One of our writers, Richard Carrier, has been banned from Skepticon for “his repeated boundary-pushing behavior”. This is, obviously, a serious accusation, and we’ve been investigating further. We now have several first-hand reports of persistent, obnoxious sexual behavior in defiance of specific requests that he cease. We believe his accusers.
Here at Freethoughtblogs, we are sex-positive, but we are also committed to the principle of consensual sexual behavior. We go further, and beyond demanding that there always be consent, we also insist on respect for your partners. No means no, not just because it’s held as a dogmatic rule, but because it reflects a sincere appreciation of the autonomy of other people. We cannot tolerate violations of this essential principle.
While Dr Carrier has been a valued contributor to this network, we have to demand support of that principle in actions as well as words. After a review of the evidence so far, Richard Carrier’s posting privileges have been suspended, pending further evaluation, and all comments on his blog have been closed.
If you wish to make a testimonial, pro or con, about Dr Carrier, you can send them to me in confidence. We will consider all the evidence before making a final decision on his case.
We also support Skepticon and their commitment to equality and justice. If you do too, donate.
PZ:
Agreed, absolutely.
… yeahbbut… but PENIS!
(Thought I’d save the MRA’s the trouble of commenting by summarizing their posts for them).
But Carrier’s behavior has been going on for years, in multiple venues. You’re so vocal on this topic that someone came to you with the allegations against Shermer, but no one told you about a problem on your own blog network? I find that hard to believe.
While I am not going to try to defend Carrier, I must point out that there is a huge difference between the his behavior, as described, and Shermer’s behavior, as described. One doesn’t respect boundaries, the other rapes women.
Also, given PZ’s track record on these issues, I find it highly likely that he would have reacted if someone had told him about Carrier, your insinuations aside.
I don’t know if this is what is going on in this case but Carrier’s comments made me think of this blog post on how a woman’s willingness to be open about sexuality is often perceived by men to be openness towards sexual advances.
https://medium.com/@emmalindsay/how-we-obliterate-female-sexual-desire-96dc2c334102#.53ci9zvlh
You find it hard to believe? I am an old white guy in a position with a tiny amount of power. I am precisely the kind of person who is not brought into the whisper network.
I am also the person who has a mob of assholes howling that I’m a rapist and sexual harasser. You begin to discount a lot of the claims out there…which is exactly what they want. When women give me first person accounts, corroborated with other accounts, in this case as in Shermer’s, I will respond appropriately. I can’t do anything until I’m given that information.
But do not try to pretend that I’m somehow privileged to share in the experiences of women. My privilege is to be a financially secure older white man. I do not ever get to claim that I have ‘earned’ women’s trust or that I should be granted access to all of their concerns — we’ve been there before with people like Hugo Schwyzer.
My job is to not stand in the way and to support people who are not as fortunate as I am. I do not get to claim that I’m part of an oppressed minority.
I’ll also point out that there is a balancing act going on. I am not polyamorous, and I do not identify at all with the polyamorous community — but I respect that they have a right to own their own sexuality. So on the one hand I am committed to being respectful of their lives, but at the same time I have to demand that they respect other people’s boundaries. So when Carrier started intruding on Ophelia Benson’s blog with sex tales, I expressed my objection — that was clearly crossing someone else’s boundaries. And he responded by immediately dropping the subject, which was encouragingly appropriate.
But now it’s clear that that has been a habit of his in private conversations, too. Obviously, if private, they aren’t shared with me…until they are.
Aaaand jimmyfromchicago proves once again that PZ is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. No matter how much care and thoughtfulness goes into how and when he responds to such allegations when he becomes aware of them, it’s always too little, too much, too soon, and/or too late.
Why, it’s almost as if standing up for victims in any way guarantees you a ton of shit flung in your direction, no matter how or when you do it. I wonder why that is? *eyeroll*
FWIW, I appreciate the way this was handled.
jimmyfromchicago @3,
You a slimepitter by any chance? Professor Myers is not omniscient or omnipresent and thus cannot be expected to know about every transgression by one of his bloggers. Plus people like Richard tend to hide their behavior so as to get away with it for as long as possible without detection. If he had known about it there is virtually no doubt that he would have raised alarm bells right away given his consistent track record of being a strong feminist ally.
I’ll make my testimonial here. Richard is a sleazeball who repeatedly crosses boundaries despite receiving plenty of feedback indicating that he needs to reign himself in. He unabashedly embodies the male gaze that sees women as fucktoys rather than equals. If that weren’t bad enough, he is now very publicly calling at least one of his victims a liar. That is absolutely disgusting and indefensible. There is no place for behavior like this in the atheist/skeptic/feminist community and I for one hope there would be no place for this kind of behavior within this blog network.
Here’s my vote FWIW: click here
> You find it hard to believe? I am an old white guy in a position with a tiny amount of power. I am precisely the kind of person who is not brought into the whisper network.
> I do not ever get to claim that I have ‘earned’ women’s trust or that I should be granted access to all of their concerns
You seem to understand that woman who are being harassed do not necessarily feel comfortable telling an older male in a position of power, and instead are sharing their stories with each other. You are insisting they tell you about demeaning experiences in their lives before you do anything about it. You have also had a long relationship with Richard, who’s reaction to ‘A’ was to trash her on his blog calling her a liar who shouldn’t be trusted when she came forward and he found out who she is. Hell that alone should be enough for you. That just multiples the damage.
The obvious way to resolve this is to let them talk to a woman that they already trust to share their stories and experiences with. Stop trying to hoard all of the power and control, and trust a woman who will keep their identities and experiences confidential to make that decision. Until you do, this will go on and on. When will we really see change?
I have never met Richard Carrier, but wrt comment 7: I am polyamorous, and my idea of boundaries includes that I will mention my partners in the contexts where monogamous people mention theirs. But that doesn’t mean randomly or intrusively discussing anything more intimate than the fact that I’m glad to have found a place that will make my girlfriend a tasty non-dairy birthday cake. (This is the glamorous queer lifestyle: I am inviting my lover over for chocolate cake.)
vivir, #10
Where did you get that from?
Also, until he hears about it how is he supposed to do anything?
Thirdly, he’s not the dictator of FtB with power to immediately ban bloggers.
Uh, what? I’m supposed to take action on things I have not been told about?
Also, when seeking information, I told my informant that their victims and witnesses could communicate anonymously, through a credible intermediate; I also told them that the matter was being discussed by our ethics committee (an independent group, of which I am not a member) and that they could cut me out and send their stories directly there. That you think I’m trying to hoard “power and control”, when I’ve deferred all the decision-making to a confidential group of men and women, tells me that you have no idea what’s going on here.
Also, I waited on the decision to suspend Carrier’s posting privileges until a majority of the ethics committee concurred. Further actions will be dictated by the bloggers participating in our backchannel. Not me.
I’ve heard rumors about Carrier as far back as a couple years ago, but without really knowing or trusting the source of those rumors (frankly it seemed to be coming from slymepitters) I wasn’t sure what to make of it. I’m sad to hear that these rumors have a good chance of being true. Thank you for supporting for victims of sexual harassment and misconduct.
Me at 8:
PZ, you said “We now have several first-hand reports of persistent, obnoxious sexual behavior …” That’s a carefully worded statement. Did you have other, non-first-hand reports before? Carrier wrote a blog post about hitting on women at conferences a year ago. You’ve had plenty of opportunities to say “I knew nothing about this until one of his victims posted on Facebook.”
Obviously, the whole situation sucks.
On the one hand, I believe Dr. Carrier’s account of the incident described in his last blog post. He has admitted to doing the types of things he’s being accused of, so I think it’d be unlikely he’d deny the accusations if they were true.
On the other hand, there appear to be multiple accounts of folks made uncomfortable by his advances/boundary-pushing. And these have to be considered.
While Dr. Carrier strikes me as someone with a good deal of self-awareness, it may be the case that he has a blindspot – or at least impaired vision – when it comes to how he’s making some folks feel. And given his past comments on that subject, I have no doubt that he’ll work to improve that deficiency.
But given this network’s history of championing for the rights of all – for dignity and respect – there would certainly be some mixed signals being sent if he remained as a contributor. Notwithstanding his own efforts that helped cultivate the reputation of the network.
My expectation is that he’ll resign from the network with a final post reaffirming the rights of all to be respected, along with some notes on how it’s everyone’s ethical duty to reduce discomfort. And he’ll either start hosting his own blog, or go back to infidels.org.
It’s unfortunate that it comes as a result of what seems to be a fabricated story. But in the end, the message has to be that everyone’s dignity needs to be respected. And as Dr. Carrier himself put it, “…the cosmic scales of justice [be] balanced.”
jimmyfromchicago 16 translation: “When did you stop beating your wife, PZ?”
Obviously your response needs to be endlessly parsed, policed and interrogated until jimmyfromchicago is 100% satisfied (which will be never), or until he at last finds one action or lack thereof that he doesn’t approve of so he can say “AHA! See?! PZ is terrible and he should feel bad!”
Hahahaha. No.
Damn-it to Hell. “Sense and Goodness, without God”—Looks like he is an example of one who Needs God in order for the Golden Rule to modulate his behavior. Because this “without God” methodology is apparently also ‘without sense” and “without goodness”, his book’s title notwithstanding. (and I’m on the last damn chapter)
Well, doing anything about something implies knowing about something.
jimmyfromchicago:sexual misconduct :: Dawkins:misogyny
Apparently, I can correct these perceptions by simply stopping the production of “carefully worded statements”. I’ll only make sloppily worded statements from now on. Problem solved.
You won’t answer the question? OK, then. Unlike “Have you stopped beating your wife?” it has a perfectly good nonincriminating answer: “I didn’t know anything about it until I read the allegations in the Facebook post.” I don’t know if you can give that answer truthfully, but the question has a good answer.
Yeah, it’s so easy to behave in ways others find uncomfortable, especially when flirting/dating and especially I guess when polyamorous and sex-positive. I try to take a generally non-sexual/non-flirtatious approach towards conversations with people who might think I view them as potential partners, but I know I’ve definitely said some stupid things many times in the past. Apologise, try to improve your behaviour and, as always, listen.
Jimmyfromchicago, if you have a point, then fucking make it.
@jimmyfromchicago
Seems straightforward to me. There were not several first-hand reports until there were. His statement answered your question.
PZ already responded to this and you have not responded to that.
1) He is not part of the whisper-network.
2) “When women give me first person accounts, corroborated with other accounts, in this case as in Shermer’s, I will respond appropriately.” That is what is happening now. That is what happened before and resulted in the “What do you do when someone pulls the pin and hands you a grenade?” post.
3) Dealing with the people who don’t care about harassment and abuse or who seem to have a problem with polyamory taking advantage of situations like this for opportunistic gain creates a balancing act where not only PZ but the rest of us have to worry about long term goals and current situations. That can result in things progressing more slowly.
1) That post was where Carrier was trying to take responsibility for his behavior. That post is now probably part of the background of the current situation.
2) See #3 above. It better to have all of the information and support the process before weighing in.
jimmyfromchicago wants a simplistic, black&white answer to a complex question with shades of gray. Why, I don’t know. But I do have a good answer.
Fuck off.
@jimmyfromchicago reads a post about women being harassed, and his first reaction is to go after the guy who’s talking about making positive changes about it.
@vivir reads a post about women being harassed, and their first reaction is to accuse the poster of not listening to women, in a bald-faced and facetious “hoist-by-his-own-petard” attempt that’s clearly about attacking the poster, not addressing the content.
You keep telegraphin’ your swings, there, fellas. Makes it much easier.
PZ puts it better, as always. Thanks for posting this. FTB’s ethics board is doin’ it right.
Shwasbuckled @9
I want to preface my response in a few ways. I don’t think anyone should automatically believe one or the other based on authority or connection. I fully accept that what I’m about to say may be clueless, and am ready to be thoroughly and justly criticized if I am wrong, and to learn from the criticism. Here goes:
Given that Carrier is being accused of something, and assuming he has the right to defend himself, is he not entitled to deny the account of his accuser? In this instance, either Carrier or his accuser is lying, or both to an extent. It seems, in my (possibly ill-educated) opinion, that Carrier and no one else may be justified in calling her accusation false.
By this same reasoning, statements like:
are not helpful, regardless of the context.
Scratch that part. Thinking back to Carrier’s account, it’s possible that they are both telling the truth, and that Carrier is missing details about major body language cues. It wouldn’t be surprising given that by his own admission, he seems to have issues seeing boundaries.
Can we cut that shit out?
Not taking no for an answer is not “missing details about body language”
A reminder, Crystal Clear Consent. No mean no. Any interpretation other than no means you have issues, not the person saying no.
I’m both polyamourous and kinky, which I mention not because I really want to out myself, but because I want to be clear where I’m standing when I say that violating boundaries in this way would have the person very quickly told they’re unwelcome in the group or event.
You simply do NOT play at sex without permission from all involved, preferably explicit. I’m tired of people who can’t respect boundaries claiming poly or kink made them do it. No.
The only place I’ve been where flirting with strangers in a sexually explicit way was alright was a womens’ bathhouse event, where everyone was well aware and informed that it was an explicitly sex-positive space. Consent was still respected by all.
Claiming sex positivity as a cover for violating boundaries in non-consensual ways is annoying to those of us, the majority, who believe in the base issue of full informed consent.
Caitie Cat:
A thousand times yes, here.
Shit, I forgot she said no in her accounting. I’m getting it confused with cases where people are too scared to say no outright. I did not in any way mean to try to excuse harassing behavior.
I stand corrected and thoroughly embarrassed.
I’m a fan of the phrase “yes means yes”, meaning anything short of a yes is a no.
gmacs
Acknowledged and thank you
Actually, PZ, “knew” and “should have known” have established standards under sexual harassment law and policies. UMM has an office that can explain this to you. It’s not really that much of a grey area.
@scdja—No, actually my first reaction was to go to Carrier’s comments section and tell him he was being creepy.
jimmyfromchicago, if you have a point, then make it.
jifgo (#38):
If you did so with the directness and clarity you are employing here, he might think you were wishing him a happy birthday.
Who are we talking about here? The only accounting I’ve seen from an accuser was on her facebook post about it, and it didn’t go into any detail. I’m not demanding that she do so, but I’ve not seen anything about her saying “no”.
If I’ve missed something I would really, really like to fix that.
Sure. If anybody else had handled a situation like this, PZ would have gone on about “harboring predators” and such.
@jimmyfromchicago 42
Where is your example? For someone with advice to give about where PZ can find out about things he has an established record in being supportive of you are remarkably short on providing your own info.
jimmyfromchicago, #42
I’m guessing you didn’t mean to hit “post comment”. The part where you gave example(s) of a previous situation just like this one where PZ went on about harboring predators didn’t show up.
If you really had a point you’d make it all in one detailed post instead of having people try to coax it out.
Of course, in reality your point is scoring a point against PZ by bullshitting. It certainly isn’t concern about sexual misconduct.
jimmyfrom:
Handled it like what? Carrier’s blog has been suspended for now, while an ethics committee, which PZ is not on, is investigating the matter as thoroughly as possible. It takes more than 5 minutes to gather information, y’know.
No, he would not have. Please, provide examples where this has happened.
I think we can all agree the most important thing here is that jimmyfromchicago is 100% satisfied with PZ’s response, its timing, and the minutia of his thought processes in every way. PZ OWES him that! Why? Because—unlike PZ—jimmyfromchicago is clearly only concerned for the wellbeing of this community and doing something constructive to address predatory behavior within it.
Riiiiiight.
Iris @ 47:
Which isn’t going to happen, because I get the idea that what jimmyfrom really, truly, deeply wants is for PZ to explode into dramatics, climbing that mountain, and thundering down on Carrier’s head like the gods of yore.
@jimmyfromchicago
I need to be able to tell the difference between someone with legitimate concerns about how PZ is handling this situation and an abusive misogynistic ass that wants to take advantage of this situation to try to find something, anything to make PZ look bad as a means to discredit and undermine efforts to deal with abusive misogynistic asses in society. I can’t tell if you are referencing posts where PZ was writing about people with track records that meet your “should have known” or not.
If you want the comments in here to meet standards approaching that of sexual harassment investigations (which your reference suggests you do) you need to stop being a hypocrite and provide evidence that will allow us to apply such standards.
Agreed, and tellingly, there is a pattern to the damned-either-way mess. Specifically, if it is a douchebro thought leader that opposes feminism being called out, then PZ is damned for doing anything at all. If it is someone associated with feminism, inclusion and the like, the he is instead damned for not excoriating them fast enough and strongly enough. He is accused of having a double standard (being quick to condemn the douchbag contingent while being a softy on the SJWs and allies), but it is the pattern of accusation that gives away where the double standard really lies.
And as an immediate demonstration of exactly that:
So here we see PZ criticised for …acting only after being told about something. Apparently he was supposed to act before before he knew of it?? But the preposterous part of course is that he is also assumed to be in control of whether a person is publically criticised or not, as if he is the one that grants permission for such accusations to enter public view.
What the fuck is wrong with these idiots.
Reminds me of the Avicenna episode. Dozens of accusations against him for months (all because they got their knickers in a twist when he criticised them), leading to all accusations being ignored on the basis of their prevenance. It took corroboration from Hemant before the single correct accusation out of the throng was believed.
Caine 48:
And/or he thinks it’s some kind of epic and triumphant gotcha if PZ doesn’t do exactly that. I.e., Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose.
What a wanker.
@jimmyfromchicago, I guess my name’s too long to type out fully? Okay, jmyfrmcgo.
I said “on reading a post” in my observation that you’re reacting to. I was talking about this post. First you read this post. The context is obvious, my point was obvious. Stop squirming around pronoun referents. It’s evasive, distracting, and a clear indicator that you showed up to comment in a combative mood from the start. It’s an excellent example of why people are calling you vague and indirect.
PZ’s made it clear that he’s got almost nothing to do with FTB’s reaction to this, and you’re still pointing at him, instead of apologizing and pointing instead at the ethics board. Why?
Are you all being serious? Shermer and JREF? CFI and Radford? Which organization do you think The Chupacabra Beat Must Be a Difficult and Valuable One was aimed at.
And yeah, I think it’s possible to show compassion for victims, take harassers to task, and hold organizations accountable without jumping up and down screaming “Witch, witch, witch!” at every allegation that comes down the pike.
jimmyfrom:
The problem being, jimmyfrom, that no one, including PZ, ever jumped up and down screaming “witch, witch, witch!”. No one ever stood still doing that, or even sitting down. It was the malefactors who cried ‘witch hunt’, and did all the screaming, crying, and other assorted hysterics.
@scildfreja
I’m hypothesizing that they are blinded by prestige, have a problem with social justice, or are a harasser doing their work to make theirs easier at this point.
@jimmyfromchicago
1) Fix your link.
2) Vague references to situations where we don’t have something specific to compare your standards to is more weaseling. You can at least pretend to have an honest interest.
3) Those situations involved several first-hand reports and again without a link we can’t know if PZ is begin hypocritical with respect to “should have known”.
Ah hyperbole, the venereal disease of political conflict. It lets you lie and pretend you are not. How about you replace women at stakes with something specific?
jimmyfromchicago
You are becoming less clear with every comment.
Abe Drayton
From the OP:
@jimmyfromchicago, I agree! We can show compassion to victims, take harassers to task, and hold organizations accountable, all at the same time, without getting into a snit about it.
But that’s not what this was about. This is about you walking into this post with an accusation that PZ had been sitting on this for years, doing nothing about it. Read your first post again, if you have to – you said you couldn’t believe that he didn’t know about abuse that’d been going on for years.
Maybe I’m just being dense, I just can’t make heads or tails out of what you’re actually trying to say here. You seem to have started by arguing that FTB was lax in pursuing this, and in 54 you end by saying that FTB is on a witch hunt.
PZ isn’t perfect, he explains so very well right here in this comment thread. But he’s earned a modicum of respect. He’s hugged landmines to get the word out about the very things you talk about in 54. That’s not evidence that his response to abuse is to cover it up. That’s evidence that he cares about victims, takes harassers to task, and wants to hold organizations accountable.
As for your accusation that we’re all crying “witch, witch!” – notice how this was quietly being dealt with by an ethics board, which was collecting evidence from involved parties. Not exactly a howl for blood.
So what is it you’re saying is going on? That PZ and FTB hasn’t been sufficiently zealous in the pursuit of justice? Or that this is a witch-hunt and we should sit back and wait for real evidence?
@jimmyfromchicago: You seem to be stating that the JREF handled the Shermer allegations “something like this”. Given that I don’t think JREF ever took any action against Shermer I fail to see how that is an apt parallel. Care to elaborate?
Amazing how just the way someone quotes can make you react vaguely violently toward someone. To be fair, they could’ve been from reddit, or some other board site which uses the same quotation method, but whenever I see that > sign, especially in places that have their own entirely different form of quotation available, it just makes me spit, “fucking channers.” It’s probably quite unfair, because I’m sure there are still six or seven, or maybe eight people who use those sites who aren’t irrational hatebabies, but that is still the way I react to it.
Anyway.
@gmacs
So, it’s been mentioned that he apparently got a “no” and disregarded that, but even if that wasn’t the case, this really isn’t a defence. If you know that you don’t see boundaries, if you want to be seen as promoting “sense and goodness” with or without a god, and if you just want to be a decent person, you make damn sure you have checks in place that’ll let you know if you somehow miss a boundary.
@Brony, seconding the suggestion that we immediately start working on a vaccine for hyperbole in serious discussions! Makes my eyes cross. Speak clearly! It’s not like discussions of abuse and abuses aren’t serious enough on their own!
Whose doing that? The MRA fuckwits I presume. Nobody here.
I look at Crystal Clear Consent, where the null hypothesis is “no”, until you get a real clear and sober “yes”. It’s not rocket science, just clear understanding you don’t control the situation. If Carrier is guilty of not understanding that, the ethics committee will take the proper action.
Also in #3,
jimmyfromchicago does not realize that the person accusing Carrier might be reasonably worried about PZ and impartiality. Very believable.
In #5 and #23 jimmyfromchicago is upset that PZ waited until there were multiple reports and did not say anything about the situation when there was only one report. This contradicts what they said in #54 when they referenced the situations they saw as beign overreacted to via “witch hunt”, that is to say hastily and intensely reacted to by large groups of people. So PZ should react before there is enough evidence and PZ and/or the rest of us here reacted before there was enough evidence with respect to Shermer and Radford.
Yeah, I’m betting on jimmyfromchicago being a person who acts like Radford and Shermer (and Carrier if the investigation finds a problem). They like to apply double standards/the above mentioned “heads I win, tails you lose” logic to people complaining about behavior that they engage in, and people/groups who combat such and discover they have a problematic person in their midst. The lack of links to sources and hyperbolic/non-literal characterizations are also indicators.
This one is kind of fun to play with but I understand if they get tiresome.
@jimmyfromchicago, 54
Are you serious? (I doubt it. You haven’t been straghtforward this whole time, why start now?)
You might as well be a creationist going “Are you being serious? Don’t you know about…monkeys?”. Yes, we know monkeys still exist. Now try to present a logical argument for your conclusion. You seem incapable of that, I wonder why?
And the way you’re talking, I’d think you were Lando Calrissian being choked by Chewie. Stop fluttering/chocking on your own “shock” and spit it out, dammit!
Again, this is like going “what animal do you think has fur, a tail, and swings in trees? Gotcha evolutionist!”
It isn’t an argument. How do you not even realize this?
You are showing signs of having extremely low thinking skills.
Athywren @ 61:
Yes, and I can’t begin to count how many times this has been brought up here, that people who have actual problems with social cues tend to be excruciatingly careful if there’s any uncertainty, and generally, have a system to help them figure out all the mysterious ways of humans.
There are times I don’t understand cues, in person and online, so my sop is to keep my mouth shut and listen until some sort of clarification takes place.
Of course, Lando got straight to the point. Jimmy isn’t like that. Jimmy is more like…a troll.
@Giliell – Thank you! I somehow missed that when I read over it.
gmacs @29,
I don’t think anyone here is suggesting anyone should be automatically believed based on connection or authority. I don’t know or have any connection to any of the victims nor do I consider them to be any sort of authority figures and so those reasons don’t factor into my decision. On the contrary, I believe them because false accusations are vanishingly rare, because there was an investigation that resulted in Richard being removed from the Speakers Bureau, because Richard himself has confessed to inappropriate behavior of the same type and finally because there are multiple accounts from different people all converging towards a common narrative.
He’s technically entitled to call his victims liars but the rest of the enlightened world is entitled to conclude that he’s an indefensible victim blaming and gaslighting asshole as a result.
As per my conversation with Giliell, I admitted being factually wrong, and clarified that this wasn’t meant to defend his behavior. I was actually addressing the matter as to whether it was possible for both Carrier and his accuser to be stating factual truth about their encounter.
Just because someone tells the truth in terms of bare facts, does not mean their behavior was acceptable or that they are telling the whole truth. Even if his account is true, and whether or not he is guilty of harassment in this case, his behavior was inappropriate.
I entirely agree with you on the issues of boundaries, and think it’s best for people to keep conservative estimates on where they lie.
Also holding people to a legal standard in a non-legal forum that they are unwilling to accept for themselves is another common feature of people motivated to be hyper – skeptical of harassment/abuse claims. Bingo?
Brony:
Yes.
Both at once of course!
@gmacs
I wasn’t and am not accusing you of defending Carrier, and I didn’t bring up the matter of his failing to accept an expression of non-consent to correct you on it – I was just acknowledging that it had been addressed, and making clear that I wasn’t unaware, ignoring, or dismissing it. I was just commenting on that statement because, as far as I could see, it hadn’t been mentioned, and it’s a thing that I think we need to stay aware of. (And I’m not accusing anyone of not being aware of that.)
I’m gonna clarify, I don’t think Carrier is innocent of harassment. I suspect his accuser is telling the truth. I just get the impression he’s clueless and doesn’t realize (or want to realize) that his behavior qualifies as harassment, and therein lies the problem that perpetuates it.
@74
Fair enough, and definitely something that people need to be aware of. I’ve known way too many people that weren’t, and I wish I’d called them out IRL.
Fixed it for you, as the OP says:
This is not responding to a single case or accuser, rather multiple accusers saying the same story.
I’d previously thought that there was no harm in being asked by folks who knew that I was in a relationship if I’d be open to engaging with them sexually somehow, so long as they (1) didn’t already know I wasn’t into it and (2) didn’t push after I’d said no. Because how else would they know that? It seems Richard has a similar view—that there is no harm in the asking. But I’m seeing arguments that there can be harm in asking—that context and behavior are important and that sometimes asking can be harmful—and it’s got me to rethinking this a bit.
In writing this out it seems kinda obvious now, particularly when the pairings would be unconventional and the chance of reciprocity would be very slim. But it makes me feel a bit justified in being irritated or confused by come-ons in situations like this instead of just thinking I’m not being sex positive enough. *wheels turning*
Rewriting comment #51 to fix my munted blockquote:
Are you being stupid intentionally? Because if someone else had actually handled it, where ‘handled it’ in this context means ‘publically call out the behaviour, supported the decision to ban, and cut the author’s access to his own blog,’ then why the fuck would PZ point to such a response as ‘harbouring predators’? By what measure do these actions look like harbouring Carrier for fucks sake?
_________
Moving on.
So just as I noted at #50, here we have jimmy switching from ‘PZ is not harsh enough’ for SJW Carrier’s transgressions, to ‘PZ is too harsh’ for non-feminist douchebag Shermer.
In addition to what many others have said to jimmyfromchicago @ #3, I’ll add this: I am part of the whisper network. I’ve known for months about some of the stories about Carrier (although I didn’t know the worst ones until recently). But until people were willing to make their complaints public, there was very little I could do. When victims tell me their stories, I have to respect their confidentiality. It would be a huge violation of trust if I did otherwise. And when I hear stories second-hand, even when I hear multiple second-hand stories from highly trustworthy sources, it would be irresponsible to publicize them.
It’s a terrible situation. I know a lot of these stories about a lot of people, and I know that not making them public means putting people in danger. The whisper network is a shitty solution. A much better solution is listening, believing, supporting, and amplifying the people who do speak out publicly, and who boost the signal of the people speaking out. When you attack these people for not doing it in exactly the same way and at exactly the same time you think you would have, you’re not part of the solution. You’re part of the problem. You’re one of the reasons people are afraid to speak out.
LicoriceAllsort @ 78:
Sex positivity should never be used as a cover for sleazy behaviour.
#78
Asking can be wrong for 2 reasons, I think. First one is, not every one is “sex positive”. Second, even if they are, I think it’s not correct to assume that asking for sex can be seen as casually as asking for a drink together. It always implies your intimacy. And that’s something I have never been mentioned on Carrier’s blog. He also made me uncomfortable saying there was no problem hitting on 18 years old students. I agree with him they are adults and are free. But he seems to miss the point of maturity. I know there are 18 really mature and older people who are not. But assuming that because a person is an adult, she is ready to be “picked up” and for open sex is in my opinion lacking of human understanding.
I am not surprised at all by all this, he seems completely blind to what sex really entails. Which is unfortunate especially for a polyamorous.
Oh here, look at the front page of the slymepit:
Looks like someone is angling for his slymepit newcomer badge on this thread.
To anyone interested, Stephanie Zvan has also posted about Richard Carrier, summarizing the allegations that she knows of. Also good discussion in the comments.
zenlike @ 83;
So,
sealionfromchicagojimmyfromchigaco is a ‘pitter after all. Quel surprise…The incompetent attempts at gotcha arguments were a clue I suppose, as was the poor attempt to feign caring a jot about women’s rights and safety. Then again, even pretending to recognize the humanity of women for a moment probably burned the arsehat’s skin like acid or something.
#83: Well, that makes this easy: Bye, jimmyfromchicago.
Anyone else want to confess to being a member of the slymepit?
@LicoriceAllsort, 78
He doesn’t say “there is no harm in the asking”. [Link]
Emphasis added.
Brian @ 87:
You might want to take Siggy’s recommend @ 84. It will clear some things up for you.
Licorice Allsort
Really? Because somebody doing that would make me run into the other direction real fast. I don’t know your gender identity (I’m sorry if I forgot. I know your nym, but I don’t keep files ;) ), but I’m a woman and that stuff is scary. “Would you like to sleep with me?” is obviously not on the same level as “hanging out here at this convention together” or “going to the movies together”. Whether I’m in a relationship or not, whether someone is ploy or not, propositions like that require context.
+++
Brian Pansky
I don’t believe his crocodile tears and mea culpa for a minute. That really sounds like some very smart person who knows the lingo and the things people usually look for, like admitting to your faults and such. In that very excerpt Carrier comes off as somebody who cleverly manipulates his audience while still getting a kick out of describing how exactly he made that woman uncomfortable.
@LicoriceAllsort
Honestly? I don’t think there’s any such thing as “not sex positive enough” with regard to what you, personally, are willing to engage in with consensual partners, or put up with from others. If you don’t want to be propositioned, you have no obligation to accept it with a smile in the name of sex positivity. I’m not 100% on theory and definitions, but it’s my understanding that coerciveness and sex positivity are inimical to one another, and it is definitely coercive to require someone be open to something they’re not open to in the name of sex positivity.
zenlike, #83
LOL. I guess to join you have to build up a portfolio of shitty dudebro posts to submit.
jimmyboy will from now on “show compassion for victims, take harassers to task, and hold organizations accountable” from the confines of the forum which was started as the harassers safe heaven for posting rape jokes and rape apologising screeds. Such a brave, brave hero. Sniff.
From PZ’s post:
To be clear, nobody has accused Carrier of sexual assault or sexual coercion, but rather sexual harassment. (As detailed in the link at #84, one of the accusers alleges that Carrier touched her, although it’s not clear that she meant sexual touching. Carrier has denied touching her.) As far as I can tell, the “persistent, obnoxious sexual behavior” PZ refers to is basically Carrier soliciting sexual or romantic relationships with people who had already politely declined. Carrier for his part agrees that he made solicitations, but denies crossing people’s boundaries.
In the US, sexual harassment is only considered illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile work environment. Obviously we’re not a court of US law, but I think there is some wisdom in that. If there were just one minor incident, I might consider it tolerable, but signs are pointing to a more general pattern. Basically, if you’re looking at just one incident, it might not look that bad, but that’s because you’re considering it in isolation. I think the suspension is appropriate while the FTB ethics committee investigates whether there is indeed a pattern.
@Siggy
Good to keep in mind. I was speaking generally when using terminology more severe than sexual behavior earlier.
Carrier’s blog appears to have been completely deleted.
Nope. It’s still there, but it’s been removed from the list of blogs in the sidebar. He has asked to be removed and will be setting up a new blog somewhere else.
You can get to it directly at freethoughtblogs.com/carrier.
So he is not defending himself?
He will be making a case on his own, elsewhere.
He was not kicked out. He voluntarily asked to be removed. I’ve sent him a complete backup copy of his blog already, he can recreate it all at the wordpress installation of his choice.
I’m not in the know on what’s been said about Richard aside from what he’s posted.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I understand:
1) He seems to be overly sexual in his flirtations which made multiple women uncomfortable.
2) He seems to be hitting on women who don’t want to be hit on by someone who’s poly because they feel he’s only interested in sex. They see him asking for a date as him asking for sex.
3) He is overtly sexual in his conversation without seeming to notice the comfort level of the people around him, which made women uncomfortable.
4) He jumped to conclusions that women were interested in him, and took that as a sign it was okay for him to flirt or make sexual comments (e.g. “You have sexy legs”).
Did I miss anything?
Because what I don’t see is that he refused to take “no” for an answer or purposely ignored womens’ discomfort. I also don’t see accusations that he treated women in an abusive way, e.g. saying sexually derogatory things or breaching touch barriers without permission.
To put it succinctly, what I see him being accused of is inappropriate, overly-sexual flirtation, giving everyone the impression that he’s a womaniser only out for sex, thus making women feel uncomfortable at being approached by him out of fear they’d be subject to his overtly sexual flirting.
Is that right?
Thanks, PZ.
There must have been a transient glitch because I was getting “this site does not exist” messages for a while there.
On May 1, 2015 PZ posted “I’d Do Anything For Love (But I Won’t Do That)” wherein there was a discussion about Richard using Ftb to proposition women for a date. I thought he was pushing boundaries at that time. Indeed I had mentioned on his blog regarding the power differences between him as a teacher and his students. Back then I thought he was asking for trouble and perhaps those posts were warning signs of his current sexual misconduct. I’ll say it again. A blog dedicated to intellectual discussions about science, reason, religion, politics and social justice is not a dating venue. I’m curious as to why Ftb did not give Richard a warning back then?
Nope.
Reconcile the two sentences that appear to be odds with each other, and get back to us.
If he made women feel uncomfortable, and didn’t notice and say “I’m sorry” and stopped, there is a problem with his behavior. It doesn’t matter if it was totally verbal. Touching isn’t required for it to be harassment. Making women continually uncomfortable is sufficient. Which you would know if you ever had sexual harassment training, and remembered it.
Mostly. 1-4 are correct, and if that’s all it were, the situation might be salvageable.
Unfortunately, we do have women complaining that he persisted despite requests that he not; we also have him making grossly sexual comments to women without any kind of invitation. It really is an issue of failing to respect boundaries and thoughtlessly expecting that everyone shares his views of where the boundaries should be.
That’s the issue. We’ve got diverse sexual perspectives here, and I have no problem with that, despite the fact that I might find some things personally off-putting. It’s when we get reports that he’s being repeatedly oblivious to other people’s requests that we have a problem.
ragdish: here’s that post. As long as there was crystal-clear consent, I can’t object to whatever weird far out purpose people find for blogging.
The current issue arises because there was rejection, not consent. SSA is also dealing with the issue of the power differential between speakers and student, which also muddies consent.
LicoriceAllsort @78,
The honest answer? Sometimes, they wouldn’t know that any other way. They’d find your attitude maddeningly ambiguous. They’d end up having to go their whole lives without ever knowing whether you were sexually interested in them or not.
But so what? We all have to do that. I walk past attractive strangers twenty times a day and, gosh, I’d really love to know what they think of me. Even if we never actually did anything, it’d make my day just knowing the attraction was mutual. But I don’t know what they think of me, and I’m never going to know, because it’s not the right time or place and we don’t have the right relationship to ask. That’s not a tragedy, it’s just life.
For another example, when I was in grad school I wouldn’t have propositioned an undergrad in my department, even if they were near my own age and seemed interested. (I probably wouldn’t have accepted a proposition either.) Even if I’m not their TA, there’s too many potential ways I might end up influencing their future, and too many ways they might be pressured to say yes. It wouldn’t be illegal or against faculty code to ask them out, but it just wouldn’t be worth it ethically–or emotionally, for that matter.
I’d say the same thing applies if you’re a speaker of Carrier’s age and stature. You’re not breaking any laws by hitting on a starry-eyed 20-year-old attendee, but it’s just…not a good idea. Even if you really really really think they’re open to it!
Almost, but the objection is that he keeps making interactions that are supposed to be specifically non-sexual into sexual interactions because he can’t seem to understand that a women conversing with him is not an invitation to proposition her for sex. You cannot undo the creepy once the person you were talking to starts waving their penis around, it’s got nothing to do with fear of flirting.
I really don’t care how sex positive he is, I have always found his constant need to tell everyone about his awesomely open poly sex life disturbing, and advertising for partners on his blog to be uber-creepy
#102 that was a needlessly rude response. FYI: I personally think that if a woman is uncomfortable during an interaction, that’s plenty enough to declare it a problem – which you’d know if you’d bothered to engage with me instead of jumping to conclusions.
And as I did I say I was *asking a question* there was nothing there that indicated I was being combative.
That type of response is why I hate posting on blogs and rarely bother. Frankly, it’s not worth it when people automatically assume to worst and go on the attack automatically.
Thanks PZ and #106. I understand better now. Much appreciate your time.
sez blondeintokyo: “And as I did I say I was *asking a question* there was nothing there that indicated I was being combative.”
I’ll just leave this link here: <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions"Just Asking Questions
blondeintokyo
There’s also the matter of him hitting on people who have been declared explicitly off limits, like students when he was in the position of a SSA speaker, apparently thinking himself to be above such rules cause it would be horrible to deprive students of such an opportunity.
Fucking FINALLY.
And I got called a slut-shamer on FTB for saying his unprovoked oversharing was bad form!
I posted a question yesterday hoping to get a reply before he closed the comments;
“How many times did this happen and nobody complained? I accept we can’t verify your answer and so we are relying upon your honesty.
Did you ever kiss, caress, fondle, make out, sexually touch or have sex with someone at an SSA event when you were on the bureau or after?”
Everything so far has been about people complaining, which isn’t really the point. The rules apply even if no one complains.
marinerachel #110
When was that?
Caine @ #66:
I am an expert at missing cues, so I tend not to be very social offline, and when I am, I find it easier to maintain a distance.
—————————————————————-
Greta Christina @ #80
Thank you. Quoted for truth.
The whisper network (I am also not a part of it for obvious reasons [cishet white dude]) is not a great solution, but it’s a solution nonetheless.
—————————————————————-
Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- @ #89
It’s funny… I absolutely believed it when I first read it. I’m pretty sure I didn’t comment, but I thought “good for him”.
Now? In hindsight?
Ugh…
—————————————————————-
marinerachel @ #110:
The actual fuck? And they were allowed to get away with that?
His oversharing made me uncomfortable, too. I wish I had actually said something then, to be honest, but I was a coward, and failed.
Sorry you got that response.
Am I missing something? I swear I posted a comment here a few hours ago…
@Nathan, 113
Some comments get eaten by moderation – could be yours triggered a filter or something.
Noooo. I actually like Richard Carrier. I really hope this isn’t as bad as it seems to be :(.
Ah, there it is. Though it would appear I have a very short, and apparently deceiving, memory:
In fact, I did post on PZ’s write up about it, stating my discomfort but also my being fine with it.
In hindsight, I wish I hadn’t been fine with it… *sigh*
Nathan @113, Yep.
And I got repeatedly slapped down as an unreasonable prude when I expressed my feeling it was tacky of him to use his blog as a hook-up app, even telling a trans woman potential applicant he was really into vaginal penetration so maybe not to apply… At the end of the day those are my feelings and I own them and accept that FTB has no rules against using one’s blog for….. dating purposes so, if that’s what Carrier wanted to do, whatever as long as he wasn’t violating anyone’s consent (which he was but I recognise that was difficult to know for lots of people.) I still think it was tacky and don’t understand why FTB doesn’t just say, “Yeah, just don’t.”
I’m fucking glad this pattern of behaviour of his, using his open relationship as a license to skeeze and dismiss anyone creeped out by his persistent boundary pushing as sex-negative, has been addressed. Wish it hadn’t taken so long!
I think the advertising for sex partners was the only time I ever clicked over to his blog. I found it skeevy and crass, but I didn’t say anything because it seemed honest, even if not something I would be interested in.
I generally have low opinions of philosophers, and anyone who describes themselves as a ‘renowned author’, so the part where he constantly skeeves on woman regardless of the social situation is consistent with being a self-absorbed wanker..
marinerachel #118
Which blog was that on? I thought I followed the whole thing but apparently I missed a few things.
marinerachel @ #118
You obviously already saw what many of us missed. Maybe something to discuss further…
Carrier was someone I appreciated because I’m also skeptical of Jesus’s existence, and his work on that was my go-to source for arguments supporting my skepticism in the rare cases I got into that debate.
I really have to learn to just follow the “no heroes” rule. To be fair, being burned by NdGT (mainly for going to fucking Michael Shermer for an interview about “science and morality” on StarTalk, but also because of that rape accusation just… sitting there) hit harder than this, but still…
http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/05/01/id-do-anything-for-love-but-i-wont-do-that/
^ There I am being unreasonable, reading too much into things.
My heart’s not broken because I was never interested in anything Carrier does nor found him likable. I never had any investment in him or his blog. I get that that wasn’t the case for a lot of people and why they defended him when he behaved crassly. I’m disappointed it took this long to address Carrier’s skeeviness and that anyone previously made to feel uncomfortable by him was told they were being silly and sex-negative. I’m just glad it’s being recognised now.
You’re right, Tethys: it did seem honest enough, advertising for a date on his blog, but that didn’t make it any less tacky. Having those feelings dismissed as unreasonable, particularly in light of this dude persistently making a lot of people uncomfortable with his oversharing, wasn’t fair.
It is what it is. It seems to be over now. I think that’s terrific.
I’m very much with marinerachel@1232 – I knew nothing about Carrier’s boundary-breaking, but disliked him and his blog for other reasons. Using his blog as a dating app was just tacky; the first thread I visited there was an unhinged anti-vegetarian rant; and I consider his “Bayesian” mythicist arguments ridiculous, as apparently do the vast majority of relevant experts who are aware of them (Biblical scholars including atheists and agnostics, historians, mathematicians interested in Bayesian statistics). Until fairly recently, he was also convinced he could correct physicists’ views on relativity. All seems to be consistent with a severely swollen ego – I’d estimate at least 20 centitrumps.
Nick Gotts @124:
From my brief exchange with him about his truly horrible misuse of physics, he seemed impervious to correction. It was all about what I didn’t understand, you see, without any explication of what that might be. Very Chopraesque.
But let me be clear on one thing: we didn’t suspend his posting privileges because he was crass or we disliked him or were uncomfortable with advertising for hookups. What happened was that we got credible accounts of persistent sexual come-ons. If it’s on his blog, all you have to do is not read it. If it’s at a conference you’re attending and he approaches you with it, well, that’s something we have to investigate.
@PZ (126): I think you might want to re-phrase this a little:
One way of reading what you wrote is that behavior that would be unacceptable at a conference is acceptable at FTB as readers have the option to “not read it”.
A couple of points:
1: Obvious tautology beckons: readers can’t know they don’t want to have read something until they have read it.
2: I know context matters, but are you really ok with the implication that behavior that is unacceptable at a conference is acceptable by virtue of it being on a blog at FTB?
We allow a lot of independence here. Our ethics committee is working to formulate some general guidelines for appropriate behavior that will be applied in the future. But they will not be along the lines of feeling “eww, ick” is a good reason to restrict posting.
And again, what caused eyebrows to be raised about Carrier’s conference behavior was not that he was openly interested in sex, it was that he didn’t appreciate boundaries. If he were violating boundaries on his blog, that also would not be tolerated…but it’s a little harder to do that in something that has been assigned to be your personal space. Greta Christina would write about kink and behaviors that she would not practice publicly on unsuspecting people at a conference, for instance, and was always very explicit about respecting boundaries; is there a different expectation for behavior in your bedroom and at the mall? Yes.
@127 Sunday Afternoon
Being tacky and crass on the internet is generally not the same as violating boundaries and consent.
If someone is sharing their opinions, experiences, or desires on their own blog, there’s a degree to which that’s what blogs are for. There are certainly uses of the blog format that would violate the principles of this network, as Phil Mason demonstrated, but while many folks found it to be distasteful, posting what amounted to a dating ad was not, in itself, a violation.
The in-person equivalent would be either asking for hookups from a speaker’s podium, or just telling every attractive person you run into at a conference that you’re up for it if they are. That’s very, very different. In the former case, there’s much more of a power dynamic, not to mention a captive audience that came to hear a talk on a pre-announced subject, and in the latter case, it’s going around and actively propositioning people without regard for what they’re doing or what they want.
Context matters, and in this case it makes the difference. I think you know that, and I don’t think your last question to PZ was particularly serious.
I think we’re all aware advertising for hook-ups via his blog isn’t what Carrier caught shit for. Many of us have even said it wasn’t dishonest or boundary-violating, just skeezy and something we didn’t want to see. It’s absolutely true that we are able to avoid that by not visiting his blog, and so individuals such as myself do not.
His explicit oversharing of the deets of his sex life is definitely something that can’t be avoided by just not visiting his blog though because he does it elsewhere! Bad form.
@PZ (128): Thanks for the clarification – I was missing the important distinction about who defines the boundaries on the separate blogs.
@Abe Drayton (129):
I refer you to my answer to PZ.
Righto