The FtB Ethics Committee has released an official statement on the departure of Richard Carrier from our network.
Freethought Blogs unequivocally condemns any behavior that threatens the safety of atheist community members, including particularly marginalized groups. Freethought Blogs also recognizes the role of sexual harassment as one of numerous barriers for women that limits access to and participation within atheist conferences and spaces.
When the recent allegations against Richard Carrier were made public, Freethought Blogs initiated a process to investigate these claims and formalize its policy concerning the conduct of its members. The FtB Ethics Committee received several reports of Carrier’s behavior and was in the process of reviewing them when Carrier chose to leave the network. A thorough review of the allegations against Carrier cannot be completed by Freethought Blogs without his cooperation.
As part of our commitment to equitable access to freethinking spaces for all, Freethought Blogs members who violate our commitment to social justice by creating or maintaining barriers to participation will be removed from the network as a matter of policy. All reports submitted to us in furtherance of this policy will be kept in the strictest of confidence, unless the accusation was made publicly or in the event we have express permission to reproduce the complaint.
-The FtB Ethics Committee
The Ethics Committee consists of 5 volunteers from our network. I am not one of them, and in fact insisted that this committee be completely independent.
I completely support this statement, however.
Now comes the real test: does Richard Carrier begin pursuing a change in life to become a better person now that he has suffered consequences of his negative behavior, or does he double down and basically convert from fulltime atheist blogger to fulltime MRA like Thunderf00t?
I for one hope for the former, and wish him well in that endeavor.
Really well put.
#2: Or does he threaten to sue FtB, Skepticon, and The Orbit?
I’d make a bet with you, but that would be unethical, since I have inside information.
@#2 If you’ve ever read his blog, or his comments on this in particular, you know the answer to that. You’re being deliberately disingenuous. A polyamorous person asking someone out when they shouldn’t (that is, in a power position in a professional capacity) does not make them a right wing penis-first bigot.
Thunderfart was an MRA before he got here who had never written anything about social justice, unlike Carrier.
Well said and done. I expect a certain amount of smug braying from the slymepitters. But they’re going to do that anyway. I just hope Carrier doesn’t decide to “pull a mason” – he’s rather badly damaged a career and reputation he worked hard to build.
I hope that, despite Carrier’s departure, the FEC completes its code of conduct, as this problem is not going away.
It would be great if said policy were made publicly available, but more important is that FtB HAVE ONE in the not too distant future. Before the whining erupts that behaviors that don’t occur here shouldn’t affect one’s status here, I’ll end it by stating if someone breaks the law somewhere else, say by assaulting someone, that demonstrates their (lack of) character, poor judgement AND will have an effect on those they interact with elsewhere.
taraskan, I’m sure that’s one incident. The comments on this, cryptic as they may be, make it clear there have been more than one.
I’m not the least bit disingenuous. I honestly hope whatever poor judgment or behavior he demonstrated will ultimately be a learning experience for him, and that he’ll come out the other side of this a better person who doesn’t let this hold him back as he grows into a better ally of social justice.
It’s all about where he ultimately places blame for these incidents: on himself, or on everyone around him. I am neither a mind reader nor can I see the future, so I cannot say what he currently accept, or the changes he will embrace as those work forward.
They’re working on general policies, and the committee was formed before this problem arose — Carrier was actually a distraction from that — so it’s in the works.
@karpad, 2
As a BBC presenter whose guest has just mentioned Tesco might say; other options are available. He could easily stay the course and keep on acting the way he has while saying the things he’s been saying.
That said, while I’m not particularly invested in Carrier myself – I never read his blog, personally – I’m hoping for option A. It’s better for those around him, and also always better for any person to take the opportunity to become a better person.
I have to say, I’m pretty impressed with what I’ve seen of how this has been handled. It’s a refreshing change from the shuffle and ignore strategies employed by so many other groups.
Usernames @ 7:
We are. That was actually started prior to the Carrier blowup, and will continue.
For fuck’s sake!
If his personal judgement is this bad, then how much of it has spilled over into his work?
And why is this what worries me, when women have been hurt?
#5
In his comments toward critics in his various discussions, I have long noted a condescending streak, intellectual snobbery, dismissiveness and insults to those that fail to be swayed by his arguments. Especially when the disagreement had anything to do with his polyamory.
So I wish I could be as confident as you regarding his future behaviour, but I have never been impressed with it.
Professor Myers @4,
>#2: Or does he threaten to sue FtB, Skepticon, and The Orbit?
I can’t afford much but I’ll donate to the defense fund(s) if Richard goes down that road. I’m sure many others will as well.
IIRC, Rebecca Watson may also have funds left over from her own defense fund against Ben Radford that are being held in reserve for just such an occasion. Presumably she would be happy to pay it forward if it comes to that.
One hopes Richard would not be so stupid as that but desperation leads to desperate measures. If that’s the path he takes I hope he’s prepared for the splash back though.
n his comments toward critics in his various discussions, I have long noted a condescending streak, intellectual snobbery, dismissiveness and insults to those that fail to be swayed by his arguments.
Condescension and crankery.
I really don’t see a lawsuit as a possibility, he strikes me as being nowhere near vindictive enough for that.
What would he possibly sue for?
Richard Carrier seemed to be responding in a way… that says: I did this shitty thing. I thought I learned from it and now I’m being taken to task by someone I didn’t do that shitty thing to…. enter in-depth discussion.
But yeah, no, don’t see no lawsuits or anything of that type.
This makes me think of the recent case involving Dan Linford, who seemed to have been using feminism as a cover for predatory behavior. With Carrier, it’s unclear whether he was using feminism to deflect attention or if he just had some big blind spots. I very sincerely hope it’s the latter and, with time under the radar, he can come to fix those. Linford, too. For no other reason than it would be nice to be able to have some basic trust in feminist men who talk the talk, since they are relatively few and far between.
It’s unfortunate that the ethics committee was unable to complete their investigation so we could benefit from their report.
Precisely. Giving him a platform wasn’t particularly helpful. In my opinion, his leaving is all for the better.
Defamation, probably. He’ll probably say that the allegations are false and has hurt his reputation and business prospects.
Can I just leave this here:
Everyone fucks up once in a while.
Let us aknowledge those who try to learn vs those who dig deep holes. I’ve been in both positions and hope to gravitate towards the first. It’d behove Carrier to just say: “Oh I must’ve fucked up.” instead of going into details about how his accuser changed her story because he can’t remember doing certain things. Yeah perhaps he didn’t do them, but yeah he fucked up.
So yeah, we all have a couple of pennies in the pot, and we all let people know it. This is about as proper/transparent/open/apologetic as it gets.
Carrier has used his platform well over the years. You’re basically saying that platforms should only be given to people who have decades and decades of history of never doing anything shitty. How platform providers are supposed to vet this, and how that’s supposed to be realistic you don’t say. Sensible policy is that people who want to promote progressive ideas are welcome, people who behave horribly are not. One turned into the other, but your approach would mean no network could ever vet anybody. For fuck’s sake, even ThunderMouth got a platform here. And when he abused it he was kicked out. That resolution was correct, no one expected him to act as he did when he came here (I admit I was a sub at the time and was enthused about TF supporting feminism/freethought, even though looking back we could’ve all seen it coming.) Looking back at RC and (for instance) his aggressive/active views on polyamory I could have also predicted he would overstep boundaries. But I didn’t because we can’t see the future of every person, their motivations and their perspective clearly.
PZ may not be able to share his inside knowledge, but Carrier has publicly posted his intent.
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2016/06/on-recent-defamation-of-my-character_23.html
It seems like he may be doing the opposite of deeply reflection on the mistakes he’s made.
PZ may not be able to share his inside knowledge, but Carrier has publicly posted his intent.
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2016/06/on-recent-defamation-of-my-character_23.html
It seems like he may be doing the opposite of deeply reflecting on the mistakes he’s made.
Sorry for the double post. I thought I hit stop in time to fix a typo. My bad.
Exactly how many “once in a while”s need to occur before it’s a pattern of behaviour?
Well that’s pretty unambiguous. Though as far as FTB goes, I thought at first he was just going to say he left FTB so they would get tangled up in (or in the way of) his suits, but this:
What “defamatory statements” have been published on FTB to date? All I have seen aside from his original “she’s a liar” post are posts that state 1) accusations have been made and 2) investigations are being had. Both of those are factual non-defamatory statements. Did I miss something?
=8)-DX:
Sure, everyone fucks up. Yes, Carrier has been caught out before, apologized, and made noises about such not happening again.
The problem is that Carrier continues to do such things, regardless of issuing a few mea culpas when caught. That’s more than fucking up once in a while. Even more so, because it’s behaviour which shows a blatant disregard for other people, along with the rules set up at specific venues.
themadtapper @ 28:
No, you didn’t. There was no defamation, however, that will not stop Carrier from claiming it.
I’m glad he’s gone. I tried reading his posts for a time, but I got tired of his arrogance. He reminds me of Trump in his unfounded self-esteem.
Yes people do have blind spots. I am concerned about this “scorched earth” policy when someone screws up. Now add the Dr. Carrier to the long list of the “dead to me” people.
I know the court of public opionon is not subject to the rules of real courts but I still support due process and “punishments” that fit the crime.
I also think his involvement in polyamory might be clouding the issue.
The thing I can’t understand is everyone seems so aware of this issue yet MANY people missed Dr. Carrier – according to all the stories coming public now. Fancy that.
When are people going to stop having a blind spot like this?
I know, let’s put all males on trial and ask them flat out then we will know for sure, right?
cadfile. Congratulations on your word salad. I’m absolutely 100% uncertain of what you’re trying to say. Though your hyperbole in your last sentence is beyond asinine.
There was no “scorched earth”. We had reports of unacceptable behavior, and we had just begun an investigation, as part of that whole “due process” thing. We have other bloggers here who are polyamorous, and that is most certainly not an objection.
What you seem to have missed is that before the process could run its course, Carrier announced his departure. We didn’t kick him out; we didn’t even discuss kicking him out. We were at the stage where we were asking, “are these accounts true?”, when he left.
It’s the standard “default position should be to believe the accused” line. You see, “good” skeptics don’t take any claim at face value, so when multiple women accuse a man of something, it’s intellectually incorrect to trust the women. You should trust the man, and if you don’t you’re “putting them on trial” and “punishing them without due process”. We feeble-minded feminists have “blind spots” when it comes to victims, which impairs our ability to calmly and rationally analyze the situation.
Aaaaah. Thank you themadtapper.
Hrm. What’s interesting about his new post on his old blog is this bit:
If the parties are cooperating, then of course they’re equipped: “investigating” is basically about hearing both sides tell their story, asking questions, looking at corroborating material, and talking to witnesses. It doesn’t require a CSI lab, a grand jury, search warrants, or subpoena power.
If both parties are cooperating. The real import of his statement is that he has/had no intention of cooperating. In which case you DO start to heed warrants and subpoenas and such, and they AREN’T equipped. But he expresses his non-cooperation as if it’s somehow a deficiency of FTB.
This seems like a set up for the bog standard “Bitchz be lyin'” defence. Yup, there’s no such thing as a lie detector or truth serum so you can’t know for sure if the accusers are telling the truth. But multiple consistent accounts from separate individuals is enough to pass a balance of probability likelihood. And balance of probability seems to me a fair bar for the not so dire punishment of revoking blogging privileges on a private site.
Anyway, I’m very impress with how this has been handled. Thank you FTB for walking the walk.
This seems like a set up for the bog standard “B’s be lyin'” defence. Yup, there’s no such thing as a lie detector or truth serum so you can’t know for sure if the accusers are telling the truth. But multiple consistent accounts from separate individuals is enough to pass a balance of probability likelihood. And balance of probability seems to me a fair bar for the not so dire punishment of revoking blogging privileges on a private site.
Anyway, I’m very impress with how this has been handled. Thank you FTB for walking the walk.
[edited to remove moderation tripping slur]
The thing is, we’re not investigating anything now. We’re done. The story is over. He’s left, and we have no further interest in getting to the heart of the matter…and his threats to sue tell us we’re not going to get any cooperation from him, so we’re even less equipped now.
He seems to believe that we wanted to hunt him down, and that now that he’s left, we’ll be tracking him down with an “investigation”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The people who are upset about this aren’t honestly interested in due process — rather, they want us to automatically reject all accusations against their heroes without investigation.
@PZ
Is this based on more insider info? I don’t see anything like that in his post.
@FossilFishy
You’ll notice he never once indicated disliking or fearing that “punishment”.
In fact, if you read, he says he agrees with the procedure of FTB to date (except for making some of the info public).
The problem is all the other consequences such accusations can have for him. You may have noticed the accusations are kind of serious, and people’s reaction to them is rather serious. Look around.
Good point. He’s preparing a defence for an attack that will never come. Mind you, if he’s going to sue then this is the prep for his attack.
I’ve been thinking about what I would do if I was falsely accused of something like this.* But even just a little reflection made me realise that it would never happen, not like this. Sure, I could see *one* person who had a grudge making something up to get back at me. But multiple people with consistent accounts? Improbable to the point where my worrying is ridiculous.
*Why yes, I am a worrier. Why do you ask?
Fair enough Brian. I’ve been only following this peripherally.
Sigh, another person too self important to know how to apologise for poor behaviour.
I’ve heard of Richard Carrier. I’ve even read some of his books and some of his articles, which seemed scholarly and worthwhile.
I don’t know anything about him other than his work.
From skimming this thread, it seems, That he doesn’t know The First Rule of Holes.
When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is…STOP DIGGING!!!. This is an obvious rule and very dumb to ignore.
The lawsuit thing is also rather stupid. It’s the Streisand Effect. Just digging his hole a lot deeper.
I’ve lost track of how many times people have threatened to sue me. I just laugh. Then often enough, they threaten to kill me instead. Bad move, death threats are felonies and two guys ended up in federal court for that.
The truth is an absolute defense. I’ve never been worried about appearing in court and it turns out, court is the last place these guys want to be.
FWIW, if and when FTB’s sets up a legal defense fund, I’m in for a few bucks. I don’t like bullies and I don’t like empty threats. I’ve contributed to these types of funds before and it’s been the best money I’ve ever spent.
I even got it all back once. SLAPP suits, loser pays court costs and the defendant’s lawyers. We won and I was reimbursed by the perp.
Yo, PZ Myers. I hope you read this thread this far.
The truth is an absolute defense.
SLAPP suits work great for the victims. Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation.
Don’t hesitate to set up a legal defense fund.
And don’t worry about going to court. Truth is an absolute defense and defamation is hard to prove.
@themadtapper Please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not advocating the old butthead position that it all has to be in a court of law to be valid. I’m not stupid. My point was even in a court of public opion we should try to use the reasonable examples we have to process such issues like due process instead of going right for the pitch forks, tar and feathers.
Dr. Carrier didn’t have a known history of harassment like say Shermer does. In fact Carrier was a huge supporter of stopping people like Shermer from sliming the freethought community.
The blind spot I mentioned is the fact that I knew about Carrier’s problem before it recently was “discovered” concerning the SSA. Where were you and the rest of the mob when Dr. Carrier first talked about crossing the line on his blog – it was published on June 5th 2015. Where were you then themadtapper???
@PZ Yes I know there is no investigation now that Dr. Carrier has left the network. My comments were made of the general treatment of Dr. Carrier – the whole “no platform” form of punishment that is popular at the moment. It may not be the same thing as MRAs online harassment but it seems overdone.
Tfw people think no-platforming is a thing, as if you’re obligated to give a platform to every john, dick, or “boundary-overstepping skeezebag” that wants one.
Also, people have criticized Carrier’s behavior on here before, so, yeah.
I never accused you of saying “it all has to be in a court of law to be valid”. I accused you of saying we should take a court-like approach, a canard that gets trotted out literally every time anyone of prominence is accused of sexual misconduct. In fact:
You’re saying EXACTLY that. Thank you for clearing that up.
Actually, he very much has a known history harassment. He admitted to it and seemed to be remorseful of it, though it seems now that wasn’t as heartfelt as was claimed.
Carrier is not being accused of the same kind of behavior as Shermer. And it may surprise you to learn that people who do scummy things typically don’t think of themselves as scummy. I have no doubt Carrier did not think of himself as being remotely like Shermer, and may have been quite sincere in his opinions on Shermer.
Well for one thing, there is no “mob”. That’s another thing that gets trotted out every time there’s an accusation of sexual misconduct. “Oh, it’s a lynch mob! They’re tarring and feathering him!” As for where I was, I was busy getting settled into my new house, but I don’t see how that’s relevant to the discussion. Though I suspect you’re going with “You guys didn’t kick him out before, but now you’re kicking him out. Hypocrites!” Except of course 1) he’s not being “kicked out” or “no-platformed”, he left FTB of his own volition and 2) his post in 2015 was one of “I fucked up, here’s what I did, I’m sorry, and I’ll fix this” which is the kind of response you’d want to see from someone who’s done something wrong. The current situation is different than the previous one, so why should people react the same way?
He’s not being “no-platformed as punishment”. He’s been banned from Skepticon for the sake of female attendees, not as punishment. But nice of you to make this all about Carrier rather than the women involved. And he wasn’t “no-platformed as punishment” here either. He left on his own.
“I’m not saying it’s comparable to MRAs harassing people but…” Prefacing a comparison by declaring it not a comparison. You’re basically a walking cliche at this point.
I’m afraid the jury is still out on that one. We’ll just have to wait until due process runs it course before we make that determination.
Although if he tried to return, I’m certain the network would tell him where exactly he could put his platform.
Democratically, of course.
No, actually, he does not agree with the procedure. He specifically made a snide remark about how we were “unequipped”–Carrier’s claim that he agrees with the procedure is positively asinine. He believes no such thing, given how his actions were to: 1) Leave before we came to any conclusions; 2) Threaten to sue for libel, even though the “public info” was a very neutral statement of fact. We received complaints. We were looking into them. Those are both extremely easy to prove in court, with a keyboard command called Ctrl + P.
As raven said, Carrier is digging his own hole, both in actual court and the court of public opinion. If he supposes to affirm his innocence of wrongdoing, suing your employer for merely investigating the complaints is the wrong way to do it.
Yes, I have more information than you do. I was the contact person who got the personal accounts and relayed them to the Ethics Committee, so I’ve read everything. I’m also in contact with the people at the-orbit and skepticon who’ve been dealing with this. I’ve had a short phone conversation with Carrier in which he presented his ultimatums. And most damningly, we’ve seen his ‘defense’, which I sincerely hope he doesn’t use for his own sake, which consists almost entirely of extortionate threats to reveal secrets of the sex life of his accusers.
The hole he’s digging in public really is nothing compared to the mohole he’s excavating in private.
PZ:
I sincerely hope he doesn’t use that for everyone’s sake.
TIL what a mohole is.
Reveal secrets of the sex lives of his accusers?
What a fucking creep.
The Mohorovičić discontinuity is the boundary between the Earth’s crust and the mantle, about 35 kilometers down. Mohole is the name given to a project to drill all the way down to the discontinuity.
Jesus. Nothing says “I respect the boundaries of others.” quite like threatening to expose sexual practices without permission…
FossilFishy @59:
Gee. I could swear that I have heard something along these lines before. Hmmm.
Oh, right. The Radford gambit.
Dr. Carrier, admit you fucked up and do better in the future. Don’t go down that road. Please?
cadfile @48:
Where were we? Reading, watching, collecting information. Arguing with Carrier’s self-justifications, sometimes more publicly, sometimes less. Are you objecting that we weren’t blogging about it all then? If you are, go talk to the people who claim every objection to bad behavior short of rape is a witch-hunting overreaction.
Thing is, you have to choose. Are we going to be allowed to talk about low-level problems as they problems they are at that type without being pushed out of our own damned movement because we’re “destroying” the lives and reputations of oh so important men? Or are you going to get hit like this with the wall of information required to convince people this is a problem worth talking about? One or the other. Which is it?
If you want the first one, go deal with all the people who have been pushing for the second for the last five years. I’ve been working on that problem the entire time. Your turn.
Blergh, typos. I’m tired. Everyone who says we do this kind of thing for the hits has no idea how much writing time we lose to dealing with everything behind the scenes.
QFT.
@themadtapper Thanks for making it all about me. That’s one way of not having to be accountable
@#50 Themadtapper 24 June 2016 at 5:48 am
I think the jury just returned.
What exactly am I supposed to be accountable for at the moment?
So apparently to harass her further he is suing her or threatening to disclose her personal details? Or suing those people who had the courage to speak up in order to warn the community? This is a common slime tactic and an attempt to either embarrass her or force her to retract or both.
Litigation can become extremely expensive when faced with a litigious asshole paying tons of cash to shameless lawyers. So one has to have a deep pocket even to risk it. It’s a fundamental injustice in this country that people have to pay for their own legal representation in courts and if the precedent is set that harassers can intimidate their victims into shutting up by exploiting the injustice of our wealth-based justice system, well, I’ll let you do the math on that.
Too bad his entire case is “bitchez be ‘lyin, therefore I can’t have harassed her,” which is also a stock example of sexist victim blaming.
I think this is appalling and want to help her and those who are standing up for women in the community by trying to protect them from predators and harassers who see women as fucktoys rather than equals. I look forward to donating to her defense fund and I hope all of you will as well.
Richard Carrier’s actions cannot stand. Not on my watch.
So apparently to harass her further he is suing her or threatening to disclose her personal details? Or suing those people who had the courage to speak up in order to warn the community? This is a common slime tactic and an attempt to either embarrass her or force her to retract or both.
Litigation can become extremely expensive when faced with a litigious asshole paying tons of cash to shameless lawyers. So one has to have a deep pocket even to risk it. It’s a fundamental injustice in this country that people have to pay for their own legal representation in courts and if the precedent is set that harassers can intimidate their victims into shutting up by exploiting the injustice of our wealth-based justice system, well, I’ll let you do the math on that.
Too bad his entire case is “bitchez be ‘lyin, therefore I can’t have harassed her,” which is also a stock example of sexist victim blaming.
I think this is appalling and want to help her and those who are standing up for women in the community by trying to protect them from predators and harassers who see women as fucktoys rather than equals. I look forward to donating to her defense fund and I hope all of you will as well. Richard Carrier’s actions cannot stand. Not on my watch.
@Siobhan, 53
“Equipment” is not itself a procedure, so I don’t see any contradiction.
I don’t think that’s what he was going to sue for.
@PZ, 54
Well that doesn’t sound good.
Why the apologetics for Carrier, Brian Pansky?
The procedure is to investigate. Stating that they’re unequalled to investigate means that you don’t think they should be investigating–unless you think that telling someone they can’t do something is an endorsement of their attempting to do so?
And as I mentioned earlier, saying they’re unequipped is really saying you plan to be uncooperative. “Investigate” hear means listen to what the parties and witnesses have to say. The only way to be unequipped to do that is if they’re refusing to talk. The victims are willing to talk, so Carrier must be referring to himself. He’s unwilling to cooperate.
Which is consistent with the observation that instead of cooperating he withdrew from FTB, and began issuing threats.
Errors above due to autocorrection.
This crap bogs everything down.
The Ethics Committee was supposed to come up with some general rules and a statement we could make part of our mission. That was derailed by this mess.
We were supposed to be evaluating applications for new bloggers — that’s been held up for a week (I’m hoping to send out letters about that tomorrow).
And yes, there are always much more interesting things to write about. This was about as bad as the fish facility disaster that happened this week and flooded the bookstore and has me scrambling to move our fish lab to a new basement space. It’s stuff that needs to get done that gets in the way of the stuff we want to be doing.
Oh, and all that pales next to the real problem: you can imagine the stress the women involved in this episode are struggling with. One thing you learn when you get dragged into these kinds of things: the victims are not happy, angry people reporting these events for the lols, or for revenge: they’re hurting.
Holy fucking batshit.
Yeah, totally ethically.
Good grief. How stupid do you have to be to respond to complaints about your pattern of persistent boundary violating behavior by threatening to further violate their boundaries? Promising to abuse victims more for telling is a classic tactic of every abusive shitbag. Bravo, richard.
———-
Hey PZ, thanks for being you, and for standing up to this relentless shit torrent. There are truly good men, and you are one of them. My advice is to tell him that if he continues to threaten further abuse, or whinge on about defamation or his voluntary departure, you will start publishing his private threats with commentary. Outing people is a double edged sword, and I can’t imagine the poly community is particularly large, or at all accepting of untrustworthy members. Women aren’t the only group with whisper networks.
No. I’ve yelled and hollered that backchannel conversations are totally private and not to be breached in public. That’s not going to change, ever.
His accusations are intended to punish the women who’ve been accusing him of misbehavior. For me to release them would be to do his dirty work for him.
Tethys:
Oh, fuck no. No, not ever. I was against publishing Carrier’s statement here, because I felt it would force us to be complicit in harming the victims. To do such a thing would absolutely be harming the victims, and I want no part of that, now, or ever.
I don’t mean publish anything about the victims. I mean publish his threats, with any references to people or events other than him redacted. The only way to stop abusers is to shine bright lights on their abuse.
Brian Pansky, #67
By implication then, you have some idea of what he was going to sue for.
As for him disagreeing with making information public, what specific information was made public by FtB? And what right does he have for that information to remain private?
He wants to sue for defamation, for knowingly issuing false statements about his behavior. That’s going to be difficult, since all we said is that we had reports of aggressive sexual behavior, which is true, and that we were investigating further. Skepticon said more and took direct action, but they have multiple witnesses to what they’re saying happened. Even if he somehow discredits those accusers by dumping their sexual histories into the record, it doesn’t change the truth of what we said, or that Skepticon had legitimate concerns that they had to act upon, and it also effectively confirms what all the accusers said.
PZ
Do you not make a specific exception for threats right in the sidebar? I absolutely agree that any communications between him and the ethics board/SSA/victims should remain completely private, but if he is now no longer affiliated with FTB, and threatening to slut-shame his victims into silence for the problem he created, he is not entitled to privacy or your discretion about that particular fact.
Yeah, but I’m not going to air the details of threats against others, when his threat is to release those same details. That makes no sense.
Hypothetically, if someone were to make death threats on the back channel, there’d be a motion to kick them out, but the most we’d say is that they made death threats, not “they said they’d go to PZ’s house at XXXXX and saw off his head because he was so danged pretty.”
I’ll add that I’m not in the least bit interested in unleashing a storm of vengeance on Carrier’s head, or anything like that. I want him to stop crossing boundaries, I want him to have a full understanding of what constitutes harassment, and that it’s not just a matter of his POV mattering.
I would not consider doing one single thing that would help Carrier harm victims even more. As always with these situations, the more people who are aware, the better. In the Affinity thread, I posted this link to a post by Greta Christina, and she’s absolutely right about it all.
The whisper network sucks. The missing stair sucks. It sucks a lot, but there are so many constraints, and above all, confidentiality must be preserved. How could anyone ever trust us if we played fast and loose with it?
My only interaction with Richard Carrier was in the comments of his blog. He’d posted about something that someone claimed to have discovered about ancient engineering, and he was not at all skeptical of their claim. I commented my disagreement, with reasons. He was dismissive, politely enough, but it felt like he never did consider what I said as worth considering. He’d decided, and that was that.
The topic kept my interest, partly thanks to Carrier’s attitude, and I have strong evidence that the original claimant was wrong, and Carrier was wrong to follow along. I will get more work done on that some day, I hope.
I’m saying that Carrier is not a good skeptic or scholar, in my estimation and limited experience. He’s better than average, sure, but not as good as he thinks he is. I’m not surprised to read that he’s been doing the big-ego spiral of shame. Which is a shame.
I am not suggesting publishing any details. Just the one fact that he is making threats to slut shame his victims, which I have clarified twice. If he is still actively abusing his victims with threats to out them and air their very personal business, that should not be kept private. They are still being sexually harassed, and there has to be some way to make him stop without abandoning any ethical principals.
Perhaps it is enough to just discuss it here. Maybe he will read this exchange and remember that he is sex-positive and doesn’t slut shame people, or abuse their trust, or violate their privacy.
@ Caine #81, QFT.
He wants to sue for defamation, for knowingly issuing false statements about his behavior. That’s going to be difficult, since all we said is that we had reports of aggressive sexual behavior, which is true, and that we were investigating further.
He posted a really stilted bit of internet legalese on his blog, which indicates that he thinks he’s very wronged yadda yadda. It also indicates that he hasn’t got a clue how defamation lawsuits work in the real world. In his posting, for example, he talks about publishing more about the truth, which pretty much guarantees that he hasn’t talked to a lawyer at all because a lawyer would have immediately told him to stuff a sock in his mouth. He’s also making some really ill-advised (in legal terms) comments over on another blog. He’s down in the slyme wrestling with slymepitters – which is never a good position to be in if you want to come out anything but slyme-covered.
It doesn’t seem to me that he’s going “full tf00t” but he’s going definitely brought up the fail-backhoe and is enthusiastically enlarging his current hole. If he’s a sore loser about this (and he’ll lose. If he talks to any competent attorney who tells him the truth, he’ll learn that) I hope he has the sense to go off somewhere and reinvent himself, and not continue shooting himself in the foot.
Can someone PLEASE explain why the haemorrhaging fuck this kind of behavior is so common among the men of this community?! That being the sceptic/atheist group, I mean. This is getting to the point where I’m beginning to distrust the entire lot…
@Marissa van Eck, sadly its pretty much the norm in any place where you have authority figures with women as their subordinates and that is not an attempt to excuse it. But it’s just perhaps more visible in our community now because the side opposed to that kind of behaviour is more willing to call it out and try to deal with it when reported or seen. While in other places, not so much, just look at what has been happening in academia or the US military. Two examples where policies put in place and meant to properly deal with it are instead often subsumed into an easy means to silence the victim so as to better protect the reputation of the organisation. Thankfully, those of us on our side of the problem aren’t much worried about the ‘community’s’ reputation, only about the victim. So you then get a feedback loop leading to more reporting as women start thinking they will be believed and hence even more visibility, even if sometimes the victim/s only initially known to a few trusted people in fear of backlash from scummy MRAs and the like when their fallen heroes are found out for what they are. Though that latter point tends to happen more when the person guilty of such behaviour is an atheist celebrity or leader. If someone further down the tree is the bad apple, unless it can be used as a weapon to attack the SJW side, as has already been seen on the posts about this, it will often be ignored by the MRAs. Unless of course the victim is someone on the SJW side and already loathed by MRAs sticks her head above the parapet, say someone with the visibility in our community of a Rebecca Watson or similar. In which case, that alone would be enough reason for them to go into all out misogynistic attack mode, irrespective of the visibility of the man involved. Depressing isn’t it. But at least the mire we shine light on such behaviour, the better in the long run, at least IMO, or is that just wishful thinking on my part.
Sorry for the wall of text, don’t know what happened there but it somehow my paragraphs got squashed into one.
I attended several of his talks, and I talked with him over dinner and thereafter, and bought his drinks. He was one of the people in the movement with my most respect. No longer. Damn. I should have seen this coming, ever since he wrote that cheating in a committed monogamous relationship is not that big of a deal / not a bad thing, and ever since he himself cheated. Being openly poly is one thing. Cheating is another.
But really – threatening to go public with the details of other people’s sexual kinks as some sort of retaliation or something? (Purportedly.) WTF Richard? I’m completely surprised. “First rule of digging holes” indeed.
Also, what kind of person is going to sue for defamation their former friends (presumably former friends) over this before trying to just talk it out and convince them in direct conversation? Apparently, Carrier just left rather than try to clear his name to his friends, and is now seemingly threatening to sue his former friends, or something. This is so fucked up (on Carrier’s part, seemingly).
Carrier left, but before he did his blog here was already suspended. Given the circumstances it was clear he was going to get booted off FTB anyway. Trial by internet may be harsh, but fair enough in this case.
For those keeping score.
Popularizer of social-justice atheism can’t believe he’s accused of sexually harassing students
Wow. If he keeps on digging, and a lawyer won’t talk sense into him, his future is going to look dim. The SJ community has had to boot him, the ‘pitters and MRAs don’t like him either, he doesn’t have tenure, is widely perceived as a maverick and his reputation is not exactly golden in many ways. He really needs to come to his senses, for his own good. You’d think he’s smarter than the behaviour he’s showing, not least in light of his past zeal pro SJ activism. He’s still got the chance to cut his losses if he pulls himself together, but I’m pessimistic.
I confess: Ever since I discovered FTB in 2012, I used to be a fan of his stuff. I haven’t bought any of his books or anything, but I learnt a lot of interesting things from him and never disagreed with him about anything major, so I’m appalled by the revelations in this thread. In hindsight, I was probably all too ready to excuse his faults and overlooked the signs that things were heading in this direction. In particular, I (dis-)missed his rape apology back when the Shermer affair took place:
http://www.anamardoll.com/2013/08/feminism-mansplaining-for-my-lady-brain.html
So, I feel like a blinkered idiot for not seeing this coming. Turns out that many people who didn’t like him had good reasons for it.
@85 Menyambal: I had a hunch that you might be referring to the Roman dodecahedra, and turns out I guessed right.
@96 Florian Blaschke
That was a disturbing incident, as he used great (in places arguably erotic) detail to describe a real person’s real experience, all so that he could victim-blame and use his great big manly philosopher brain to explain how it wasn’t rape at all. Nothing on this network has ever triggered me as badly or deeply as that blog post of Carrier’s did. That’s including trolls who were actively trying to trigger survivors.
The fact that he was associated with FTB for as long as he was made me a little uncomfortable with the network, TBH. I’m sorry for those he has harmed, and relieved he left.