where accusations of sexual harassment are simply believed out of hand. There has been a push from within feminism to never question an (alleged) victim.
Well, the truth is, false accusations are made, and part of a fair investigation is questioning whether there’s validity to an accusation and not simply looking on the calendar to schedule the witch burning for the accused.
This is absurd and dishonest. First, yes, you should believe it when someone testifies to their personal experience, especially when it is not an unusual experience. Our first response to someone saying they were injured in an accident or mugged on the street is not and should not be “No! I think it’s more likely that you made that up!” But we should also verify the story before taking action.
Second, read this summary of the Bora case. The accusations of simply believing out of hand and charging off in a witch hunt are totally false. Many of us were friends of Bora, and we were horrified by the accusation, and we waited to learn more, and hoped that it was an ugly aberration in an otherwise commendable career. Instead, what we got was more women stepping forward, more confirmation, and then, a regretful confession and apology from Bora.
Get that? The story was verified before anyone took any action…and the sum total of that action was to lose confidence in Bora’s ability to do his job. Are people now trying to erase the facts? Because you don’t get to do that. You don’t get to call the accusers “bitches” and pretend that no concerned investigation was carried out. Bora is not and can not be reinstated in a position of high regard in the community he abused.
It’s also incredibly dishonest to claim that he was the target of a hysterical inquisition to bring Bora down. This was a community that very much liked Bora, and responded in a deliberative and thoughtful way to the revelations. It’s telling that the way some people react to disclosures of casual sexism is with extremely over-the-top accusations of witch-hunting and McCarthyite show trials and conspiracy theories about evil feminists out to destroy the reputations of good men, to the point that they have to lie about the actual facts of the case.
I liked Bora, too, but as a male I never saw his flawed side. The unavoidable bottom line is that Bora admitted that the accusations were true and issued an apology. I hope he has achieved success in curbing the behavior that caused his transgressions and derailed his career. If he was serious about his apology, he may attain a measure of redemption—but not this false sort of revisionist exculpation.
A whole retcon going on. Another testimony on his behalf.
https://nikitab.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/the-bora-controversy-and-american-values/
That nikitab article is a beautiful example of sealioning and uber-pseudo-rational assertion.
Our esteemed host’s donotlink link goes to advicegoddess.com, a blog by one Amy Alkon.
There you will find, if you must follow the trail, a very long counteraccusation by Bora Z’s wife, pretty much straight from the MRA manual, and a comment thread guaranteed to cause damage to desk and forehead.
I am still connected to Bora on facebook, and thus can see what sort of stories he “likes”. A lot of science stuff, but also plenty of articles about poor persecuted men – if he ever was a feminist, that side of him is long gone.
Obviously, he also liked Alkon’s post.
why does this make me think of “the times they are a changin”?
uncle frogy
I am tired of this idea that, if it never went to court, it never happened.
I cannot remember the details, and it is the fourth, so I am doing the typical American drinking beer and bbq.
However, was it Dr. Freeride (?), or another Dr., who w as close to Bora, and defended him, because he was reaching out behind the scenes when the first accusations were leveled.
Bora appears to have a penchant for using others in order to deliver his message. I am not sure if it was Dr. freeride, or another Dr., but the doctor was used and manipulated by Bora.
This appears to be a repeat of the same strategy. I have no idea how Bora reclaims his reputation in the community, but this is not the strategy.
Anymore, reading such hyperbolic bullshit gets nothing more than a headshake and near fatal eyeroll. Do any of these people pay even the slightest attention of how they sound, how they read? There is an advantage to writing such hyperbolic screeds though – the sheer amount of wrong in 3 sentences would require a great deal of patient correction before even getting close to the actual issue at hand. It also announces that the writer is not remotely interested in pesky things like facts.
” The times they are achanging”?
I was thinking “And the war drags on”.
skeptichistorian @ 9:
You seem to be gobsmackingly unaware of the whole situation with Bora. It might be in your best interest to do a bit of reading up. Here’s a bit for you: https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/01/02/how-does-one-make-amends-on-the-internet/
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2013/11/09/its-the-silences-the-neglect-the-moving-on-to-more-important-matters/
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2013/10/23/do-better-please-just-do-better/
And perhaps most importantly: summary and timeline.
He said he did it. What more do they need?
skeptichitorian @9:
You’re entitled to your opinion. The people and organizations actually harmed by “these somewhat minor transgressions” may feel differently about the matter.
It’s worth noting, however, that actually acknowledging and apologizing for the harm you’ve done is generally a preliminary step to being forgiven. Officially (as of the interview in Cosmopolitan in March), Bora believes he did nothing wrong (which is backsies on the apology for which he was given so much credit). Furthermore, forgiveness just isn’t the kind of thing you can demand.
Donnie @8, yes, I was one of the people Bora tried to deploy to do damage control on his behalf. At least a couple other women stated publicly that he did the same to them, but given some of the “ethics” experts being mobilized in these cases of late, I’m not going to drop their names here, to spare them from the predictable harassment.
skeptichistorian:
I don’t know who you’re speaking for, but no one here has been
harpinggoing on about it at all. All the going on seems to be on the side of those in hyperbolic heaven, so to speak.skeptichistorian @14 & @16,
Given that you’re plagiarizing Richard Carrier’s blog, I’m going to make the reasonable assumption that you’re not arguing in good faith.
Docfreeride, thank you for that bit of very interesting information. I guess the rule about someone having ‘skeptic’ in their nym holds true.
@skeptichistorian, 19
No, you lifted word for word details of Richard Carrier’s personal interactions with other people and claimed them as your own.
Repeated sexual harassment is not a minor transgression, your claim is hyperbole. It is major character flaw that needs to be addressed by the community. With proper disapproval and actual admission of guilt and changing of behavior by the perp. Not happening in this case.
I doubt that. Your mind is made up. You aren’t interested in facts, just your opinion of the facts.
skeptichistorian @22,
I understand that you’re trying to have yourself a fun game of “gotcha!” but this is not an academic matter for me. Suffice it to say that my problems with Bora include lots of behavior that has not been publicly discussed (and that I reckon actual supporters of Bora, as opposed to ‘pitters looking for shits and giggles, would not want publicly discussed).
Hi everyone, first comment out of the lounge. But this has struck a real nerve with me.
Bora’s actions were a self confessed disgusting display of power privilege and he deserved all the criticism he got.
Harassment does not have to be obvious (obvious to whom exactly?) in order to damage lives – and contribute to society’s toxic environment. When a a pattern forming number of women comes forward each having been creeped out, then there is a cancer to be cut out.
But my major concern with this latest round of Amy articles was the pitch employed by Bora’s wife. She has assigned her husband no responsibility for his actions. And in victim blaming for her present circumstances she pulls every trigger she can:
+ Suicidal thoughts? Check.
+ Being reduced to family poverty? Check.
+ Having an unemployable husband? Check.
+ Implying Bora has mild aspergers as a social pass? Check.
+ A young daughter starving and getting anaemia due to fear? Check.
+ Allegations the accusers are unbalanced witch hunters with a history? Check.
Even if these allegations were true (with the exception of the last ridiculous point) she needs to look to Bora as the root cause and stop blaming the real victims.
@skeptichistorian
I suspect you will be banned soon. Why did you shoot yourself in the foot like this? If you wanted to have a real conversation you wouldn’t have trolled like this. It almost looks like you wanted to get banned here.
Very strange. Please reflect on your thinking.
Oh, now he’s trying to have conversation with me. Too late noob. And I’m not even following this Bora case.
Great. My first real comment is sandwiched against someone probably from the Slimepit. Sigh.
Only in your delusional MRA mind. Nowhere else.
Slime-boy who polluted my intro: go away and learn about power structures. Only then contemplate why Richard may have had a different reaction to those women Bora (temporally) reduced to self doubting shells.
“Temporarily”
That’s your strike two against me today.
Is skeptichistorian seriously going to ignore docfreeride’s question about plagiarism?
If you haven’t checked it out for yourself, go thou and look – skeptichistorian didn’t just tell the same stories Dr. Carrier did – entire passages were copy/pasted by the hundredword.
(I remember that we were talking about increased moderation, but full frontal plagiarism didn’t face much discussing. Is this reasonable grounds to ban skeptichistorian?)
Ceesays @ 36:
I’ve sent an alert to PZ, but he is at a Con right now, and rather busy (which trolls know too), so it may be a while for him to handle matters.
If I might suggest to everyone interested in discussing the actual topic of this thread, go ahead and do so, ignoring skeptictroll’s bids for attention.
skeptichistorian,
There are simple tests for whether something is a “minor transgression” and I suggest you use them.
* did the behaviour harm anyone?
* is this part of a pattern of behaviour or a single misunderstanding?
* was there an apology and was that apology sincere i.e. did the person engage in a lot of self-justification or try to persuade others to do it for him either at the time or after the apology?
* do the people who were originally harmed now, in the light of subsequent behaviour, trust the person concerned?
See! Simple commonsense questions and this one doesn’t pass the test. End of story.
re @9:
I think they did. The point of the OP is not to villify Bora further, but a reaction to the “defenders” vilifying the harassed as “pitchforking Bora”.
I disagree. The issue here, in my reading, is reacting to the harassed being accused of “pitchforking” Bora. He apologized, admitted wrongdoing, and momentary silence followed, until TRUE DEFENDERS stepped in to reignite the issue and call the ones who complained about Bora’s behavior as “pitchforkers”.
Yes. That is the issue being discussed here. The complainers are being villified. PZ is noting that, to illustrate why it should not be done.
My synopsis:
-Bora unintentionally (at best), made some women uncomfortable.
-Those women complained about it to his employer.
-They asked him to resign for such poor behavior.
-He resigned and apologized.
-silence
-truedefenders attack the complainers enmasse, calling them names
-PZ notes: the “truedefenders” are doing it badly (trying to retcon reality)
Leads me to ask skeptichistorian, I can’t quite see your complaint about the OP.
The complaint is simply that anybody with a ‘nym with skeptic, rational, or intelligent in it shows none of those qualities. Skeptichistorian is presupposing that men should not be criticized for harassing women, or if they are, they should be forgiven with a notpology and pinky swear not to do it again.
Instead of therapy to determine why they harassed, harassment training to explain how not do it again, and a couple of years of good behavior. And a donation to feminist organizations fighting sexual harassment in the workplace is also good….
Cartimandua @ 28:
Hi there. Thanks for adding your voice.
It would be nice if Mrs. Bora did those things, but it’s hardly uncommon for a partner to blame anyone except their spouse. At the time all this broke the first time around, it came out that Bora has a very long history of bad behaviour with and around women, and I imagine it’s been a pretty bad time for Mrs. Bora, who is probably mounting such a defense as as a means of self-defense, adding more bricks to the denial which may well be keeping her intact at the moment.
People caught up in abusive relationships or relationships which routinely humiliate them are often desperate to not only shore themselves up, but to shore up the idea that said relationship has not been a bad one, or a waste of time. I too wish she would not be victim blaming, and tossing allegations about, but I also have a lot of sympathy for her, as it cannot have been easy for her all this time. In such situations, people also tend to always blame the spouse – “well, why didn’t she leave him!?” and so on.
Skeptichistorian, the long-winded sealion:
That’s quite enough. You’re ignoring the testimony of people who were far more closely engaged with Bora than you were; you are claiming we’re the ones who can’t let it go, when this post is in response to an anti-feminist who dug up the issue and restarted the argument; you are drawing false equivalencies all the hell over the place. Stop digging, and fuck off.
This is a straightforward situation. Bora betrayed the trust of many people. He lost his position of high regard for those betrayals. You can yammer all you want, but that’s no way to rebuild that trust, and there’s no way he can be reinstated to the position he held in this community before his lapses. So you’re just blowing air at this point.
@18 Docfreeride:
I did not mean to call you out, for I did not exactly remember. However, I remember reading your post back them and it really enlightened me; which is why it stuck in my mind years later.
History repeats…..
Caine @43
Thank you for your reply. I agree that Bora’s wife is another casualty of his actions.
I can try and understand her motives in her attack/defense, but I still have problems with her using her daughter and threats of self abuse to attempt to shame and silence the original victims. I couldn’t even finish reading her (extended) comment.
But you Are right though; Bora’s ripples spread far and wide. Even the women in his own family are now paying the price for his actions and it’s sad and obscene on different levels that they are (unintentionally) topping up his cup of poison.
I have a very visceral reaction to all this. It would probably pay for me to watch, read and listen some more.
Donnie @46,
No worries. And yeah, much of this stuff seems to be deja vu all over again…
skeptichistorian #22
Let’s start with you admitting to being a liar. Until you clearly admit your dishonesty, there’s really no point in any conversation with you.
You lied. You got caught. Own up.
Comment 37 fairly well verifies the suspicion that skeptichistorian is a pitter…..
So much wrong with skeptichistorian. In no particular order (and no certainty of listing it all):
1. Analysis and facts re the whole Bora thing demonstrably wrong.
2. Plagiarism. You know, that crime that according to pitters is second only to a false accusation against a man (where false = no conviction in a court of law).
3. Using a nym together with that specific plagiarism, that casts suspicion that that post could possibly have been Richard Carrier supporting Bora under a pseudonym (if only for a minute).
4. Not arguing in good faith.
5. General assholeishness.
Yep. Comment 37 earned skeptichistorian a smack from the banhammer.
Huh. Plagiarism, too, huh?
Why doesn’t it even surprise me there’s those among that crowd figure any deceit is acceptable, so long as it’s for their ’cause’?
… hereby adding one more stroke to the ‘oddly like the Scientologists’ column, I guess.
I wonder a bit about the timing of the attempted Bora retcon. Suppose they’re figuring there’s ‘momentum’ from the parade of sleazeball tabloid hacks and harrumphing old made men trying to convince the world Hunt was somehow railroaded?
… but, hey, either way, enjoy your new friends, Bora. I’m sure they’ll tell you what you want to hear.
Apparently skeptichistorian wants us to be more like the Christians, unthinking forgiveness and all of that.
Fuck that, and fuck them.
I don’t personally know if Bora really did much with reaspect to actually making amends in a functional manner. I remember thinking about what making amends would look like at the time. I hope that they did, but the comments here don’t leave me feeling good so far. The textual manure offered by skeptichistorian only offered speculation and “what if” stories about about what could have happened. Seriously, why would anyone guide us through a make believe version of what happened? Funny how the craven coward did not guide us through links of what is thought to have happened.
Not so funny.
PZ @ 51:
I’d be happier if #37 went into the cornfield. One of their aims is to silence Og, and there’s always some new person who wants to know what the story is behind such a comment, and all of it silences Og a bit more.
I’m at a party, but I took a few minutes to review skeptichistorian’s comments a little more thoroughly, and he’s clearly not honest or sincere. Banned & purged.
Thanks for removing all of the slyme comments PZ. I’m sure Bora’s wife is unhappy with the results of her husbands poor behavior, but that article is nonsense. I can’t believe she actually complained about women simply being believed when they out the harasser. I also checked out the wiki page for the woman who calls herself the advice goddess. According to it, she is a proponent of evolutionary psychology. I find myself completely disinterested in reading any of her advice.
Isn’t it amazing how the harasser defenders even expect the harassers to get cookies?
He serially sexually harassed women, admitted it when he couldn’t deny it anymore and then he’s supposed to get credit for that. How very christian of you…
Also, from that load of crap Donnie linked to @2
So, step one:
1. Bora forced extremely private information onto unwilling women who fell harassed and are made extremely uncomfortable by this.
2. Said women do exactly what the pro-harassment crowd always demand. They come forth and detail exactly how they were harassed.
3. Said women are now the baddies and need to apoligize and made to cower
Duggarly even.
I didn’t even notice this the first time:
Notice how it starts off seemingly admitting fault and praising critics for correctly calling it out, and yet somehow at the end, we’ve morphed into a “both sides” position, where everybody is equally to blame.
That would be step 1 in the universal strategy.
PZ @ 55:
For those of us who arrived late and would like to analyze skeptichistorian’s rhetorical tactics or just follow the thread, is there any way to see those comments?
If not, allow me to suggest that such a capability be added to the blog; say, a link saying “User was banned and comments were suppressed due to rulebreaking; click here to see the unredacted thread.”
Imagine reading a debate between Dinesh D’Souza and, well, anyone, on the subject of religion. Now redact every statement D’Souza makes that is intellectually dishonest. (Quite a few, I would imagine, based on what I saw at UF when he took on Christopher Hitchens.) Is the result intelligible? Is it useful?
Access to the data is a fundamental scientific principle. Let us act like scientists, not censors. By all means hide offending comments to spare readers the necessity of wading through them, but don’t delete them.
No. Nothing of value was lost. There was an extremely long comment plagiarized from Richard Carrier and presented as his own, a lot of pompously presented bad arguments, a bit of sniping at Og Vorbis, the usual slymey memes. I will not reward those assholes by leaving their lies up when they dishonestly sneak in and babble disingenuously.
Tualha @61
When a stray wanders through the doggie door and takes a dump on the carpet, you don’t leave it to stain the carpet. A few other guests have already taken snapshots/blockquotes of the more interesting bits and responded to them before the host performed cleanup. The rest was exactly what you would expect slymy shit to be.
Non-sequitur argument. This isn’t science, it is a blog with comments. There is no science about responding to inane presuppositional gibberish that hurts people. Just show evidence they are wrong, and then point and laugh at them. They take themselves very seriously. Being laughed at and ignored by posts being deleted is more than they can bear. But they don’t learn from it.
Sometimes the thread is about science.
@60, LykeX
That’s not what the word “both” means in that sentence. It isn’t a “both sides” thing at all.
@Brian Pansky
Reading that again, I see you’re right. My mistake.
I have long advocated html’ng such comments into “invisible” text. where the html command changes the text color to the same as the background color. So the comment remains (keeping comment ref#’s intact) but requires a little extra effort to read the blanked comments; which entails just mousing over the comment to highlight the text. HTML indicates by forcing the text to be negative of the highlight color. voila, text is now visible, and can be copied to put in blockquote in one’s response to the bloviation.
sorry for the pseudo-derail.
LykeX & Brian Pansky
I read as exactly a both sides argument. If both sides need to forgive mistakes it assumes that mistakes were made in the removal of Bora. It also downplays his behavior as a mistake. Neither of those things are true. so this amounts to the guilty party trying to guilt trip the injured parties for taking offense at the sexual harassment. Its a both sides / victim blaming mashup.
A man sexually harasses several women = minor transgression
Women don’t keep that man’s shameful secret for the rest of their lives = witch hunt / lynch mob
*eyeroll*
@69 Jackie
Where have i seen that pattern before? Ah yes, that’s right…everywhere, all the fucking time…
Catherine Z, Bora’s wife, is on Twitter calling Janet Stemwedel an “old cunt” who lies.
No misogyny here. No propping up the patriarchy because it serves your interests even if it hurts other women. Nope. Everyone else is at fault. Bora was totally innocent, see? It was just those cunts.
@Tethys #68
But that’s not actually what it says. My quote is a bit misleading, because I left off something that I erroneously thought was a separate thing, but actually is part of the same statement:
The “both” isn’t referring to two sides both forgiving mistakes, but to everybody both forgiving and lauding.
There are still problems with the statement, such as the “mistake” language you point to, but my previous criticism isn’t valid.
Caine #17
Loved that! Can’t wait to ask the next person who goes on and on about ‘witch hunts’ etc.,
“Are you in hyperbolic heaven right now, or what?”
I’m stealing that.
I’ve been using “hyperbolically overwrought” but can always use another version.
LykeX
I think I understand, thanks. The plagiarized post referenced by your paraphrase has been deleted, and its just too hot to worry about how many logical fallacys the Bora defenders are currently churning.
@ LykeX #71
That quote was one plagiarized from Carrier’s post (which I have now read, thanks to Doc Freeride), and he really is talking about mistakes. He names some of his own minor transgressions, all of which seem to revolve around misreading the situation and assuming sexual interest is mutual, and thus engaging in flirting which turns out to be unwelcome; or making to big of a jump when already engaged in mutual, consensual flirting. I’d agree that was a mistake and, handled right, i.e. admission of wrongdoing, apology, and commitment not to do it again, isn’t a major thing. I’m unfamiliar with the Bora case, but from what people have said I’m assuming it was far bigger than that and, more importantly, part of a longstanding pattern of behavior; which kind of contradicts the idea that it would be a mistake.
Thumper #75
Of course mistakes can occur. What I’m objecting to is that I think some people are too eager to write any misbehavior off as simply a mistake that we have some moral obligation to forgive. I think it’s the same kind of impulse that leads people to write off sexual harassment as a “misunderstanding”.
This language can be used as a strategy to dismiss the harm done and try to shame the victim for any lingering resentment. It’s a way of turning the spotlight on the victim: “He admitted he was wrong and he apologized. What more could you possibly want? You’re just trying to ruin his life. You’re a bad person if you don’t forgive and forget.”
Obviously, this connects right on to such cases as Tim Hunt. The fact that his “joke” had any consequences for him at all, no matter how minor or symbolic, is taken as a sign that his critics are way out of line.
I suspect much of this is actually not intentional, but a knee-jerk emotional reaction from people who are having trouble facing the sexism still present in society. I think it’s the same kind of thing we see in cases of Black people killed by cops. People have a certain view of the world they live in and when that view is threatened, they push back. Ironically, the means they use in that push-back perfectly illustrate exactly the problems that they deny exist.
Lyke X
I agree, it’s a common tactic among the socially regressive. But it’s not difficult to fairly judge what is and is not a mistake. As I said, I don’t think it can fairly be said that Bora made mistakes if it’s clear that it was a longstanding pattern of behavior. I think, once it has been pointed out that a certain behavior is objectionable, you only get so many more passes before people can reasonably expect you to have changed said behavior.
I also don’t think it’s unreasonable that a mistake should have some consequences for the perpetrator, provided those consequences are fair and reasonable. Asking them to apologise, for example, is not unreasonable. Asking them to understand what they did wrong, and commit to not doing it again, ditto. Refusal to do those things should rightly result in a backlash. You don’t get to jut say “Oh, it was a mistake, get over it”. There’s a right way to handle it.
She’s also a libertarian, and a “feminist” of the Christina Hoff Sommers variety: “Everything’s fine now, I don’t feel oppressed! Women who complain are just professional victims!”*
* I met her once, and something very like that was practically the first thing she said to me (the “professional victims” part was merely implied.)
For reference: I compared notes & IP addresses with Stephanie Zvan, and we got a pseudonym pegged to “skeptichistorian”: he’s definitely a slymepitter, goes by the name “The Yeti” there, and was also playing games on Almost Diamonds and Lousy Canuck.
Another dishonest asshole, in other words.
Caine @54:
Yeah. They win. As always.