And yet it still hasn't been a death blow to their lives or careers has it? Unless all of those people are societal pariahs now and can't hold down a job because of that spectre.
You do realize the mental anguish years of sustained criminal harassment does to a person? We aren't talking about simple "you suck" or "kill yourself" messages here, we're talking the type of threats that get the police involved because there is an actual risk to the lives of those involved. Tell me you could go through something like that for the better part of a decade and come out the better for it.
An aside, but your claim that rape 'is an epidemic that doesn't exist' is unsubstantiated. More accurately, false accusations are the epidemic that doesn't exist. And there are plenty of actual rapists that get the support of the community behind them, or have we all forgotten Steubenville?
Rape outside of Sweden in the west is at an all time low, that isn't an assertion it's a factual statement. As it stands the rate of false accusation is in the ballpark of 20-40% of cases (though admittedly when a female officer is the one handling a case it seems to drop dramatically to 2%) If 1 or 2 in 5 accusations being false isn't a problem in your mind, I'd like to know where the line of it starting to be a problem is.
As for Steubenville, that is one example, a lone case that would be at best disingenuous to pretend in the norm in a culture which is so revolted by rape many are willing to advocate removing fundamental rights to combat it. For every Steubenville there are fifty Duke Lacrosse's. People will mobilize in large numbers at only an accusation, as both that and the Rolling Stones scandal showed. The only people who are likely to get away with rape in our culture is a woman, though admittedly not by that much and it's molestation that has the real prosecution divide.
We as a society hate rape, to say that we are otherwise is to deny reality and to pretend that exceptions and outliers are the norm.
Qualify what this danger is please. Because in the context of this discussion, where we're talking about sexual predation, that doesn't sound accurate at all.
If I where to say you attacked me, to warn society that you are a menace and a danger to all, that parents should not let their children near you, that no one should consider getting into an intimate relationship with you because you will be a threat to them, and to have the state allow such slander, how would you react?
Is it really important how I would react here, if I was having the accusations lobbed against me? That's not really what this thread is about. That said, if people are accusing someone of something, there are a few possibilities. Either the accused did what they said, there is a misunderstanding (like a case of mistaken identity), or they're maliciously lying. I listed those in what I think is likely the order of statistical probability.
Qualify what this danger is please. Because in the context of this discussion, where we're talking about sexual predation, that doesn't sound accurate at all.
I stated danger clearly. I was using the fact men are in greater danger in general (much more likely to be assaulted, much more likely to be murdered, comparable likelihood of being domestically abused) to make a point about how people respond to it.
If I where to say you attacked me, to warn society that you are a menace and a danger to all, that parents should not let their children near you, that no one should consider getting into an intimate relationship with you because you will be a threat to them, and to have the state allow such slander, how would you react?
Is it really important how I would react here, if I was having the accusations lobbed against me? That's not really what this thread is about. That said, if people are accusing someone of something, there are a few possibilities. Either the accused did what they said, there is a misunderstanding (like a case of mistaken identity), or they're maliciously lying. I listed those in what I think is likely the order of statistical probability.
Actually the misunderstanding/mistaken identity is the least likely of the three, and I have to ask, are you implying that because some cases are accurate accusations we should treat them all as such uncritically?
You do realize the mental anguish years of sustained criminal harassment does to a person? We aren't talking about simple "you suck" or "kill yourself" messages here, we're talking the type of threats that get the police involved because there is an actual risk to the lives of those involved. Tell me you could go through something like that for the better part of a decade and come out the better for it.
I'm not going to diminish any suffering someone goes through for this kind of ordeal, but your claim is unsubstantiated that 'it was a deathblow to their lives and career'.
s it stands the rate of false accusation is in the ballpark of 20-40% of cases (though admittedly when a female officer is the one handling a case it seems to drop dramatically to 2%) If 1 or 2 in 5 accusations being false isn't a problem in your mind, I'd like to know where the line of it starting to be a problem is.
Source? I'm you're about to cite Kanin, you can just stop there. That study is so flawed it's not even funny. There are plenty of reasons women might withdraw accusations about being raped, none of which have to do with no rape actually having occurred.
I'm not going to diminish any suffering someone goes through for this kind of ordeal, but your claim is unsubstantiated that 'it was a deathblow to their lives and career'.
That type of action can definitely ruin someone's life, and people have not only been fired but blacklisted for less. It's closer to being a correct statement then it is being an incorrect one.
s it stands the rate of false accusation is in the ballpark of 20-40% of cases (though admittedly when a female officer is the one handling a case it seems to drop dramatically to 2%) If 1 or 2 in 5 accusations being false isn't a problem in your mind, I'd like to know where the line of it starting to be a problem is.
Source? I'm you're about to cite Kanin, you can just stop there. That study is so flawed it's not even funny. There are plenty of reasons women might withdraw accusations about being raped, none of which have to do with no rape actually having occurred.
Given how it's literally the only study on the matter to go on, I'm afraid not. If its problems are enough to make it void why are the 1 in 5 statistic and the wage gap still stated as factually accurate when both stem from even worst studies?
I stated danger clearly. I was using the fact men are in greater danger in general (much more likely to be assaulted, much more likely to be murdered, comparable likelihood of being domestically abused) to make a point about how people respond to it.
Actually the misunderstanding/mistaken identity is the least likely of the three, and I have to ask, are you implying that because some cases are accurate accusations we should treat them all as such uncritically?
Looking further into these kinds of allegations before putting it out there for all to see does sound like the best starting point, though tbh I'm not sure how I would have done that if I were in such a situation.
Law enforcement, and the justice system at large should always do due diligence, to both the accused and the victim. But insofar as this specific scenario which I have posed, I think my responses are not 'accepting things uncritically'. Now, I'll get back to this later, I'm getting off of work.
How is it not? The supposed danger women face was used as justification for allowing the open association of anyone without repercussion without the need of evidence for a crime which isn't nearly as widespread as people think it is by a group which is of the half of the population that's actually safer then the other half. My point was if men acted the way some are proposing women should act in the same situation we'd have a witch hunt on our hands.
Given how it's literally the only study on the matter to go on, I'm afraid not. If its problems are enough to make it void why are the 1 in 5 statistic and the wage gap still stated as factually accurate when both stem from even worst studies?
Given how there are no other studies on the matter, it's the only thing we have to go on in that regard. Why no hard studies have been done into the matter is beyond me, but then again the US government wasted 3 million dollars studying why lesbians have a higher rate of obesity then the norm and why gay men have lower rates then the norm, so some of the people approving which studies get approved don't seem to have the same thought proses most of us use.
I'd also like to point out the worst studies I mentioned have been quoted by people at the highest levels of government as factual by many who do know better, including the president of the United States, so they're bad studies which are having real world consequences, but that's another topic for another thread.
Given how it's literally the only study on the matter to go on, I'm afraid not. If its problems are enough to make it void why are the 1 in 5 statistic and the wage gap still stated as factually accurate when both stem from even worst studies?
Sooo, studies on wage gap are worse than studies of reporting rape, thus studies reporting on rape are good.
Is that really how it works? Can we really determine the quality of studies based on comparison? If so there are some stupid papers I want to cite and argue that they are good based on the fact that they are better than what Andrew Wakefield published.
Given how it's literally the only study on the matter to go on, I'm afraid not. If its problems are enough to make it void why are the 1 in 5 statistic and the wage gap still stated as factually accurate when both stem from even worst studies?
Sooo, studies on wage gap are worse than studies of reporting rape, thus studies reporting on rape are good.
Is that really how it works? Can we really determine the quality of studies based on comparison? If so there are some stupid papers I want to cite and argue that they are good based on the fact that they are better than what Andrew Wakefield published.
No, what I'm saying is the Kanin study, for all its problems, is currently the only data we have regarding what the proportion of accusations that are brought forward to police are real and which are fake. The flaws stem from the number of those involved (half required for a representative survey) and a few problems with the metrics used by the police since they where not statitions. The problems lay in how it was done due to inexperience and there being too few respondents.
The papers which "prove" the wage gap, by comparison, tend to have at best major problems with their methodology, and virtually always have their results be deception by omission. The 0.77 cent per dollar statistic, for example, takes all the money full time working men make in the US each year and divides it by hours worked to get a salary per hour average, the compared that to a salary per hour average calculation for all full time women. I think it's easy to see where the problem comes in with that, which is why most economists reject the existence of the wage gap. When one looks at the wage difference for the same work in the same lines of work the gap disappears. Which isn't a surprise given how few lawsuits occur in the US on the matter for a crime which is very easy to prove or disprove (after all if an institute is in fact in the wrong then the IRS will want to get involved since someone isn't being honest about either their tax income or salary expenditures).
Simply put, the difference stems from one being incomplete data that needs more looking into while the other is a subject the data is conclusive on but the studies in question range from incomplete to malicious.
First, under UK law, spreading this accusation would qualify as libel since there's no evidence to back it up. Obviously I would not put myself at legal risk to 'warn women of a dangerous man.' Second, I don't know nor particularly trust the victim. Certainly not enough to put out some sort of APB saying "this particular fucker right here is a rapist don't go near him," because that's how people get beaten to death - which is the important thing to note, here.
A few months ago, a left wing 'activist' (he commented on lots of right-wing Facebook pages) found his face plastered on various blogs and local sites with "Paedophile" written under it. He had to close his business as a result of the abuse, the harassment and the lost custom from this. Maybe this is in the minority, but it does happen. Another person I know got a visit from the English Defence League because they suspected he was some sort of 'pro-Islamist cultural Marxist.'
People take accusations seriously. Some users here have quite rightly pointed out that no matter how much proof you level against a rapist, some people will defend them to the death. It works the other way too - no matter how much the evidence points elsewhere, there'll always be some fuckers who say "they still fucking did it," and sometimes those people have a bit much to drink and decide to take the law into their own hands. The accused rapist, whether he did it or not, would be at continual risk of being bottled down his local because one of the believers got a bit overconfident after a few pints. That shit's real. Sure, it's pretty minor, but it's enough to stop him going out for dinner or a drink. Probably wouldn't make a habit of being out at night, either.
Accusations, particularly with a medium as widespread as the Internet, are dangerous. Especially if it's an internet personality sharing them. With a name and local area posted on the internet, how long do you reckon it'd take for people to find his exact address? Not long. Then the harassment can start - even people who don't believe it and are just doing it for the lulz, that's all harassment and that's all wrong.
We have courts of law for a reason. Anonymous accusations are utterly worthless and shouldn't even be considered - and I'm not even going to talk about whether or not it's likely that the rapist did it or not, because that's not even relevant. The point is there's no evidence, and therefore there's no legal accountability.
No, what I'm saying is the Kanin study, for all its problems, is currently the only data we have regarding what the proportion of accusations that are brought forward to police are real and which are fake. The flaws stem from the number of those involved (half required for a representative survey) and a few problems with the metrics used by the police since they where not statitions. The problems lay in how it was done due to inexperience and there being too few respondents.
That still makes it useless though. If a study is bad you can't use it even if no better studies exist. Half of every article in Neurobiology published in Nature are wrong. Many of them are the first studies to explore a new field of neuroscience, but they are still utterly useless because their analyses don't hold up. They should never be cited because there are problems with them. If you know there are known issues with a source you don't cite it. That's final.
Don't bring up other worse articles, don't cite either. A bad study is bad. New information is required to fill the gaps. Do not make excuses for a bad study. Don't ever do that.
I'm not sure why you even brought up the wage gap, there's no merit to it. It's not relevant to this topic, it just shows what kind of person you are. You complain about those who bring up flawed studies and then bring up one of your own.
My question is, would you have done the same? Would you put that anonymous accusation out there, as a warning to the public against a sexual predator? Or do you feel like your inability to personally vouch for the accusation would keep you from saying anything? Are there any factors that might sway you in one direction or another, or would you have a hard and fast rule for regardless who gave you this information?
For me, the biggest factor would be how well I knew the person, how much I trusted them. And regarding the scenario at hand, I would like to think I'd have done the same as Myers.
For me, the biggest factor would be facts.
Shermer is a very opinionated person and the type of work he does has probably earned him infamy in many circles.
Also, PZ Myers has been known to run smear campaigns against people he doesn't like so the "victims" might not even exist, he could have made this all up.
I'm not saying he did but he's the type of person who wouldn't have problems with doing it.
He's not a trustworthy person, is what I'm saying.
EDIT:
I looked this up.
This was from 2013.
Nothing ever came of it, nobody came out publicly to confirm the accusations (evidence that PZ Myers made it up).
Shermer even gave him a cease and desist letter to stop him from spreading this.
Myers is another of those sort of "Cult of Personality" folks who've cut out a special corner for themselves on the net. He's like Thunderf00t or The Amazing Atheist (Which are pretty apt comparisons considering the sphere we're talking about), except I happen to agree with his views a bit more often, but I really have to hate him for doing exactly the things that I despise in the others.
You see the little flair ups on Pharyngula, and the way he handles it, and it's not great, his little clashes with others in the small ponds he swims, and it's just offputting.
One of the things that grabbed me were comments he made about Shamus Young, a contributor here. Shamus is a great guy, if you don't follow him already, you should, his site TwentySided is my favourite geek site on the net. Great articles, their let's play series "Spoiler Warning" is the only Let's Play I've ever gotten into (Fallout NV is the best one IMO), his articles are great, and he's generally a nice guy. Someone waaaaayyy back had a go at him because he's a Christian and his household homeschools (Which, as his wife is a teacher, makes a lot of sense). Anyway, to cut this extended side not to the end, this guy has a go at him for unspecified "Creationism" and having "brains of crap". Which PZ jumped in to first defend and then give a lovely little screed about how terrible Christians are. Yeah, there's some mixed praise there, but aimed at Shamus, who comes across mild-mannered and generous to a fault, that's just out of line.
Shamus summed it up here: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=923 , and PZ chimed in on our dear reader here: http://davegodfrey.livejournal.com/31272.html . The guy who originally had a go was generous enough to read Shamus' response, and changed his view. Myers I guess had more important things to do.
It's not the biggest thing, but for me, it was personally one of the big ones.
Describing evidence of a potential sexual assault as a grenade honestly sounds disgusting, and doesn't say much for what he thinks of sexual assault.
Looking further into these kinds of allegations before putting it out there for all to see does sound like the best starting point, though tbh I'm not sure how I would have done that if I were in such a situation.
Yeah, that's why it feels so awkward. Like how do you hunt around for that? Someone in PZ's position obviously has more sources and resources, but at the same time, he's not a detective, he's not an investigator. Just how do you deal with that? You can talk to the victim about coming forward, but they've got every right, and every reason to not want to. Obviously you want to back it up, but there's not much you can do, and what do you do when the best you can do is pretty much nothing, and is most of the time going to lead you to "Do nothing", because that's really no better than choosing "Do nothing" as far as everyone else is concerned.
I mean, what does that entail? Going around and asking people in the skeptic community 'Hey, so I heard this about Shermer...' Doesn't that kind of still spread it around anyway?
Yeah, it's a really delicate, and nasty thing to have to deal with. I guess you could talk to other organisers, and ask generally about untoward behaviour, but it's hard, and I don't envy anyone that choice.
I don't really follow the goings on in the atheist community, much less the ideological fights between the different 'factions', if you will, so I didn't even know who Shermer was until I wiki'd him. And Myers only came to be known to me because Futrelle has Pharyngula listed on it's sidebar of recommended blogs. A complete sidenote, but 'yo, is this racist?' is probably one of my favorite reads now.
"yo, is this racist" is hilarious, and I like Futrelle. He gets tagged with the asshole bit often, but most of the time I feel that's undeserved. If you read the red quotes on the site, you'll know exactly why he's being snarky towards someone, and why those sentiments deserve at the very least snark. He's pretty conscientious about running his site, and involved, he cares about his readers.
These sorts of turf wars flare up often in the atheist/skeptic circles, honestly, a lot of these people have big egos. They spend a lot of time talking down really stupid shit (Psychics, YECs), and it sort of dribbles into other things, and a lot of these people have trouble getting along, etc (For another PZ involved flare up, that's basically why TF00t was kicked off FTB, to be specific, Tf00t's ego in this case, not PZs, although that didn't help). It doesn't help that it's a relatively informal group of related blogs and sites these people run, it is hard to resist that temptation. I first got into Shermer's stuff as a result of following Steven Novella, and I'd say that Steven is one of the better skeptical writers, and really works to manage that sort of conflict.
Shermer's a hardcore libertarian, and I disagree with him pretty strongly on most of his stuff under that line, and PZ is much more liberal, which while I agree with him views wise on, gets him into fights with some others that he didn't need to have.
Then there's just the collision of the formal and informal, that makes a mess of it.
I think that's another problem with the way that PZ went about it though-instead of actually making this serious, he calls it a grenade, and it looks like another atheist slap fight. The seriousness of the situation deserves better than that, but I don't know how you'd handle that writing under the Pharyngula heading.
Well it is all anecdotal but I am always suspicious of claims that are made without backing. While I am aware of two cases where the accusations had merit I am aware of 4 that did not and were falsely made out of retaliation for a different slight (admittedly 2 of the false ones were made by the same woman).
4 Men were falsely accused that I know personally.
1 Woman was actually assaulted that I know personally.
1 Man was assaulted, also who I know personally.
Of those claims both of the people who were actually assaulted did go to the police, while the ones who were trying to use claims like that for defamation/blackmail did not.
As for the outcome of the two assaults that had corroborating evidence, one managed to have someone thrown in jail, the other is legally obligated to pay child support so make of that what you will.
That still makes it useless though. If a study is bad you can't use it even if no better studies exist. Half of every article in Neurobiology published in Nature are wrong. Many of them are the first studies to explore a new field of neuroscience, but they are still utterly useless because their analyses don't hold up. They should never be cited because there are problems with them. If you know there are known issues with a source you don't cite it. That's final.
So what are we to do, continue to make guesses completely out of the blue on this matter? Because it's a problem which is big enough to not be dismissed out of hand, yet no conclusive study exists on the matter for reasons beyond me.
Don't bring up other worse articles, don't cite either. A bad study is bad. New information is required to fill the gaps. Do not make excuses for a bad study. Don't ever do that.
I completely agree, but the problem is no one is gathering new information, no one is doing a good study on the matter, so we're completely in the dark about it.
I'm not sure why you even brought up the wage gap, there's no merit to it. It's not relevant to this topic, it just shows what kind of person you are. You complain about those who bring up flawed studies and then bring up one of your own.
It actually is relevant, though not directly. The relevance stems from how people treat this subject compared to that one. For this subject there is only one study with some flaws on the matter. There is no alternative source to compare it to because no one has bothered to do more studies on the matter. Meanwhile the other subject is one many, including people on this forum, accept it as being true despite the fact there actually are conclusive studies on the matter which show it is definitively not something that is the norm in society.
My point was that some reading would be hypocrites for complaining about my use of a study due to its being the only one there is on the matter.
Despite how it may seem my views on things are not rigid in the face of evidence. If someone can prove that the constant reports of false accusations are in fact over-reported I'd accept it, but unless that happens I'm going to treat this very real problem as it deserves.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
