"Totally coup, yo."

Interview with famed skeptic/trigger warning Michael Shermer




DR. MICHAEL SHERMER is known as an editor, a skeptic, a TED talker, a thinker. Others see him as “that intellectual lightweight who loves Ayn Rand and didn’t ‘understand’ global warming until unconscionably recently.”

An anonymous woman told another anonymous woman to tell PZ Myers that I raped her at some unspecified time in the past at some unspecified conference which was alleged reported to unspecified persons who allegedly covered up whatever it is I allegedly did.”

And that debate, dear Internet, rages on.

Michael Shermer

“Hey, baby, check out mah thumb.”

Last week, a new portrait of Shermer emerged. And it’s pretty rape-y. The portrait. You’ve seen it, the portrait, by now. Ugly stuff, that portrait.

So I decided to e-mail The Sherm and find out what’s going on! So here’s that, without many editin, cuz lazy…


Dear Mr. Shermer,

I’m writing a story about the recent ugliness in the atheist/skeptic community/movement (last week, and the past two years) for The Progressive, AlterNet, or Salon (not sure yet), and I’m obviously hoping you’ll be gracious enough to answer some questions.

Phone would be best, but I’d settle for email–any way to get your side of things out there.

Regardless, thanks for all you’ve done for the skeptics of the world.


Thank you for the query, but I must decline. My attorneys are handling everything and I’m working on my next book. 


I figured as much, but I had to ask! And have fun writing. (One fortunate thing about all this is that your sales will be higher than ever! Look at Paula Deen. Silver lining? Yesh. Sorry. ) Anywho, will you please forward my request to your attorney? Pretty please? A presumptuous thanks! Or awwww. Thanks for your time.


No, they charge a lot by the hour so I don’t feel like paying for your interview. There’s nothing to say Ian. It’s a completely false charge. There’s no story here.


Ha! Fair point. Crap, are they gonna charge you if I call ‘em? Sorry if that’s the case. Bill me? To be honest, I’m not entirely certain what the charge is? You bought a woman drinks, for god’s sake?! What, she felt taken advantage of the next day–years later?–because you’re a charismatic person, memories are dramatizations of someone’s dogma du jour!? The story’s not about the “charge,” whatever that actual is, it’s about skepticism, truly, no? Figured you were the perfect person to ask! But worrying over the law is probably wise, Michael.. And I’m serious about billing me. I may not pay it–or be able to, rather, but it’s only fair. All the best. And I look forward to the book!


I haven’t been charged with anything. An anonymous woman told another anonymous woman to tell PZ Myers that I raped her at some unspecified time in the past at some unspecified conference which was alleged reported to unspecified persons who allegedly covered up whatever it is I allegedly did. You print that and you are party to defamation along with Myers. My attorneys are keeping track of everything that could amount to damages to my reputation, and in the court of public opinion it doesn’t matter if the claim is completely made up, people will just believe it. That’s why we have laws against libel and defamation and why no good editor at Salon or anywhere else you would submit such a story would ever run it because they would then open themselves up to libel. In any case, any publication of any substance would have it vetted by an attorney first, who would remind them and you of the ethics of journalism and the law against defamation. 




MURPHY, NO-GOOD EDITOR OF THE BEAST: Here’s the exchange. Can I run it?


ARMY VETERAN & SUBSTANTIAL BEAST PUBLISHER, PAUL FALLON, ESQ: Of course you can. You’re not calling him a rapist. You’ ‘re just asking questions. This “party to the defamation” and ff the record” shit is nonsense. He spoke to you via email. You did not agree to keep it off the record. He had the option not to say anything at all, as in not respond to you. He did not avail himself of that option so it’s not a problem.


Quite right! The ethics of journalism! I’m all for learning about them. To clarify, you’re saying not to “print” this:

“I haven’t been charged with anything. An anonymous woman told another anonymous woman to tell PZ Myers that I raped her at some unspecified time in the past at some unspecified conference which was alleged reported to unspecified persons who allegedly covered up whatever it is I allegedly did.”


And by “print” you mean the Internet, too, presumably, yes?

What about: “Thank you for the query, but I must decline. My attorneys are handling everything and I’m working on my next book.” & “No, they charge a lot by the hour so I don’t feel like paying for your interview. There’s nothing to say Ian. It’s a completely false charge. There’s no story here.”

Now I’m more confused! You first said “[i]t’s a completely false charge,” then you said “[you] haven’t been charged with anything.” And is “printing” those quotes–presumably even on the Internet–an ethical lapse of judgement? Would that be defamation? Is the law always the same as ethics? All very weighty questions, Michael, which I do not take lightly.


Ian. Stop. Nothing I have written to you can be quoted, not even that I thanked you for writing and declined to respond. I have nothing to say on the matter and I shouldn’t have even responded to you at all. Please stop writing me.


Oh, OK. I’ll convey the meaning of the emails without directly quoting you, per your request. And I’ll now stop writing you. Best!

No, Ian, you cannot “convey the meaning of the emails.” I declined to be interviewed by you in the very first sentence I wrote. Anything after that cannot be part of your story, not even “conveying” what I did not say on the record or off the record or anything else. If you say anything beyond “Dr. Shermer declined to be interviewed for this story” I shall consider that intentional deception on your part and then you as a party to defamation. 

Are you clear on my meaning? 


To be honest, no, I am not totally clear on your meaning.

You said: “I declined to be interviewed by you in the very first sentence I wrote. Anything after that cannot be part of your story…”

So that means anything after “Thank you for the query, but I must decline.” is not allowed to be quoted, or conveyed in any way. So “Thank you for the query, but I must decline.” can be quoted. Right? I am following you here?

But then you said “anything beyond ‘Dr. Shermer declined to be interviewed for this story’…” is not allowed. But you never said that! I can quote you saying that if you want, but referring to yourself in the third-person like that may damage your reputation. I think people consider that egotistical.

Also, since you never said “Dr. Shermer declined to be interviewed for this story’…” in any of our previous emails that means everything beyond “If you say anything beyond “Dr. Shermer declined to be interviewed for this story” I shall consider that intentional deception on your part and then you as a party to defamation. ”

That means I can quote the entire exchange save for the very last line: “Are you clear on my meaning?”

So, no, I am more confused than ever! You’re sending me mixed messages here. Quote nothing, or quote it all?


Dear Ian,
You may not quote anything in any email I sent previously. Not a single word.


Now I’m just absolutely baffled. You said I could quote the first line. Now it’s “[n]ot a single word.” Is this what your lawyers say? Now I can’t even say “Dr. Shermer declined to be interviewed for this story,” because I’d be quoting you? But I don’t want people to think I interviewed you–especially if you don’t want people to think I interviewed you! According to journalistic ethics, I had to ask, and I have say that I asked. Can I say “Dr. Shermer refused to talk to me?” And if I can, isn’t that sort of a lie? Or is it like a white lie, for the greater good?



FALLON: Let’s hope that his cease and desist letter at least comes from his highly paid lawyers.


MURPHY: bwahamumumuumumumph!


HEADIE, THE BEAST HEAD: Where’s MAH medicine?!


SHERMER’S THUMB: You know where’s I’m pointing.


Dear Michael,


I ran it by my lawyer, as you recommended, and we’re all set to run the full interview! Don’t worry, I’ll cross out the final line, per your request. Any words of wisdom to end it on an inspiring note, for the kids? Ok then! If I don’t hear from you, I’ll take your silence as a sign that you’re totally good with this interview happening to you (I certainly have no complaints).

And if I do hear a peep out of you, it’s because you just [ain't] understanding what’s happening here. It’s funny! Gotta laugh at life, right?

Speaking of rape jokes–stop me if you’ve heard it–So Ayn Rand walks into a quarry…ZING!

See, we’re having fun here. You need to relax, baby. Oh! One more thing: You said “anonymous” women accused you of “rape.” Do you mean they were associated or otherwise affiliated with the nefarious online hacktivist collective known as Anonymous?

Because Anonymous will fuck your shit up, I have read in Ohio. Good thing you’re not in Ohio!

OK, my absolute best, talk/don’t talk, you’ll be judged by an Internet of your peers,


Unfollow me on Twitter

  • Mork

    Anyone who writes “anywho” would never get a reply from me about anything.

    • http://oolon.co.uk/ oolon

      Damn right, its anyhoo!

      • throwaway


  • Jacob Schmidt

    Ahahahahaha, this was god damn hilarious. Thank you for this, it was a wonderful read.

    • Pitchguest

      Ruining someone’s reputation with an allegation is rape is, apparently, “god damn hilarious.” For someone who’s so eager to get the evidence right, when someone you dislike happens to be accused of rape of all things, that seems to go straight out the window.

      You once more prove how much of a disingenuous sack of shit you are, but I guess I already knew that. I suppose I can just disregard anything you say in the future about providing evidence, should you happen to need it?

  • yazikus

    Very well done. I was vaguely uncomfortable as it went on, and the feeling grew, and then, bam, nail on the head.

  • dawn

    he was charged criminally in washington state for harassment

    • sbullo

      Oh, look! It’s the famed stalker Dawn Gordon from Brampton Ontario. Reading my Twitter timeline still, disgusting, filthy, putrid stalker?

      • dawn

        oh look the woman who lives in the same state shermer charged begging for a pod chat?

  • Eucliwood Hellscythe

    You seem to be writing with the assumption that the allegation is “drunk and regret” or “too drunk while fucking” when Carrie Poppy has implied that that is an INCORRECT assumption, (meaning it is something that = rape by anyone’s standards) so I only see three options – The allegation is that he put something in her drink and raped her while she was unconscious/couldn’t fight back, that he raped her while she was too drunk to fight back, or the allegation itself has nothing to do with alcohol and they just felt like giving out an irrelevant detail (alcohol was involved),.. not very likely, the latter-est one.

    • dawn

      peopleare unaware he was charged as michael van shermer for harassment in washington state, harassing a woman in washington, charged fornally

      • sbullo

        No, he’s not. It’s your insanity making you think this. Get some help, stalker :)

        • dawn

          yes michael was charged for harassing a female in the state you.live in as you beg him for a talk

          • Crotalus

            Case number?

          • dawn

            i gave it to you.

        • dawn

          why are you claiming im not talking right at you, i was directing it to you, you are begging the man for a pod cast but he has charges of harassment in your state..im open minded to believe though someone you know whos fucked up could have lied, although i believe pz post

        • ekwhite

          I did a little Google search, and there WAS a Michael Van Shermer who was charged with sexual harassment and failure to appear in court in Pierce county, Washington. This person appears to live in Tacoma Washington, however, so it appears to be a DIFFERENT Michael Shermer.

  • Eucliwood Hellscythe

    Goodness gracious. It makes sense that that is an incorrect assumption anyway. If that was what was meant, they’d just say it.

  • Greg Laden

    You are giving Don Novello a run for his money, here.

    • http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/ Damion Reinhardt

      Because ruining someone’s reputation online is an awful lot like situational or sketch comedy. #LOLWUT

      • doubtthat

        Speak the truth, brother. He may literally lose dozens of “likes” on some of his posts. #HOLOCAUST

        • Pitchguest

          You’re seriously going to make light of false rape allegations?

          • Richard Sanderson

            Didn’t PZ say the recent rape allegations were “fun”?

            What an arsehole.

          • doubtthat

            Hmm, you may need to recalibrate your sarcasm detector.

            When someone says, “I have to go get a root canal today, this should be fun,” how would you interpret the meaning of the word “fun” in that context?

          • Pitchguest

            Really? So he was being sarcastic, in other words it’s *not* fun to be accused of rape?

            Do you think it’s fun for Shermer?

          • Richard Sanderson

            O RLY! PZ is quite happy to trivialise rape, and from the evidence of various FTBullies blogging in favour of this troll interview, it seems they are quite happy to trivialise rape as well.

          • doubtthat

            You people are fucking incredible. Nothing can penetrate the wall of willful stupidity you hide behind.

            Sarcastically calling a root canal “fun” doesn’t trivialize root canals. Sarcastically calling the inevitable fallout from publishing an account of an alleged rape “fun” does not trivialize rape.

          • Richard Sanderson

            Yes it does.

            Further, it was the numerous links and endorsements from the FTBullies to this troll article that is the basis of my claim that they are trivialising RAPE.

          • doubtthat

            No, I’m making light of the histrionics on your side of the aisle.

            And how do you know they’re false?

          • Pitchguest

            No. You are making light of false rape allegations. He has been accused of rape, no concrete evidence has been provided to support the claim, and you are defending PZ’s decision to publicly make this libellous assertion against Shermer with “he may literally lose dozens of ‘likes’ on some of his posts.”

            Being falsely accused of rape is no laughing matter. At least, not in my book. Perhaps you think it’s hilarious, in which I case I know in which category of persons of moral fiber to put you in, but I don’t. And that means anyone, including PZ.

          • http://pecunium.wordpress.com/ Pecunium

            Why do you treat this differently from any other accusation? Who says, “oh, that accusation of theft/fraud/etc. is false” unless there is a conviction?

            It’s not as if no one says OJ, or Caylee Anthony, or George Zimmerma aren’t (despite acquittals) said to be murderers.

            But for some reason you want to pretend it’s different for rape. Why?

            Let me guess, “because any woman can make the charge,and it, ‘destroys’ a man’s life, right? Bullshit. Let’s look at some high profile charges, and who suffered.

            Kobe Bryant? Still making millions.

            Mike Tyson? Convicted of rape, still making millions.

            The Duke Lacross Team? The charges are said to be false, no one recalls their names.

            Stuebenville: The convicted rapists have national columnists decrying how terrible it is their lives are ruined for, “a mistake”. Their mistake? They committe rape.

            The accusation is like any other; one that we ought to take at face value. On balance, looking at what happens to those who make such claims (vilified by rape apologists) I’d say the odds if it being true are higher than for other crimes.

          • Pitchguest

            Did you just say we ought to take these things at face value?

            You’re an idiot. Stop talking. And who says I don’t treat other crimes with the same scrutiny? Piss off.

      • MosesZD

        Dude, you’re talking to Greg Laden! His testosterone poisoned brain might flip and then he’d be forced to chop you up with his black belt in karate or by some method tied to one, or more, of his outlandish claims of machoness while leading the doxxing your ex-wife/gf’s house from a decade ago…

        Or just say dumb things on his blog that nobody reads anymore since he has falling out with FtB and they don’t give him pity links.

    • whatever

      You are giving your mom’s mouth a run for the money too, or least so the bathroom stalls say.

    • Richard Sanderson

      Oh, look. It’s FTB’s former enforcer, stalker and sender of violent threats.

      Fuck off, Greg.

      • Jafafa Hots

        Oh look, it’s Richard Sanderson.

        Time to start laughing your ass off.

        • Richard Sanderson

          Oh look, it’s Jafafa Hots – a Level 3 #WomenAbuser.

          • http://oolon.co.uk/ oolon

            Haha and Rich proves Jafafa right, anyone with some semblance of self awareness wouldn’t advertise their imaginary Twitter bot. Which BTW, literally no one uses :-D

          • Richard Sanderson

            How do you know? How do you know who has and who has not checked the image?

            Evidence, please!

            Take your time……

            In the meantime, oolon’s spambot is endorsed by an accused rapist, a group of liars, bullies, child p0rn obsessers, and people accused of sexual harassment. Plus, one of the admin people is a piece of odious shite called Spokesgay, whose speciality is to abuse women.

    • Greg Laden is utter filth

      Greg Laden? I thought you killed yourself a while ago because you realized what a steaming pile of subhuman shit you were, and the atomic blast of misery withered your already damaged brain down to a raisin.

      Do us all a favor and slit your wrists you animal scum.

      • http://oolon.co.uk/ oolon

        Starting to like Greg a lot more given the response he elicits from the foaming anti-A+/FTB/Skepchick crowd.

        • Foolon

          Yeah, because that’s a great measure of a person’s worth. Laden joins the auspicious ranks that include George Zimmerman, Casey Anthony and Jenny McCarthy.

          If only there was a drug to allow subhuman filth like to to see yourselves truly as you are. You and Laden would break the sound barrier rushing to find something with which to kill yourselves.

          That’s the truth you need to learn so the world can be relieved of you. People don’t hate you for speaking hard truths or some such- that is delusional- they hate you because you are bullshit spewing little lackwits.

          • http://oolon.co.uk/ oolon

            Please tell me more, what exactly is it about feminists that gets you so worked up?

          • Pitchguest

            Listen, *James*, perhaps you’re ignoring a few words — or you’re illiterate — but he was speaking against the actions of Laden, which you full well know includes:

            * threatening someone with physical violence
            * calling someone a “bitch” (despite the fact that it’s a “gendered slur”)
            * telling a woman to “get off the rag” and to “kiss [his] ass”
            * saying that men are “women damaged by testosterone” on a panel with a gay man
            * stalking and threatening to end the employment of a woman who he doesn’t like
            * *repeating* his threat of physical violence years later
            *, doxxing a person’s ex-wife’s address in an effort to intimidate
            * and so on and so forth.

            What he does behind closed doors, I don’t even want to know.

            You know all of this, yet you would still support this man?

            What has Michael Shermer done?

            Oh, he said atheists talking about atheism on conventions is “more of a guy thing” which was massively misinterpreted, but could mostly be seen as a “dick” move.

            This is what we know of Shermer beyond the shadow of a doubt. Do we know he raped a woman? No. Do we know he flirted with and plied a woman with alcohol? No. Personally I would’ve thought believing in gossip wouldn’t be in a sceptics good nature, especially when most of the Bible is based on gossip, but I guess when leave one indoctrination behind, they go look for another. Oh, and they might have idiots who enable their behaviour. (That’s you, *James.*)

          • http://oolon.co.uk/ oolon

            Hehe, I liked how Scalzi handled your bullshit, you were paper thin in that thread. Why don’t you just admit you are obsessed with Greg Laden? God knows why as he is not even on FTBs anymore, having been kicked off for the threat you mention. But who knows how Slymepitter minds work, its a mystery. Just forget that he isn’t there any more and work, work that tu quoque until it hurts.

          • Pitchguest

            My “bullshit” was politely asking for evidence for EG’s alleged “harassment and stalking.” In the face of dissent, Scalzi handled me like any other social justice warrior: a ban.

            That evidence is “bullshit” to you we already know, but at least try to hide it.

            Greg Laden may have been kicked off, but he has not been “kicked off.” He’s still invited to conventions and conferences as a speaker, he was offered a toast the day of his expulsion. However, despite Greg clearly beating these people in terms of being a scumbag, DJ Grothe is being demonised; Dawkins is being demonised; Lindsay is being demonised. Though bloggers at FtB defend Greg at every turn, DJ Grothe seemingly showing support for Ben Radford is “reprehensible.” The demand was that CFI (and DJ) was to denounce him completely. It stinks of hypocrisy.

          • http://oolon.co.uk/ oolon

            Haha your argument was shown to be no argument, rather than back it up or add to it you just repeated it. As Scalzi said, to dim to realise. Fun read, look for PitchGuest ->


          • Richard Sanderson

            Translation: ool0n has no answer. As per usual.

            Go back to looking at your child p0rn.

          • Pitchguest

            And you wonder why we call you a slimy turd.

            Well, here the slimy turd is attempting to redirect attention from Greg by pointing to my comments on Scalzi’s blog, which are few and not particularly engaging – but I think you’ll notice of “bullshit” that the turd injects is present.

            Pay it no mind; it’s a red herring. What’s pressing here is Laden, and how the turd (and the clique he supports) defends him despite the things he’s done. He’s a hypocrite, incapable of being nothing but a toadie, a lickspittle of poor moral fiber and evidently this extends to coming to the defense of someone passing out violent threats.

            The hypocrisy is deafening, in fact, when the people now currently demonising Shermer, have also expressed public support for Laden – Myers, Thibeault, Zvan – all of them complicit in enabling his behaviour. Disgusting.

          • Richard Sanderson

            Don’t forget Greg wrote the anti-harassment guidelines for a con ft some of the major FTBullies JUST AFTER he was kicked off the network for sending threats of violence to someone!

            That’s another little detail ool0n tries to ignore. Thing is you have to start wondering whether Laden (or perhaps his lover Stephanie Zvan) have some dirt on oolon. It seems they have him by his little balls.

          • Richard Sanderson

            Pitchguest has exposed your double standards. You are part of, and are associated with, a bunch of vicious bullies who have a history of throwing abuse, violent threats, and intimidation towards vulnerable women.

          • Richard Sanderson

            What is it about feminists who the FTBullies hate, despise and abuse that gets YOU so worked up? You even run a bot with a known abuser of women.

        • Richard Sanderson

          Another defence of a known stalker of women, and a sender of violent threats to another blogger.

          At least you can’t deny this, now. Perhaps you could hold a toast to him, like Stephanie Zvan ~(odious bully and pathological liar) who toasted him on the VERY NIGHT Greg Laden was fired from FTB.

          Nice endorsement, oolon. Lol.

  • Vernon

    PZ Myers = zero credibility; an embarassment to atheism/skepticism

    • throwaway

      Is this opinion sharing time? People like Vernon are an embarassment to atheism/skepticism. Prove me wrong.

      • Pattrsn

        That’s gonna be a tough one.

      • rg57

        OK. Embarrassments are people who are widely known, like PZ. I have no idea who Vernon is, because Vernon hasn’t done anything embarrassing to the community as a whole. You are proved wrong.

    • brian_x

      And why is that, exactly? Show your work.

      • doubtthat

        Cuz he’s friends with girls, ew.

        • http://www.groverbeachbum.blogspot.com/ Neil

          Or because PZ’s a person who has been demonstrably dishonest for years. This is just the first time he didn’t hide behind weasel words and opinion.

          I’m friends with many women. It’s funny that I don’t have to be a slimy shitstain like yourself or PZ to achieve that.

          • doubtthat

            Here goes the fun part:

            What dishonesty? Support your claim.

            I’ll note your denial of slimy shitstainhood is hardly convincing given your product.

          • Pitchguest

            Note the ad-hominem tactic of “slimy shitstainhood.” Why on Earth should we even indulge in your request when you’re not even able to give us the benefit of the doubt?

          • Maude

            Sounds like ‘I have a black friend’.

    • Richard Sanderson

      The word “embarrassment” is demanding you stop linking it to PZ Myers. Its reputation is at stake!

      As a side note, why on earth would a woman go to PZ Myers for this type of advice. He’s a complete and utter numbskull, and a nasty, odious, little bully as well. Women should stay well clear of PZ Myers.

    • dawn

      whats shameful is shermer was arrested in pierce county washington for harassing a lady, and history only repeats itself..reading lame researchers who wont call washington police to check like i did

      • Crotalus

        There’s no court record of Shermer being tried on any charges.
        That’s why I asked for a case number in case there’s a glitch in their system.

        • dawn

          i gave you the court number

          • Richard Sanderson

            Wrong Shermer, trollface.

          • Crotalus

            I doubt that matters to “dawn”. If it mattered “dawn” would have verified it rather than spread more false charges.

          • Crotalus

            For a man 10 years younger…..

          • dawn

            would you prefer speaking tothe detective im speaking with?

          • dawn

            every time i mention talking directly to the detective, you swerve around me posting the number and the police mans name..!

  • Maude

    That was great.

  • http://thetimchannel.wordpress.com/ The Tim Channel

    I had back channel communication with Jerry Dewitt, the apostate Pentacostal preacher from Louisiana who’s part of Daniel Dennett’s “Free the Preacher” project. He declined to offer an opinion on the matter as well. I’ve just announced the invention of the Crotch-o-Matic 360 Personal Integrity Defense Device and Anti Rape Threat Deterrent


    “At this point, I think the only prominent male skeptic they’ve failed to accuse of rape is Stephen Hawking, and if I were him I’d be real dam careful which buttons and switches I activated from here-on-out.”



  • whatever

    Congratulations Ian,

    Boy, you whupped his ass real good!

    Now you didn’t show that Shermer did any wrong, you just played games with journalism and ethics and lawyers and demonstrated that you’re an asshole.

    But you did whup his hide.

    I am not sure why you went through that exercise, congrats for having a lawyer that marks you as special.

    I come away lessened, and feeling a bit saddened for Matt Taibbi

    • doubtthat

      No, he toyed around with a confirmed asshole (pre-allegation) who happens to be a feeble minded nitwit with an unjustly inflated sense of importance and irrational pride in his own insufficient abilities. It was an old-fashioned trolling.

      • http://www.groverbeachbum.blogspot.com/ Neil

        It’s funny….as long as some hack asswipe dumps irrelevant trollcrap on Shermer, it’s totes cool to pretty much make light of both rape and possibly false accusations.

        For great social justice!

        jesus Christ, you shitfucks are truly subhuman.

        • doubtthat

          Joke=not gotten.

          The only thing made light of was Shermer’s self-importance. His pride was his undoing, and it was amusing to watch. Rape is still bad.

          • Pitchguest

            Shorter doubtthat:

            Shermer is self-important, therefore rapist.

            Am I still doing it right?

            Once again, doubtthat, and I’m going to make it absolutely clear this time so there’s no risk of misunderstanding: Shermer could be the absolute skeeviest, most rotten, most cantankerous fucker in the universe, and where his self-importance, arrogance and narcissism is unequal to anything in the known galaxy, and STILL — STILL — not be a rapist.

            Do you understand?

            Am I, anything, if at all, clear on this?

          • doubtthat

            No, you’re failing miserably, over and over, in response to multiple people.

            His idiocy and embarrassing pride is evident regardless of whether the crime is specifically true. Your inability to grasp this point is yet another tally mark in the seemingly endless book cataloguing your childish, ridiculous errors.

          • Pitchguest

            Right, okay. So he’s an idiot. He’s an asshole. He’s a prideful, idiotic asshole.

            So fucking what? What difference does that make?

          • doubtthat

            It makes it funny when he looks like an ass.

          • Pitchguest

            And you call me childish.

          • doubtthat

            LIke a child, you fail to understand that charging someone else with immature behavior does nothing to undercut the criticism aimed at you.

            The “I know you are but what am I?” gambit is not particularly impressive.

          • Pitchguest

            If the response you have to someone currently being accused of rape is that it’s funny when he’s made to look like an “ass” (because you don’t like him very much?), as opposed to myself who’s said several times that there’s nothing fun in making light of rape allegations, then the one’s being immature is probably the one who treats it as a joke.

            The “childish” quip was merely noting your hypocrisy, not making a gambit of any sort. But if you’re asking for it, I suppose I could just repeat your words and call it a day:

            “… immature behavior does nothing to undercut the criticism aimed at you.”


          • Pitchguest

            Oh, and it’s rich calling *my* comments “childish” when you’re the one who’s conflating your opinion on someone being an asshole to being a rapist. And, of course, where you made light of false rape allegations and the impact they might have on people’s lives where you sarcastically compared them to the Holocaust.

            *slow clap* Bravo.

          • doubtthat

            No, again, I’m not doing that. Nothing I’ve said depends on him being a rapist, this is the fact you keep insinuating that I’ve said. I’ve now said it 5 or 6 times very cleary: the humor lies not in the assumption of his guilt, but how his awesome pride led him astray.

            It’s funny independent of the outcome of the allegations.

            Yes, you are a child. You don’t bother to read what people say and just perseverate over the same fucking dumb point.

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            Women have been selling this religious lie that “pride comes before a fall” for a long time.

            Pride doesn’t come before a fall. Only malicious leeches hate those who have pride in themselves because with Self, you won’t need to carry a leech.

            I’ll tell you what comes before a fall; Trust. Faith. Belief. Loyalty. Naivety. Mercy. Forgiveness. Turning the other cheek. Generosity. Duty. Filial responsibility. Suffering to please. etc. Every exploitable construct is a Whore value. Pride doesn’t come before a fall unless you have a mother who wants to cut you down and erode your Self so that you suffer to please her.

            Love comes before a fall. But first they have to reduce you or you won’t need to be blinded by a malicious, needy leech’s lies.

        • Richard Sanderson

          What’s even more ironic is that PZ Myers himself has been accused of sexual harassment, and another FTB blogger was accused of rape.

          However, PZ is ADAMANT that those claims are not “plausible”.

          We’ll see.

          • Tadeina


          • http://oolon.co.uk/ oolon

            Rich and his friends at the Slymepit thought it would be funny to send lots of allegations against FTB bloggers in response to this. Including to one who lives in India and has never attended TAM, where he supposedly assaulted someone.

            Nice response from the Slymepit there! Anonymous allegations are bad, lets make lots of them! (Note the Shermer one is not anonymous)

          • http://godlessradio.net/ Reap Paden

            It’s my responsibility to inform any unknowing party that oolon has a well-known reputation for being so FOS that when he walks in the park people are constantly trying to pick him up with those little gloves used to clean up after your dog. Please consider this when reading anything he tries to contribute to the conversation

          • http://oolon.co.uk/ oolon

            Yeah do your own research on Reap and his obsession with PZ Myers for banning him on his blog. Its well worth it for the depth of butthurt and inability to let reason seep in.

          • Richard Sanderson

            Do you own research on ool0n. Check out his admission that he screencapped child abuse images to his computer. Check out his defence of Greg Laden. Check out how ugly he by checking his HEY YOU GUYS image at the Pit.

            Have a sick bag handy.

          • http://oolon.co.uk/ oolon

            Lovely Rich, what did I say that hit a nerve? Its pretty clear how ugly you are, but not in mere looks which as you get older most people realise are not that important. I have a great family with a lovely 4yr old and another on the way, maybe you and your friends at the pit can photoshop her and comment on how ugly she is or the scan on my Twitter timeline – get in before they are born even!

            I’m stuck wondering how old you are again as I get fusty old retiree vibes sometimes then insecure teenager, as with your comment above. You are over 2 decades out for when I would have been bothered by your friends photoshopping me! The worst thing is comments like this make me feel a little sorry for you. I hope you are not really this shallow.

          • http://godlessradio.net/ Reap Paden

            Yea because I call him out when he acts like a dick I’m butthurt. I suppose I should just shut up and let socially dysfunctional people such as yourself dictate who is behaving according to your mandate and who is bringing about the decline of civilization by simply mentioning another persons name. Your claim of obsession falls flat and anyone who buys into your rhetoric is a fool IMO. You are a self admitted troll that is a fact. Oh yes you will try to laugh it off and dismiss me as just being silly and not intelligent enough to figure out what your real intent was. It always turns out your intent changes according to your audience. You are a simpleton, The look in your eyes gives you away oolon. You…are…busted.

          • http://oolon.co.uk/ oolon

            If anyone can decipher whatever Reap is dribbling about then feel free to comment…

          • Buck Buckerson

            It IS anonymous because the majority of people don’t know who made the allegation, most importantly the accused (Michael Shermer) who has no way of defending himself against these allegations as no details of the alleged event were given.

          • http://oolon.co.uk/ oolon

            He is defending himself against the allegations by suing PZ, or is that not the case? As PZ says in regard to the “anonymous” *cough*Slymepitter*cough* allegations of his “rapes” and “sexual assaults”, its a small price to pay if it makes it harder for him to pick up women at conferences. /snark

            Unconvicted allegations are hardly likely to damage him apart from people who believe them, like me, avoiding him. I’d guess most people already were given the years long back-channel warning about him that I’d come across myself in multiple places. Better out in the open.

          • Richard Sanderson

            PZ and Jason themselves have detailed the accusations made against them. This was several months ago.

            Lying to change the narrative again, eh oolon?

            PS – Do you have access to that backchannel? Any confirmation of the rumours of rampant anti-semitism?

            PPS – Do you agree with Rebecca Watson’s definition of rape, which means that she is a rapist herself?

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            I’ve seen this ludicrous concession of malicious motive a few times, already.

            So you defend the smear by conceding that all it will do is smear his name. Yes, that’s why it’s putrid. But you assert that’s what makes it okay.

            “It’s okay guys, we only wanted to smear him. Relax. It’s not a big deal.”

            “Better out in the open.”

            No. If he’s a rapist, all the information needs to come out. Only worthless information is being left out in the open.

          • doubtthat

            Goddamn. Deep Throat was not an “anonymous” source. Deep Throat was a confidential source.

            The difference is obvious and not complicated. You should be embarrassed for missing this.

          • Pitchguest



            “Any time a person participates in a confidential test, research project, or crime investigation, the person will need to provide some personal informationabout himself/herself to whoever is conducting the test, project, or investigation. The people collecting this personal information include medical personnel, a research team, or respective organization. Personal information may include a name, phone number, address, birthdate, and/or social security number. This information is NOT to be given to anyone not involved in the project, testing site, or organization.”

            “When the term “anonymous” is used, a person gives no personal information about himself/herself and should not be asked for specific personal information that would give his/her identify away. If the person needs to follow up to retrieve his/her medical results or provide additional information, a unique identifier, such as a number, will be given. In anonymous cases, the individual’s responses or results cannot be linked to his/her identity.”

            Confidential denotes sources that help with among other things criminal investigations, where personal information *is* given, but not to be provided to anyone outside of the investigation. (In other words, not to be blabbed on blogs, newspapers and other such mediums.)

            Anonymous denotes not giving out any personal information at all that would give away their identity, and as such are not viable in any criminal investigation.

            Do we know anything about this person? We do not.

            Were any other information provided that would give us an inkling as to the identity of this claimant? No.

            Conclusion: the source is anonymous.

          • doubtthat

            Haha. Wait, HAHA.

            The party meant to receive the information is not the public. Not only is she known to the person who put her in contact with PZ Myers, but she interacted directly with him. She did give out her personal information.

            Conclusion–why are you fucking losers so goddamn lame that we have to have these elementary discussions. You provided a definition that directly contradicted your assertion but it didn’t even slow you down a beat. Incredible.

          • Pitchguest

            Your assertion was that the source was *confidential*, not *anonymous.* I provided evidence to set the record straight. That you happen to ignore it is your problem, not mine. If the source is confidential and gone to the police for a criminal investigation, said source is not supposed to BLAB it in public on blogs, forums, etc, that are not themselves involved in the investigation.

            I provided a definition that directly contradicted my assertion? No. I provided a definition that directly contradicted *your* assertion, since *you* were the one who said the source was confidential, not I.

            Let me make this absolutely clear: if the victim confided in Carrie, who then confided in PZ, they’re not supposed to go public with it on fucking blogs. They’re especially not supposed to just say, “he raped her” and nothing else. That’s not evidence, that’s gossip. I don’t care if they’ve been friends for life. We don’t know who she is, we don’t know the circumstances around the incident, we don’t know anything. Great testimony.

          • Richard Sanderson

            Lying again, ool0n? PZ and Jason (Lousy Canuck) authored their OWN posts at their OWN sites detailing the accusations against them.

            There is NO evidence to suggest these accusations against PZ and Lousy Canuck are false. Given the standard applied by the FTBullies, oolon must assume PZ is a sexual harasser and Lousy is a rapist.

          • Richard Sanderson

            Google PZ Myers, Lousy Canuck, “accused of rape”. This should get you there.

          • Pitchguest

            Incredible. Tadeina asks you for details, which you provide. But the brief comment where Tadeina simply says “Details?” has two upvotes, whereas yours, actually providing said details, have two down. Funny how bias works, isn’t it?

          • Richard Sanderson

            That’s the thing with FTBullies – they’re a bit clueless.

        • Crow T Robot

          And another Objectivist Ubermench is heard from…

      • Pitchguest

        Let’s see if I can do this correctly. Shorter doubtthat:

        Shermer is an asshole, there rapist.

        Am I doing it right?

        To be honest, I couldn’t give a rats behind if Shermer turns out to be the biggest horndog in the world. A horndog doesn’t make you a rapist.

        • Pitchguest

          I’m receiving downvotes for saying this? Really?

          • Richard Sanderson

            The FTBullies are using multiple accounts to cheat the votes.

            Sad losers that they are. And they wonder they are a shrinking minority who keep losing all their friends.

          • doubtthat

            It was stupid statement.

        • Tadeina

          Having a high libido =/= sexual harassment.

          Behaving in ways that sexually harass others = sexual harassment.

          This is a distinction worth appreciating.

          • Richard Sanderson

            Seen those pictures of a drunken Rebecca Watson at conferences, plus videos of her drinking from a man’s crotch?

            I presume you are referring to these examples of sexual harassment?

          • Tadeina

            Indeed you do presume.

            If you need education on what constitutes sexual harassment, you can go read wikipedia. I decline to be further trolled.

        • doubtthat

          No, you clearly can’t do it correctly.

          Whether or not he’s a rapist, he’s an idiot and an asshole. This has been confirmed on multiple occasions from his own work product.

          His idiot’s pride lead him to make a fool of himself here, and whether he’s a rapist or not, it was amusing.

          • Pitchguest

            So he’s an idiot and an asshole. Throw him in the brig?

            What the fuck are you talking about? What does any of this have to do with him being accused of rape? So the article is designed to mock, and in your view he made himself look like a fool, but I’m missing where any of this is supposed to prove his guilt on whether or not he’s a rapist?

            And just for the sake of it, you don’t think anyone who’s just been accused of rape would feel just a bit unamused which could explain his terseness in the response to Ian? Moreover, does Ian think this is some kind of correlation to the rape claim, or does he just think it’s funny to “toy”, as you say, with someone whose reputation (and employment) may be severely affected by claims of rape?

          • doubtthat

            It doesn’t prove his guilt. I’ve said that three times now. Talking to you is like conversing with a brick wall that has a mounted talking bass on an infinite loop spewing utter tripe.

          • Pitchguest

            Then what the fuck are you going on about, you incomprehensible buffoon?

            I couldn’t give a shit if Shermer is an idiot or an asshole. What I care about is if he raped that woman or not. Your purpose here is apparently to mock people accused of rape, and you even say it doesn’t prove his guilt – so what are you saying, you tit?

            Imagine if your precious PZ was accused of the same thing, Would you support an article like this to mock him? I take it you wouldn’t, seeing as you’re such a hypocritical shit, but well deserved I bet.

  • drshell

    Why are people still calling the woman anonymous? PZ knows who she is. He corresponded with her directly. He didn’t get a note thrown through his window tied to a brick.

    • Pilar

      the sad part is so many people know who she is. And PZ told her he can no longer talk to her. He’s throwing her under the bus, as his lawyers told her he can no longer communicate with her. he used her. She now has to get a lawyer she can not afford. Thanks PZ. He’s a professional, he should have gone over with her just what she was getting into. i don’t think she should have been silent, but he should stand by her and help her out with the legal expenses. It may indeed be Shermer’s fault, but she is not the kind of person that would really know what her coming out would entail. It happened in ’06.

      • http://oolon.co.uk/ oolon

        Bullshit, where did this crock come from? PZ is the one being sued and he threw her under a bus … You are totally delusional.

        • dawn

          why is he being sued when shermer has a history of a charge?

          • Jafafa Hots

            Because Shermer is suing him (possibly, I have seen no confirmation of an actual suit.)

            Do you understand how lawsuits work?

          • dawn

            but michael was charged for harassing a woman previously in washington state, he has a bad history, charged…

          • Crotalus

            So you allege.

          • http://oolon.co.uk/ oolon

            FYI “Dawn” is most likely Dawn Gordon as Renee identifies below. Anything she says is coloured by her unfortunate issues.

          • Richard Sanderson

            Dawn is a stalker, a bit like Greg Laden, who supports and trumpets the FTB agenda.

          • dawn

            fuck off oolon who got publicity written by a pedophile!

          • dawn

            and if those momma bloggers did not have five blogs going at the same time under different names so other moms could not have the chance to blog reviews…that would not have been poated

          • dawn

            the man who
            wrote that article has a record…

      • doubtthat

        Haha, what? There’s so much dumbassery packed into that block of child-speak that it’s impossible to pick a favorite.

        Pilar’s post :: fabricated nonsense
        Chips Ahoy :: chips

      • sinmantyx

        I suspect that if what you say it true, there would be a substantial response to a legal defense fund to be created on her behalf.

        I don’t think PZ probably knew how this would go down, just because he is a professional doesn’t mean he understands the law or can tell the future.

        • Pitchguest

          Three things:

          Professional? I think not.

          Doesn’t understand the law? Absolutely.

          Can’t tell the future? Definitely.

    • doubtthat


      How hard is it to understand the difference between “anonymous” and “confidential?”

      • AmbivalentCynic

        Perhaps because to everyone save a small handful of people, the person is anonymous.

        “No one is anonymous, everyone is known to someone! At the very least themselves! Therefore, not anonymous!”

        El Derp. Huffing paint is bad for you.

        • Buck Buckerson

          Thank you.

        • http://shameonbetterbirth.wordpress.com/ Shameon Betterbirth

          I guess you don’t believe any news stories about rape or molestation then? Those victims are ‘anonymous’ to the public too.

          • Pitchguest

            For crying out loud. No one has conflated the reporting of an incident of rape where both parties remain anonymous, and reporting the alleged guilt of a person accused of rape where only one party remains anonymous.

            If a news station were to report that, for example, Tom Cruise (to name anyone in the public eye) had raped someone where they specifically said, “this comes from confirmation from a friend of a friend” then maybe people would be averse to take it at face value? And where no more information was given, other than “they were raped” and that’s the end of it?

            I mean, even if a rape had (or has) occurred, then reporting it via the press or via a relatively known blog, and doing it in such a vague manner, is only doing a disservice to the victim, because it only provides reasonable doubt to be used as leverage by the alleged perpetrator.

            So, no, I wouldn’t discount incidents where the persons involved are anonymous, because that’s not what’s being done here. You’re being disingenuous.

          • http://shameonbetterbirth.wordpress.com/ Shameon Betterbirth

            you should re-read what pz said if you think there is a difference. He said “so and so told me this, and I trust them, though I have no way to verify it or provide any more information”. What difference is there between that and the news tacking on ‘allegedly’ onto the front of it? If a reporter knew the person who was making an allegation they should say so, right? What other way is there for this woman to warn people that sill protects her safety? The police wouldn’t do anything about it.

          • Pitchguest

            A news report tacking on ‘allegedly’ to the front of it, on a story where both parties remain anonymous (or “unidentified”), would mean absolutely fuck all. The rapist is always called a suspect, and the victim is always an alleged victim. Because due process dictates presuming the guilt before the case is concluded is vigilantism – which is why there is such a thing as “the law.” Which is why there is such a thing as “a court.” Which is why there is such a thing as “habeas corpus.”

            I mean, imagine the Steubenville case. Imagine instead of the evidence against the two boys, it was just white noise. A public case, scrutinised by the public eye, and all they would have for evidence is “a friend of a friend”; it would be nonsensical to take the information provided at face value. Which is why most courts need more. When witnesses are called, do you think all they ask is, “Did this person do it?” No. They need time of date, they need specifics, they need circumstances; anything that could remove reasonable doubt.

            The information PZ has provided is so vague, so specious, that any competent lawyer could tear it to pieces. Is that what PZ wants for the alleged victim?

          • Richard Sanderson

            PZ is willing to throw the alleged victim under the bus at the drop of a hat.

            He’s that kind of cupcake.

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            The news report formal allegations made to police to be filed and processed via the criminal justice system. The complainants don’t get to remain anonymous unless they’re children.

            You can’t just get a reporter you’re friends with to report on the evening news that Tom Cruise raped you and that you cannot give any more information or reveal your identity because you wish to remain anonymous. That reporter would lose his job instantly and probably go to prison. PZ is a stupid, malicious Toddler who deserves a spanking. The editorial staff of the Daily Beast may need a smack as well.

          • AmbivalentCynic

            I’m not sure where I even mentioned believing any stories of any sort based on the identity of the source. But please, feel free to make up all the positions for me to hold that you’d like.

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            What are you talking about? Is there evidence for those crimes or not?

            If there is no evidence, you cannot haul a person’s name through the mud based on the hearsay of someone who may or may not exist. They coyly wish to remain anonymous, yes; that’s what someone who didn’t exist outside PZ’s imagination would require as well.

            This is pure smear under the pretense of caring about future victims. If she cared, she’d make a proper complaint. She’d release all the information she could, because truth isn’t afraid of illumination. Only liars fear transparency.

            This is degrading Toddler smut. This is because Sherman subscribes to Ayn Rand’s philosophical values. Ayn Rand, I’m told, is calling for an end to leaching. So leaching women will be furious. Stigma and smear; the hallmarks of the whores who destroyed the world with their misogynist religions of leaching and lies.

            You know, they used to stigmatize newborn babies born out of wedlock as “bastards”? They attack all threats with stigma and smear.

        • doubtthat

          This is a very stupid point. There’s a difference between an anonymous report and a confidential source. Regardless of whether you personally know the person or not, the victim in the Shermer episode is not anonymous. Deep Throat was not anonymous.

          This isn’t difficult.

          • http://liberaloutlook.wordpress.com/ Arpit Chauhan

            Why do you think people should be expected to believe what one person claims comes from his confidential source? Simple thing is that if one really wants the public to accept it as a fact that Shermer is a rapist, file a lawsuit or criminal complaint.

            Yes, all this accusation might be enough for people to not drink with Shermer (and who cares?) but not enough to make it an established fact that Shermer is a rapist.

          • Jacob Schmidt

            “Yes, all this accusation might be enough for people to not drink with Shermer (and who cares?)…”

            That’s exactly why they were made. Did you read the accusation? Lookee: “Ever since, I’ve heard stories about him doing things (5 different people have directly told me they did the same to them) and wanted to just say something and warn people, and I didn’t know how. I hope this protects someone.”

          • Pitchguest

            You know, it would be sad if someone said the same thing about you and you wouldn’t be able to say anything about it, because they would just point to your exchange here. Were you the bully in school, or the bullied? I wonder.

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            Prior to bullying and being bullied, nearly every human child is bullied by malicious, tiny women who raise children with lies, violence, fear, shame and (need for) love.

            Monkey see, monkey do. There’s only one way to get a child to cover their ‘shameful’ human DNA. The trauma is so great, I’m reliably told they put on clothes to hide their mother’s shame for the rest of their lives.

          • http://rationaloutlook.wordpress.com/ rationaloutlook

            Are you kidding me? If that was to be done, people in the “skeptic community” could have been notified without a public blog post that the whole world can read. And I already know that the line was quoted.

          • Jacob Schmidt

            How would you notify an international community without making it public?

            In any case, your complaint about it being “not enough to make it an established fact that Shermer is a rapist,” is irrelevant, since the blog post does indeed do what it was supposed to do (warn people, that is).

          • http://rationaloutlook.wordpress.com/ rationaloutlook

            Publishing that accusation borders on libel. And the community that I referred to comprises of people that frequent the conferences like TAM, WISCFI etc.

            The thing is that PZ claimed that Shermer is a rapist and that is what I mean by the phrase you quote above. If you gonna actually claim someone to be such a horrible criminal, go to court and file a complaint. What would be your reaction if people started claiming you’re a rapist and publishing this? You’d sue them. And, you’d expect them to file a complaint instead, so that you can fight your case.

            Simple and worth repeating: If you want the luxury of claiming and publishing that a person is a high-level criminal, file a freakin’ criminal complain and win the case. It happens all the time. According to DOJ stats, 4 out of 10 arrested for rape are CONVICTED. Not as difficult as finding a lizard turn into a snake, as Greta would like you to believe.

          • Jacob Schmidt

            Publishing that accusation borders on libel.

            Only if we assume she’s lying (nice assumption, eh?).

            And the community that I referred to comprises of people that frequent the conferences like TAM, WISCFI etc.

            Yes; that community is international. Even if we limit to the US, how would you notify all those people without it getting public?

            The thing is that PZ claimed that Shermer is a rapist and that is what I mean by the phrase you quote above.

            Assuming this is true (and it isn’t; PZ states that he can’t verify the claims), your complaint about not establishing Shermer as a rapist is invalid since that isn’t the point. Does that confuse you?

            What would be your reaction if people started claiming you’re a rapist and publishing this?You’d sue them.[1] And, you’d expect them to file a complaint instead, so that you can fight your case.[2]

            1) I really wouldn’t; I have no inclination to invoke the courts.

            2) Why do you pretend to know my expectations?

            According to DOJ stats, 4 out of 10 arrested for rape are CONVICTED.

            Assuming this is true, it only applies to rape cases that actually go to court, and it ignores the harassment that the victim would likely receive as well as the fact that maybe, just fucking maybe, the victim doesn’t want to deal with a long and tiring criminal case revolving around a traumatic experience. Fucking empathy, how does it work?

          • http://rationaloutlook.wordpress.com/ rationaloutlook

            No, one doesn’t need to assume she’s lying. Presumption of innocence, however is given to Shermer. It’s another thing that there is no “she” that we know. It’s PZ only.

            Just to address the lying thing: one has to understand that human brains aren’t perfect. Is she lying or is she correct is a false dichotomy. e.g. At JREF forums a person said, “When my mother claims that she saw Jesus, do I have only two options: she is lying, or she is correct and really saw Jesus?”

            Again if one doesn’t want to deal with the system, one shouldn’t need to publish this. It is VERY different thing when you lose a case, even though there was really a rape. Of course, till then the accusation is public and you should be able to claim that you were right. Yes, the system of courts is tough and xyz but there is a thing called “due process” which every person on Earth except one actively bombing cities deserves! Due process not just before getting jailed, but getting publicly maligned for being a felon.
            [Above para has nothing to do with how law in the state where Shermer resides or where the rape happened actually works.]

            And those two questions weren’t personally for you but any reasonable randomly selected person.

          • Jacob Schmidt

            No, one doesn’t need to assume she’s lying.[1] Presumption of innocence, however is given to Shermer.[2] It’s another thing that there is no “she” that we know. It’s PZ only.[3]

            1) To claim libel? Yes, you do. This is especially true for public figures, since merely being wrong isn’t enough.

            2) You can tell by the fact that he hasn’t been arrested, charged or faced any legal consequence what so ever. Hell, you even admitted that all that would really happen was less people (presumably mostly women) would drink with him.

            3) Carrie Poppy has confirmed that there is, indeed, a “she.” Unless you’re willing to assume a conspiracy, that is.

            Just to address the lying thing: one has to understand that human brains aren’t perfect.

            How do you imagine her fucking up on whether or not someone had sex with her without her consent?

            Again if one doesn’t want to deal with the system, one shouldn’t need to publish this.

            Unless one wanted to warn people, in which case this was all very effective.

            Yes, the system of courts is tough and xyz but there is a thing called “due process” which every person on Earth except one actively bombing cities deserves!

            You know what I love about all these “principled” people, whether it’s “rape is always bad” or “he needs his due process”? They seem to often have exceptions to their strongly held “principles”; it’s starting to look like ad hoc bullshit.

            Due process not just before getting jailed, but getting publicly maligned for being a felon.

            I dunno about you, but were I assaulted, I’d have no problem publicly stating so (the problems with being harassed for besmirching the name of a public figure not withstanding). I would feel no need to keep silent for the sake of the reputation of someone who I know assaulted me. Why everyone thinks any victim should, I have no idea.

          • http://rationaloutlook.wordpress.com/ rationaloutlook

            No she should not keep silent. If Shermer is guilty, I want to see him punished.

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            You don’t need to assume she’s lying. She’s failing to disclose her identity or any information that can be used to verify her claims. Non-disclosure = concealment = deceit. I don’t make the rules. This isn’t my opinion; to imagine non-disclosure can be true is to be insane.

            I do not know if her allegations are true and neither do you. But to assume someone is telling the truth when they are refusing to disclose truth is insane.

            Empathy isn’t understood by the insane. Empathy is a humane value. If you had empathy in this instance, it would be for the victim of unsubstantiated smear.

          • Jacob Schmidt

            You don’t need to assume she’s lying.[1] She’s failing to disclose her identity or any information that can be used to verify her claims. Non-disclosure = concealment = deceit.[2] I don’t make the rules. This isn’t my opinion; to imagine non-disclosure can be true is to be insane.[3]

            1) To claim libel, yes you do.

            2) Not that it matters, because you go on to assert that she’s lying anyways.

            3) This doesn’t even kind of make sense; reality exists independent of our claims. Not to mention that you’re using “insane” both incorrectly and in an ableist way.

            Empathy isn’t understood by the insane.[1] Empathy is a humane value.[2] If you had empathy in this instance, it would be for the victim of unsubstantiated smear.[3]

            1) This is false; look up what “insane” means.

            2) Did you mean “human” or “humane”? The former is false, while the latter is not precluded by insanity

            3) It’s only a smear if it’s false; otherwise, it’s an accurate claim. But, no, you’re not assuming she’s lying, eh?

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            1) To claim libel, yes you do.

            No, you misunderstood my point; you don’t need to assume she’s lying because it’s a categorical fact that she’s lying about everything that can be used to verify her claim. We don’t need to discuss whether her claim is valid; she’s proven herself to be someone who values deceit so she to needs to provide more information or shut her smearing mouth.

            1) This is false; look up what “insane” means.

            I defined the insane as people who think malicious deceit (non-disclosure) isn’t lying. If you think up is down, Yes is no, God is good, deceit is nice, truth is rude, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, war is peace, happiness in misery and/or malicious advantage seeking at the expense of other humans > Humanity > yourself; then you’re insane.

            We live in a cannibalistic violence racing towards a game-play inevitable M.A.D. if drastic universal changes are not made urgently; we’re going the other way. Sanity is forfeit in a world of lies.

            Everyone is insane but only the maliciously insane are dangerous. Unfortunately they’re the one’s who imagine they’re sane because they killed everyone who disagreed with them.

            2) Did you mean “human” or “humane”? The former is false, while the latter is not precluded by insanity

            They’re interchangeable. If you are not humane, you are no longer human. You are waste product of a dead Humanity. If you are empathy-bankrupted, you will be very damaging waste product.

            3) It’s only a smear if it’s false; otherwise, it’s an accurate claim. But, no, you’re not assuming she’s lying, eh?

            Assume that a liar is lying? Why would I do that?

          • Jacob Schmidt

            No, you misunderstood my point; you don’t need to assume she’s lying because it’s a categorical fact that she’s lying about everything that can be used to verify her claim.


            She’s failing to disclose her identity or any information that can be used to verify her claims.

            So she’s lying by not saying anything? You realize that’s impossible, right?

            They’re interchangeable.

            They aren’t. One denotes a type of behaviour; the other denotes our species. Given that you think lying and not speaking are somehow synonymous, I’m not surprised this confuses you.

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            Non-disclosure is deceit. I cannot be reduced by having this conversation with someone who imagines you’re telling the truth when you’re refusing to tell the truth.

            The truth is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the relevant truth. Failing to disclose is concealment of truth > lying. Only women imagine concealing reality to be telling the truth. It’s madness. If you cannot understand, I cannot do your mother’s failed job for her. I cannot fix your mind decades after she seared malicious deception into your consciousness as a virtue.

          • Jacob Schmidt

            Non-disclosure is deceit.[1] I cannot be reduced by having this conversation with someone who imagines you’re telling the truth when you’re refusing to tell the truth.[2]

            1) Only to a birther and similar idealogues (i.e. “If Obama doens’t show us his birth certificate, then he’s an illegal alien!”).

            2) Ah, I see the problem. You’ve set up a false dichotomy whereby one who isn’t speaking the truth must be lying. You’ve failed to account for the case where on is not speaking; in such a case, one is neither lying nor telling the truth because such terms don’t apply. The victim gave us the details she felt were relevant. It is not deceit to keep maintain ones privacy.

            The truth is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the relevant truth.[1] Failing to disclose is concealment of truth > lying.[2] Only women imagine concealing reality to be telling the truth.[3] It’s madness. If you cannot understand, I cannot do your mother’s failed job for her. I cannot fix your mind decades after she seared malicious deception into your consciousness as a virtue..[4]

            1) No. Leaving out true details does not make the given true details turn false. This is nonsense.

            2) Why do you insist on using “greater than” symbols to denote equality?

            3) You can take your sexist horseshit and go fuck yourself.

            4) I suspect this is projection; it’s certainly ridiculous.

          • doubtthat

            Where did I say you were expected to believe the narrative was true?

          • AmbivalentCynic

            That’s funny because Woodward and Bernstein both described Deep Throat as anonymous in All The President’s Men. But you plebs don’t read, so who cares?

            And you’re essentially saying that the point I put in quotations is correct. That’s profoundly sad.

            You’ve asserted that they’re different, but that doesn’t tell me anything. Watch: There isn’t a difference between an anonymous report and a confidential source.

            Nice wordplay there, though, since the only real difference is an anonymous report is a piece of information and an anonymous source is a source for said information that is unnamed. Who in this scenario is unnamed?

          • AmbivalentCynic

            I’ll give you a hint as to what I was trying to demonstrate with my little quote: Anonymity does not mean no one knows your identity.

          • doubtthat

            Yes, it was a dumb point. The issue is anonymity with regard to the specific action taken.

            There are anonymous tip lines you can call to report crimes. Police have confidential sources. Consider the difference between those two things, and the essence of this comically simply issue may become visible for you.

          • AmbivalentCynic

            “The issue is anonymity with regard to the specific action taken.” No, it’s with the definition of “anonymous,” which you dolts can’t seem to grasp.

            There ISN’T a difference between those two things. You keep asserting blindly that they’re different without describing the actual difference. And the only conceivable difference there could be (An anon source is totally unknown versus a confidential source known to the person receiving the information) is a gross misrepresentation of what the term “anonymous” actually means, because under that logic the term “anonymous” has no meaning whatsoever.

            But I’ll present more sources that shows people in the field of journalism using the terms interchangeably and in such a way that they are very closely related, just to see if this will pierce the layers of concrete surrounding your brain. From the American Journalism Review: http://ajr.org/article.asp?id=4039

            From the Radio Television Digital News Association: http://www.rtdna.org/content/confidential_sources#.UhBPFT_xSUo

            The NY Times’ Policy on Confidential Sources: http://www.nytco.com/company/business_units/sources.html

            ALL of these describe confidential sources AS BEING ANONYMOUS. RETARD.

          • doubtthat

            Well, I’m willing to concede that the terms have been traditionally used interchangeably. There are plenty of other sources, however, that make the distinction:


            Before discussing this issue it is helpful to define the terms “anonymous” and “confidential”. Anonymous means not identified by name. Confidential means private, secret, not universally available or known only to a select few.



            In journalism, it appears that the distinction does not hinge on how much information is known about the source to the reporter, but whether they will use legal protections to keep that source secret in the event of a lawsuit:

            ‘There is a difference between anonymous sources and confidential sources. An anonymous source is one whose name we’ve agreed to leave out of the paper, but whose identity we may later need to disclose – in the event of a libel suit, for example -in order to show that we had good reason for using the information.

            ”A confidential source is one whose name isn’t published and whose identity we are pledged to keep secret, even if that means losing a lawsuit or going to jail.


            That’s a specific legal definition to a specific industry. In every other field I’ve found, the distinction is made, and with respect to the press, they have information about the source under both terms.

          • AmbivalentCynic

            Governmental agencies and AIDS testing centers are not remotely comparable analogies here. PZ Myers is not an AIDS testing center, nor is he doing a survey, nor is he any sort of government agency (Praise the space teapot for that). The closest analogy to what he does would be digital media, and the terms are defined pretty clearly in that context. Different fields that use the same terms can use them to mean different things. This is not terribly surprising news.

      • Buck Buckerson

        Calling it confidential is giving it too much credit. The entire event was relayed via email via a friend of a friend.

        • doubtthat

          That doesn’t make it anonymous.

          Have we just stopped caring what words mean? It’s such a blatant, retarded effort to minimize the report (one that fails on its face).

          • Pitchguest

            Funny you should say that. Weren’t you of the clique that thought that anyone using a dictionary should lose the argument? But since you care so much about words, then maybe this glossary should interest you:


          • Pitchguest

            By the way, I just noticed that you used the word “retarded” to describe our alleged “efforts.” Ableist much?

          • http://oolon.co.uk/ oolon

            If anyone is wondering PG is lying, he couldn’t care less about ableism. http://www.oolon.co.uk/?p=384

          • Pitchguest

            I think you need to look up the definition of “arguing in bad faith.”

            What I’m doing is exposing hypocrisy. In other words, applying their standards to their own words. I’m fairly certain that user doubtthat has previously revealed he thinks words like “retarded” are ableist. If he thinks words like “retarded” are ableist, then he should apply his own standard and not use words like “retarded.” Not doing so would be hypocritical, and that’s exactly the kind I’m exposing here.

            As for myself, I don’t have that sort of inhibition so I don’t have a problem with using that word. If I said I did but didn’t, and still tried to get some brownie points, *that* would be “arguing in bad faith.”

            In fact, I do say this in the blog post you link to, but you still can’t seem put two and two together. It’s a bit like talking to a wall, to be honest. A very stubborn wall.

            I say again, I don’t care when Pharyngulites tell me they’re going to forcibly shove a rotten porcupine up my rectum. Because that’s never going to happen, is it? It’s just tough, empty talk and will not amount to anything substantial. However, my standards of online threats is not the standard of everyone, and especially not the standard of the FtB, Skepchick and A+ clique, who thinks they should be taken seriously. With that in mind, would they have objected if someone had taken the threat of them forcibly shoving a dead porcupine up people’s arses to the police and reported it?

            I doubt they would see the funny side. Or they would, but rather laugh as to *why* it was taken so seriously. Or maybe they would give it the Chris Clarke response, that it was “clearly a joke” followed by accusations of mental illness.

          • Pitchguest

            And since you’re most likely going to read this as Ray Comfort reads the Bible – selectively – I should probably clarify to saying *most* threats online.

            Oh, and while we’re at it, don’t accuse others of lying when you do this:


            I dismissed what? You’re a dishonest piece of shit, James.

          • doubtthat

            Sometimes it fits. I seem to only use it when you’re around…interesting correlation.

    • Buck Buckerson

      She’s anonymous because WE don’t know who she is–get it? Ugh.

      If someone gives an interview and is blacked out with voice modulation, just because the cameraman knows who was in the room giving the interview doesn’t mean that the identity of the person isn’t still anonymous to the public. Anonymous doesn’t necessarily mean that NOBODY knows who made the allegations, but that the public at large is in the dark.

      • drshell

        That’s NOT what Shermer implies above, nor what others imply when they pull the “friend of a friend” nonsense. They’re trying to discredit the claim without addressing the claim. In your scenario, the person is not “anonymous” but “unidentified.” When you call a tip line at the police station you’re anonymous because (supposedly, anyway) they can’t call you back. PZ could ask this woman more questions. Hell, he could publish her name if he felt like it, and the name of their mutual friend, though I don’t know why having those names revealed would make any difference to me since it’s unlikely that I know either.

        • http://liberaloutlook.wordpress.com/ Arpit Chauhan

          Convicting someone forever in the court of public opinion requires at least that the name of accuser is known. And it’s verifiable that that person is actually making the claim. That’s why it’s advised that people file a claim in the court.

          • drshell

            “Requires” according to whom? If that’s your standard, fine, don’t think of him as “convicted.” Until I hear more, I will think of him as someone I don’t want to hang out with. There’s no law saying this woman has to file a court case. Whatever happened, she believes that Shermer could be a danger to women, and she wants to tell us that now. This happens all the time. Victims of assault often hide it because they feel ashamed and humiliated–non-reporting is even more common with men and boys than with women and girls, if I recall correctly. Later, though, they will feel guilty for not telling anyone and potentially putting others at risk. Look at how many decades it takes some children to report abuse from clergy. A court case at this point would almost certainly go nowhere, but a criminal court case is not the single arbiter of truth.

          • http://rationaloutlook.wordpress.com/ rationaloutlook

            Alerting others can be done without publicly publishing an accusation. That’s where it does not remain “innocuous” alerting anymore. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t report incidents of rape. Instead, I’m saying that every single case should be reported. No matter how famous a person, he/she should go to jail for raping someone.

            And, by the way, if you check DOJ stats, 4 out of 10 rape court cases result in conviction. The system works. One can’t have it both ways: not report it but publish it anonymously.

            As you might be aware, PZ can be sued for such libelous behavior.

        • Pitchguest

          Ah, so the allegation of rape is true because of semantics?

          The person isn’t “anonymous”; they’re “unidentifed.” Still, there is only one claim being made: Shermer coerced her into a positon where she couldn’t consent, and then had sex with her. In other words, rape. But no more information has been revealed. What were the circumstances, where was it, when was it, etc. All the rest of us, who are not acquainted with this woman, all we have is an account that says Shermer raped her.

          How is that not unfair to Shermer, who’s being charged with a crime where he’s unable to defend himself (because they would just say he’s lying, or a piece of work, or an asshole, or whatever else has been said in this comment section that they would somehow tie the accusation of rape together) and when he does bring the law into it, he’s a bully?

          It almost beggars belief. Then again, it’s what I would expect from PZ and his clique (who’ve together divorced themselves from the sceptic movement, and where they consider the word “sceptic” to be an insult).

          • drshell

            I was only responding to the constant refrain of anonymous.Of course that doesn’t make him guilty. I have no idea if he’s guilty.

          • doubtthat

            Goddamn, what a pathetic scope shift. That was one of the quickest, lamest subject changes I’ve ever seen. It didn’t even take you a full sentence to miss the point.

          • Pitchguest

            The point being?

          • doubtthat

            The point being that the post was about one thing and you immediately began talking about another in your usual breathless, melodramatic manner.

            The issue of whether the source was anonymous or not was isolated from the question of whether Shermer was guilty. People are amazingly still trying to call the source “anonymous” in a weak effort to discredit. The source may be right or wrong, but she isn’t anonymous. Babbling about guilt is just a silly scope shift.

        • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

          When you make an anonymous claim, your claim discredits itself. Otherwise we could all smear everyone we didn’t like without consequence.

    • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

      How do you know he didn’t get a note thrown through his window tied to a brick? How do you know the woman exists outside of his imagination? This will come as a shock to a lying Toddler, but did you know that people lie? I know, right! Who knew?

      Non-disclosure is deceit. The truth is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If the woman doesn’t exist, PZ is lying. If the woman does exist, the woman and PZ are lying. She might be telling the truth about Shermer but why would anyone believe anyone who values non-disclosure?

      The median age of this reduced species has fallen below zero. Malicious, evil, little Toddlers; lying to everyone and getting bumhurt when people don’t value them for their corrupted, malicious minds. No human is beautiful if they value malicious deceit. No woman is beautiful if all she wants is to be pursued by those she deceives with her putrid need for love.

      • drshell

        Um, lying? Because she didn’t tell you her name? She didn’t say she doesn’t have a name. She didn’t give you a false name. She just doesn’t want batshit loons to know who she is. Your message is excellent testimony to her good sense in that regard.

        • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

          Lady, if you don’t know how to distinguish truth from lies you will have the same credibility problems every liar faces when they can’t understand why their lies are only believed by their children.

          The truth is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Non-disclosure is deceit. Failing to act is action. Refusing to tender relevant information is malicious deception. Concealment is lying. Withholding truth is lying. Your pretexts are not valid. Stop defending the Right of liars to lie without consequence.

          The only lunatics here are people who want their smear to be taken seriously but they’re not willing to be decent. Don’t turn around and smear me; what is with you indecent Toddlers? Grow up, already! Have some dignity and Self-respect.

    • YoureReallyStupid

      So the woman isn’t anonymous? What’s her name?

  • PIlar

    I think in all this people forget about the woman in the story. It’s not funny to her. Period. If her name comes out, and far too many people know it already, she will once again be the victim. Haha, funny, but how about a real investigative story…interview people. People that have attended conferences, people that have dated Shermer, known Shermer…Carrie Poppy is obviously outed as one of the anonymous women, so why not interview her? it’s all to easy just to make a funny article where you don’t interview anyone. I say, someone needs to put old fashioned reporting skills to work here. The women, and indeed Mr.Shermer, deserve this.

    • Jacob Schmidt

      That’s… a very good point. Thank you.

    • xdrta

      Maybe she doesn’t want to be interviewed, I know I wouldn’t want to be. Shermer is a blowhard, let him sue. Being a public figure, he has to prove Myers acted with malice, whether the allegations are true or not. Good luck with that.

      • Crotalus

        No he doesn’t in a per se case.

        • xdrta

          Of course he does, as he is a public figure, New York Times v Sullivan. The statement must be made with “actual malice”. Unless you want to claim Shermer is not a public figure.

          • dawn

            you asked for case number did you want pierce countypolice number?

          • Crotalus

            No, I want the court case number to plug in here: http://dw.courts.wa.gov/

          • dawn


          • Crotalus

            Ages are wrong. There’s a 49 year-old Michael Van Shermer in Tacoma Wa, born in 1964. Michael Brant Shermer was born in ’54.

          • dawn


          • Crotalus

            Sullivan doesn’t apply in a per se case.

          • xdrta

            “Sullivan doesn’t apply in a per se case.”

            You are wrong. See California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) 1700 and 1701, which apply to statements about a public figure in the case of defamation per se. The plaintiff must prove actual malice; “In addition, [name of plaintiff] must prove by clear and convincing evidence that [name of defendant] knew the statement(s) [was/were] false or had serious doubts about the truth of the statement(s).”

          • Buck Buckerson

            Nope, not in a per se case (in which a person alleges sexual misconduct).

          • Bernard Rieux

            Flatly wrong. New York Times v. Sullivan IS a libel per se case. The Alabama trial court found that the Times had defamed Sullivan on a libel per se theory. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the trial-court decision, holding that the First Amendment mandates an “actual malice” standard, which the facts of that case (not to mention this one) do not meet. NYT v. Sullivan specifically holds that “actual malice” is required, when the plaintiff is a public figure, even in libel-per-se cases.

            Where are you people coming up with this nonsense?

      • Pitchguest

        Brilliant. Shermer gets accused of being a rapist, and now the onus is on him to prove he’s not. Blog justice for the win.

    • http://oolon.co.uk/ oolon

      I disagree, do you not think that ridiculing him has a place? You seem to be accepting the woman accusing Shermer is real at least, unlike many. Pricking his ego and showing him up is a great way of demonstrating his human fallibility. This could well help in getting people to speak out as his power over them will be diminished. Much easier to speak out against a fool than the “famous skeptic” …

  • real horrorshow


  • James

    I think this might be useful reading for the community at this point: http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/. Importantly: “The rapists who are out there are mostly using intoxication.” In other words, getting someone drunk then taking advantage of them is the most common tactic for rapists.
    Not that I’m saying the allegations are necessarily true, but all the people who are dismissing what this woman has said as just “drunk sex” or “regretted sex” because force wasn’t used are being naive.

    • Please die now

      We’re ALL the rapists!

      (Cue “Everybody’s got AIDS” from Team America)

      • Richard Sanderson

        That’s actually similar to what PZ Myers and his horde at Pharyngula said, but with one slight difference. They claimed that they were all RACIST. Some of them are bit rapey as well, according to the allegations made public about PZ and Lousy Canuck.

    • Pitchguest

      *sigh* If you’d bothered to read the original story, you’d know there was no alcohol involved. That came from a story later recounted on PZ’s blog, that was totally unrelated to the incident with PZ’s (currently) anonymous source.

      Also, there is no such thing as “getting someone drunk” unless you force them to drink, or drug them. The later story says Shermer was being flirty with a woman and kept refilling her drink. She doesn’t have to say yes to another drink; she doesn’t even have to drink it. If she gets drunk, without drugs or force, she gets drunk of her own volition. If someone later takes advantage of her afterwards, when she’s drunk enough, that’s a different thing entirely. But you don’t “get someone drunk.” That’s like saying you “get someone fat” or “get someone skinny.” Does not compute.

      • Psychotic Atheist

        Of course you can get someone drunk.

        You could put vodka in their orange juice without their knowing it.

        You could put vodka in their red wine without their knowing it.

        Or you could use psychological methods for confusing the person as to how much they have drank and how drunk they are getting so they lose track, and in their suggestible state keep drinking when drinks are offered beyond the point they would have stopped previously.

        Or perhaps giving alcohol to a minor.

        There may be other methods, I’m no expert.

        • Pitchguest

          I think putting vodka in someone’s orange juice would count as “drugging.”

          Using psychological methods to confuse someone at how much they’ve drunk *could* also count as a form of “drugging”, if they’re suggestible enough, however I would still not consider it to “get someone drunk.” They drink because they want to drink, not because they forgot their quota.

          • doubtthat

            Or, which is more likely, you could recreationally become intoxicated with someone, then take advantage of their drunken state.

            The victim becoming willfully getting drunk does not absolve Shermer of responsibility, should the allegations be true.

          • Pitchguest

            The woman becoming willfully drunk in the presence of Shermer does not indict Shermer in any way, shape or form, because according to the woman’s story, she left and Shermer did nothing. He didn’t attempt to take advantage of her, he didn’t follow her afterwards; she left, of her own volition, after getting drunk, of her own volition, and Shermer did absolutely nothing.

            What responsibility is Shermer supposed to absolve himself of here, exactly?

          • doubtthat

            We’re talking about two different scenarios.

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            The victim becoming willfully drunk does not absolve her of responsibility, either. You seem a little confused about personal responsibility. Who is taking advantage of whom? Who can?

            To assert that I can take advantage of a woman is utterly false. They can take advantage of me. I cannot take advantage of them. Only deluded morons deceived by their women’s lies imagine value exists in forcing themselves on a woman; there’s no value in rape! I cannot take advantage of what has no value. They can take advantage of me.

            Women lie to me every day in an attempt to make themselves appear to be more sexually attractive than they are? They’re attempting to induce desire they aim to manipulate and leverage into advantage. If I got drunk and blamed women for taking advantage, my position would be a lot more valid than a woman who got drunk and claimed men took advantage of her. Women enjoy sex 10x more than a man.

            I take responsibility for protecting myself from obligated slavery. This is a world of predators and all is exactly how it seems to anyone who isn’t blinded by their mother’s, women’s, religion’s and Society’s misogynist lies.

          • Psychotic Atheist

            That’s right, it is drugging. And the result of that drugging is that the person gets drunk, by the actions of the drugger. How is that not getting someone drunk?

            They don’t drink what they wanted to drink, and a slightly drunk person is often very easy to persuade to drink more. Keeping them sat down is a good tactic so they can’t rely on normal signals to cue them into how drunk they are getting.

            If you are performing an action that causes another to drink alcohol they wouldn’t drink without your intervention – you are getting them drunk.

          • Pitchguest

            Which is why I added the exception, “unless you force them to drink, or drug them.” Excepting those two scenarios, there’s really no such thing as “[getting] someone drunk.”

            And what sort of action would precipitate someone to take another drink, if they hadn’t intervened? Peer pressure?

          • Psychotic Atheist

            When people drink they become more inclined towards drinking more and it becomes increasingly easy to suggest to a drunk person that they should drink more. If a person is doing that suggesting, if they are keeping the person sitting down, keeping them talking, applying star status or their natural charisma to draw attention away from the refills and so on…and numerous other methods can be used to get a person to drink more than they intended to.

            Also, remember, women can tolerate less alcohol than men, on average and will get drunk with less drink.

            What would you say to the victim of a conman? You shouldn’t have given him your money, it’s your own fault?

            Conmen use tactics to gain your trust, then they exploit that trust. We condemn this. They don’t take their money by force, normally. They use other coercive methods to get money from someone.

            Deliberately employing tactics that will cause a person to drink more than they intend with the intention of exploiting their lowered inhibitions or impaired motor function, is morally reprehensible – whether you have semantic argument about whether doing so should be technically called ‘getting someone drunk’.

            I’m interested in what you would think is a better terminology for the action of plying a person with alcohol in such a way as to cause a greater degree of inebriation than they wanted to?

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            This is psychotic. “Applying star status”? What? Status is in the eye of the beholder. What is someone supposed to do with idol-worshiping fanatics? If they’re friendly, they’re applying star status which pressures the star-struck malicious into consequence-free behaviour?

            You’re insane.

            “What would you say to the victim of a conman? You shouldn’t have given him your money, it’s your own fault?”

            Women are wearing makeup to appear to be more attractive than they are. They wear padded bras, push-up bras, flattering clothes they had to shame toddlers into wearing. Whomever is lying is running the con.

        • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

          You’re trying to conflate malicious poisoning with exuberant hospitality. One is concealed, one is transparent. That’s all that distinguishes evil from decency. If a woman cannot keep track of her alcohol intake, she’s clearly not old enough to be drinking. Or having sex. Imagine if such a woman bred children? She’d blame men for failing to take care of them and Society would have to step in for the sake of the innocent children being hijacked by a malicious leech.


          Malicious Toddlers want grownup rights without responsibilities. They can’t take care of themselves but they want to maliciously deceive, create suffering, manipulate the victims of their putrid illusions and games, ignite conflict, start wars, breed children to enslave with lies and violence; hijacking Society with their non-contributing, unconscionable, needy existence.

          Laughing and lying, they split their legs as children suffer, fight and die for no reason. They’ve been lied to.

          • Psychotic Atheist

            I am not trying to conflate the two whatsoever.
            They are both ‘getting someone drunk’ by any reasonable understanding of the terms.

            Why did you specifically mention women – are men who cannot keep track of alcohol intake blameless?

            What about someone who is being deliberately confused as to how much they are drinking, and how drunk they are getting? Ie., victims of being conned into drinking more than they intended? Should we tell them they are not mature enough, or do we have sympathy for humans that succumb to human failings (which are also strengths, such as ‘trust’)?

            I wonder if you’ve ever been called misogynistic? Because, if you were ever confused about that you might consider your condescending and pretty disgusting attitude towards women who end up drinking too much.

            Because you’ve never drank too much, you’ve never been persuaded by that charismatic friend to have a few more (half dozen) drinks before heading home. Presumably if said friend subsequently fucked you in the ass while you were trying to figure out which was up, you’d shrug your shoulders the next morning and say ‘I should have refused the drinks.’

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            To blur malicious poisoning with transparent hospitality is to conflate evil with decency. How can you be poisoned with transparency? Only when you are to blame. You have no control over being poisoned via deceit. You cannot protect yourself. With transparency, you can only poison yourself.

            This is a world of predators who deliberately confuse. They’re called “women” but they’re not really human women; they’re inhumane victims of inhumane mothers. Humans need to take responsibility to protect themselves from needy predators of any gender. I do.

            I have never taken advantage of a woman because the women I’m attracted to have no value to exploit. They imagine their value exists in [doing what they want to do 10x more than men do]. That’s not value. I’ve been taken advantage of by hundreds of these leeches. I cannot take advantage of them because, unlike women, I do not perceive value in forcing myself on another human.

            They deliberately confuse men to take advantage. You have heard of cosmetics? Concealment? Clothing used to induce and manipulate desire? Their victims are being conned into caring more than they intended. You have heard of marriage? ‘Meaningful’ relationships? (as if such a thing were possible with a malicious liar looking to sell themselves)

            Should we tell men they’re not mature enough? Damn right we should. No one is mature enough to drink in the company of malicious predators who want everyone to suffer to please them. Men are fools who have been lied to by those they were made to trust with lies and violence expressly intended to snap their encoded rebellious instincts.
            “Do we have sympathy for humans that succumb to human failings (which are also strengths, such as ‘trust’)?”

            There are no human failings. Humans are a deity species. Broken, inhumane, malicious leeches aren’t humane; their failings aren’t human, they’re malicious. They don’t need to lie. They don’t need love. They don’t need the time to be just right. These are filthy leech lies, just like Trust. There is no virtue in Truth. It is not a human strength. It isn’t ever needed except by liars afraid of transparency and truth.

            I am not misogynistic. What reason would I have to hate humane women? The only people who hate humane women are misogynist women who slut-shame them out of competition for their broken slaves. They kill honest girls every single day. I’m humane. I’m pro-human and anti-misogynist leeches. Don’t smear me with your putrid projected lies.

            “Because you’ve never drank too much”

            I have drunken too much on many occasions. Women used to ply me with liquor all the time. The only times I’m furious is when control is taken away from me; by surreptitious poisoning behind my back. I’ve solved that problem (which almost got me killed a few times) by no longer drinking. Period.

            “you’ve never been persuaded by that charismatic friend to have a few more (half dozen) drinks”

            Charismatic friend? Like a pretty girl? Yes, they’ve persuaded me to place myself in exploitable and vulnerable positions often. Countless times.

            Then they fuck you in the ass because what other reason would they have for their deceit? Molestation is what they do. But then I only had myself to blame; their intent was being broadcast on billboards across their faces:


            “Presumably if said friend subsequently fucked you in the ass while you were trying to figure out which was up, you’d shrug your shoulders the next morning and say ‘I should have refused the drinks.’”

            I should have refused every one of their slave poisons. I have always had value. I have never had a need to lie. They have always been leeches looking to deceive. You’re a little confused about reality, predators, and the ‘need’ for deceit.

          • Psychotic Atheist

            “To blur malicious poisoning with transparent hospitality is to conflate evil with decency.”

            Apparently saying it explicitly once was not enough. I am not blurring the two.

            This would be like being accused of blurring the lines between a Prius and a Viper by (quite correctly) saying they are both cars.

            You didn’t answer my question when I asked about deliberately confusing people about how much they are drinking, just went on some unsolicited and unresponsive tirade against women, followed by humanity in general. Could you try again?

            Let’s stipulate that women do indeed use deception, and I’m sorry you felt the need to rant just then. Can we go back to talking about ‘people’. People can use alcohol tactically to get you drunk so they can rob you, shave your hair off, rape you or kill you. Do you agree?

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            People can use alcohol tactically to get you drunk so they can rob you, shave your hair off, rape you or kill you. Do you agree?

            People will do what they’ve been conditioned to do by entertainment media and of course they will use alcohol to lower inhibitions; indeed, lowering the inhibitions of emotionally abused children (in particular, getting women to relax) preoccupies a large portion of Society which has been structured, in part, to facilitate them.

            But people don’t need alcohol to rob you, shave your hair off, rape you or kill you. Either you can operate in Polite (if not quite Civil) Society or you cannot. If you cannot, you shouldn’t be doing things that endanger yourself; like drink alcohol, take illicit drugs, take medication, be deceptive, be abusive, be obnoxious, be callous or rudely inconsiderate, be malicious, be offensive or be flirtatious.

            I have a maid who fancies me and she so unbelievably rude…I can’t fire her because Hell hath no fury…

            The problem is mothers raise children to be antisocial and abusive because the mothers themselves are antisocial and abusive. The children are combative in everything they do (with friend or foe; invariably indistinguishable) because combat and malice is all they know. You can interrupt them in the middle of a demented and impossibly ill-advised attempt to harm you with malice and warn them to stop firing unprovoked shots at you and they panic and lose their minds. They don’t put their rifles away and interact like humans beings because shooting is all they know. And if they’re prevented from shooting at you, they’ll just start shooting at anyone they can (usually they just Self-destruct by shooting themselves in the foot). They have no other gears; malice is all they know.

            I don’t understand the relevance of using alcohol to gain advantage because we live in a world of combative malice created entirely by misogynist women seeking advantage over men and children. Everyone is seeking advantage all the time. How is alcohol relevant unless it’s used to drug you?

            If it is handed to you with transparency, you have drugged yourself. You can take a cheese-grater to your nether regions or a knife to your own throat, what’s the problem? You cannot protect people from themselves or you’ll be mixed up in slavery and patronising, sleazy motherhood.

          • Psychotic Atheist

            I have not made the claim that people need date rape drugs to rape people, only that it is a tool of the trade so to speak.

            You again engaged in a diatribe unrelated to any point I am making so I’ll skip to the last paragraph

            My entire point is that people can with malice aforethought use psychological ploys on people (not the god people you are a member of, apparently), to get them drunker than they intended to.

            They can do this under the guise of ‘transparent hospitality’.

            Do you agree?

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            Of course they can. They can get me to gouge out my eyeball with a spoon if they make a convincing enough case to persuade. This is the cost of doing living business. So long as they’re not gouging my eyeball out, I have to be okay with the risk that I might run into a powerful mind control hypnotist or celebrity that uses their star attraction to convince me that it’s fun, trendy or profitable to gouge out my own eyeball.

            There is nothing that can be done to protect people from themselves. Imagining otherwise is to call for slavery. Mothers looking to control everything their teenage children do are as nauseating as women looking to avoid taking responsibility for their actions during the heady golden years of their malicious exploitation of deceived men.

            If you cannot protect yourself, you must take measures not to interact with the public. If you interact with the public, the sacrosanct line is drawn between imposition and non-imposition. Transparency is non-imposition. That women would want to blame others for their own actions is not remotely surprising but that doesn’t make it any less putrid.

            If they cannot control their own actions, why are they alive at all?

          • Psychotic Atheist

            Hmm, OK, so if you are on average significantly less physically strong than a sizeable proportion of the public – you have to be a hermit.

            This is just more of your misogynistic ranting isn’t it? Women – stay in your homes! If you leave, men will rape you and it’s your fault. At that applies doubly to children – to all the victims of Jimmy Saville, it’s nothing to do with authority figures, important charity fundraisers and a culture of denial – it’s all about you being too weak to defend yourself against sexual predators.

            Nobody is saying people can’t control their own actions, it’s just that other people can influence how you choose to control your actions. And it is possible to be influenced to drink more than you intended. And if someone does employ this influence they are partially responsible for getting you drunk (the degree of which depends on a number of factors I suppose).

            One doesn’t need to be an evil hypnotist to be manipulative and persuasive. Conmen are not hypnotists. Acquaintance rapists don’t all have evil moustaches and a big black hat with a voice that makes you feel sleepy.

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            What are you babbling about? Are you one of the broken children who never learned how to interact with others in a way that wasn’t antisocial, combative and predatory?

            This is what I said:

            Either you can operate in Polite (if not quite Civil) Society or you cannot. If you cannot, you shouldn’t be doing things that endanger yourself; like drink alcohol, take illicit drugs, take medication, be deceptive, be abusive, be obnoxious, be callous or rudely inconsiderate, be malicious, be offensive or be flirtatious.

            If you imagine that traps people in their homes, those people need to get off the planet. We don’t need any more needy breeding mothers of that ilk.

            Nobody is saying people can’t control their own actions, it’s just that other people can influence how you choose to control your actions.

            You’re just babbling nonsense now.

            You sound like the mad women screaming their virtuous lies all over social media. Check this out:

            If you have to choose between being [wrong] and being right, choose being [wrong] and you will always be right.

            That’s literally their value system; they reversed the logic to illogical.God is good. Deceit is nice. War is peace. Men are to blame. They’re batshit insane.

          • Psychotic Atheist

            I see you are the very epitome of civil and rational discourse. Your position is clearly explained, and incontrovertible.

            Now, if you want to either answer my questions or address any of my points rather than dismissing it as ‘babbling’ or taking yet another opportunity to express your disdain for women…I’ll happily engage in said discussion.

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            I read all your questions and points and none are valid. Everyone needs to take personal responsibility for their conduct and stop trying to blame others for leading them astray. It’s nauseating Toddler amoral bullshit.

            You have a broken mind like this guy. It’s horrifying what mothers are doing to humans with violence and lies.

          • Psychotic Atheist

            A constructive response again.

            If you want to explain why my points are not valid, I would be more than happy to read through it.

            I’m not suggesting that people don’t need to take personal responsibility. I am arguing we have to treat others responsibly too.

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            I’m not suggesting that people don’t need to take personal responsibility. I am arguing we have to treat others responsibly too.

            That’s where your entire perspective is corrupted. I’ll tell you what an uncorrupted perspective looks like. Watch.

            I do this thing where I treat myself well and then I don’t need to worry about how other people are treating me.

            You see the value of Self? There is no value in evil, putrid leaching. Many women want men to take care of them so they can be malicious and free and sleep with every guy who understands the need for pretext, duplicity and double-speak. They have no value because they don’t want to take care of themselves. They want everyone else to treat them Right (spoil them) whilst they treat everyone badly because they can. *teehee*

            Then when they’ve burned their youth on making men suffer to please them, they don’t have the mind or the character to contribute value they’ve never contributed; but they don’t have the decency not to impose their malicious existence on Humanity. So they breed children to latch onto and force men / Society / the kids to perpetuate their non-contributing, malicious, leaching, deceit-ridden, needy existence. Lies, love, fear and shame; they erode the Self of their children to make slaves who suffer to please a leech who needs others to please her.

            She not worthless. She’s worth so so so much less than worthless. She’s a liability that destroyed the world.

            For an example of what leeches do to nearly every child, watch this two minute interview (an extreme example, but it’s all the same needy evil).

            Everyone needs to treat themselves Right and stop worrying about how other people treat them.

          • Psychotic Atheist

            People should stop worrying about how others are treating them? You must have a soft spot for oppression and crime.

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            The only thing to fear is fear itself.

            All we have to shame is shame itself.

            When you understand the truth of those two statements, you will realise there is no virtue in worrying about whether or not the world is full of the irrational bogey men imagined by your mother’s needy terror campaigns. Childhood is a Protection racket.

            If you’re not malicious or antisocial, the only enemy you’ll likely face in your life will be your mother. Unless you give them one, no one else really has a motive to hurt you.

            But I was talking about being treated Right (i.e. polite, nice, considerate, presents, marriage, proof of love, commitment, chivalry, etc). It has nothing to do with crime and oppression but once again, your binary mind has conflated two poles into a single consideration. If you’re confused, the difference is one of imposition.

          • Psychotic Atheist

            And I was talking about exploiting human psychology and impairment of inhibitions, judgement and motor function of alcohol. Your fallacious arguments about other things don’t interest me I’m afraid. Do you have anything to say on the subject of date rape?

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            Do you have anything to say on the subject of date rape?

            I have quite a bit to say, actually. I know a little bit about this phenomenon.
            I was 19 and in love with a girl who liked me but she was kind of frigid and proper. I loathe imposition so after I made this weak pass at her drunk one night, only for her to recoil, I never dared to try again. I understand that “No” means “No”. I say what I mean and mean what I say, because to do otherwise is batshit insane.

            I was annoyed when I heard she agreed to go on a date with this real edgy creep who I didn’t care for at all; he’d done nothing to me, he just wasn’t very good-looking but somehow he seemed he was sleeping with a new girl every other night and I was sleeping alone (not my preference). But “No” means “No”. And no, they never explained what their problem/s were, so I’d just leave them alone. “No” means “No”. Everyone who isn’t insane knows that.

            The girl I loved was date-raped. She told me in tears. I was gutted. I wondered if I should have warned her I didn’t like him, but I had no idea he was a rapist. I still felt responsible and I imagined she blamed me as well; or why would she even tell me? It was all very traumatic. I urged her to make a report, I even got her an officer to do up the charge sheet (this is military academy) and agree to prosecute but was having none of it. She swore me to silence. I was going to report it anyway as I figured she must have told me for a reason but I would have looked pretty stupid if I had. It was all a very traumatic experience; not that week so much as that entire year of her dating her rapist.

            He who dares, wins.
            A few years later, I was working the bar at a large cocktail lounge and coming off shift when I saw this biker dude put something in his date’s drink and quickly swirl it in before acting like nothing had happened. I had an ethical crisis and I’m embarrassed to say I really screwed up. I’ve always regretted not doing the right thing.

            I was alright in the end but only by miraculous intervention. I saw the girl coming back and knowing I’d just agonise until it was too late, I just quickly blurted it out and winced. The room went silent and everyone looked to stare at the biker for his reaction but he was just looking at the girl who was shaking. She was hopping mad. Nothing could have prepared me for what happened next.

            She lost her mind and started yelling. Shrill incoherence. She was furious at someone but strangely, not at him so much as me. Somehow, I became her enemy. I was staring at this psychotic banshee scream and I was frozen trying to make sense of how she could be yelling at me when I watched her pick up her champagne glass and smash it on the forearm which had come up to protect my face. The biker had saved my ass. Nothing made sense any more.

            He apologised with an embarrassed sort of look, as if to say, “It’s complicated, kid; wish I could explain” before he picked her up like a rag doll and calmly walked out of the front entrance and down the street as she kicked and screamed like a deranged Toddler trapped in the crook of his left arm.
            A couple years later, I was pretty wasted leaving a recovery club with one of the cutest damn girls I’d ever seen. She was smashed; we could barely stand up and she was dragging me away from my car into an alley down the side of the nightclub. She seemed to know where she was going and I started getting creeped out imagining and half-expecting her to suddenly be sober and serious and holding a knife to my throat. I thought she might have even had an accomplice waiting to help roll me but it’s testament to how cute she was that I let her drag me halfway down the alley but it was nothing like that.

            She just wanted to have sex. I’m kind of prim I guess, so I was uncomfortable with being in public so I was trying to convince her to wait until we were home but she wanted sex right there, right then and nothing was going to stop her. She’d ripped her blouse off, tearing it in the process and she was struggling with my belt and I caught a whiff of stench and I looked down to see we were standing in a gutter. The refuse water which might have been urine was splashing up onto her bare legs and on my jeans but she didn’t feel a thing. She had sex on her mind, and her ferocity was way too disturbing. Something wasn’t right. She was too keen. I was getting an ominous vibe, trying to work out why a girl that cute would be obsessed with sex and all I could think was, “She must have AIDS or something WTF?” She was way too keen.

            I suddenly wanted out so I started backing away, apologising and I must have had a horrified, repulsed look on my face because she blushed beetroot red with embarrassment and shame as our eyes met. I watched her tiny little mind go clunk clunk clunk before I saw her eyes sparkle to life as an evil, mischievous smirk spread slowly across her face and I thought “No way” just as she yelled “HELP! SOMEBODY HELP ME.”

            I’d been backing away but I froze as I’m not going to run when I’ve done nothing wrong but I was in pretty bad shape. She was dangerously adorable; I could see some police officers taking things into their own hands in disgust at the riff-raff unable to control himself enough to respect the pretty young lady. Perhaps she’d even be grateful if they showed some initiative?

            “The creep had some real fight in him but he won’t be bothering anyone in a hurry. Lucky we happened along. It took the two of us all nearly 10 min to subdue him.”

            I’ve seen guys lose their minds around pretty girls; all insanity is on the table. It’s real power and it’s held by vicious little amoral demons.

            I was hissing, cussing her out, threatening, pleading with her to stop her filthy lying; but she wasn’t interested. She was having fun and it was all a big game for her. I’d hurt her (albeit inside her imagination) so she needed to hurt me (get me killed or worse, in reality). Fair is fair.

            Then she stopped having fun and a chill shot up my spine. Her smile had faded from her face and I realised she’d internalised the revisioned history. Now she really believed I’d tried to rape her and she was clearly frightened of me and angry, yelling louder and more desperately for help. I could have silenced her pretty quickly and probably should have but I’d been conditioned not to. So I didn’t.

            Two big fellows came out of the club, probably security guards. Both substantially larger than I was. I started to babble in my defence but she was yelling over the top of me so I couldn’t be heard without getting into a screaming match. As it turned out, they weren’t interested in listening to either of us; one just waved me off as the other put her to sleep with a practised jab. As if he was swatting a fly. She was out cold before she hit the ground. I don’t hang around when I’ve been told to leave so I only looked back once but I guess they’d had problems with her before.
            This is the reality of the world. It was traumatic at the time but it’s all perfectly logical. I’ve worked it all out. Everyone is slut-shaming little girls. You morons are destroying everything. It’s all been destroyed.

            Girls are trapped between the rock of 5 million years of biology and the hard place of 5000 years of misogyny and it seems to be a close-run thing. When the subconscious mind takes over, there is a perfect logic to the illogic. When the girls lose control of their repressed desire:
            * They get blind drunk at frat parties.
            * They date date rapists.
            * They just have sympathy sex. Girls “sleep with too many guys because [they] feel bad turning them down.” Hah.
            * They have quickies with guys in alleys, or storerooms, or getting a lift home, any guy that understands their need for pretext, euphemism, charades and of course, deniability.

            “I can’t believe I’m doing this. I literally never do this.”

            I slept with so many girls who tried in vain to convince me that they “literally never do it”, one day it finally clicked. They didn’t care what I thought; they weren’t trying to convince me. There was someone else they needed to deceive.

            The pattern is shame avoidance. Rape at a frat house is guilt-free sex. Date rape is controlled guilt-free sex. They don’t want to initiate. They don’t even want to give their consent. Of course they hate sex.

            This is a world of lies and exploitation, rape and molestation, children conditioned with suicidal values to be set loose on battlefields, “Run over some land minds like a good boy, Paradise sure Son, yes; make us proud.” There are no good women. They’re evil without alternatives. This is the real world now.

            All the honest girls are dead.

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            “When I say ‘No’ I really mean ‘Yes’.”
            - girls all over social media.

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            “Kiss me like you [don't have permission] to.”
            - girls all over the world want men to just take control and act without consent.

            And then scream rape. It just depends. Maybe it wasn’t you they meant when they said you? Maybe you did it wrong? Or too right? They’re batshit. Nothing needs to make sense.

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            Women want communication. But men have to read their mind because they ain’t communicating. Na na na.

            Toddler insanity, but everyone is too blind to perceive the horror.

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            “When I say ‘I’m Okay’, I want someone to sexually assault me and say, ‘No, I know better. You need my hardon’.”

            I hate insanity. They scream it, you call them out, they ignore you. They know what they’re doing. They have no idea what they’ve done.

          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            From “Lies! Lies!! Lies!!! The Psychology of Deceit”
            This personal myth is what humans lose their minds defending from perceived assault. Mothers are just raping children dead. They’re so traumatised they imagine the entire world has motive to make them feel bad.

            Only their insanity makes them feel bad. It’s all perception and their minds are broken. That girl screaming “Rape!” was protecting her personal myth from imagined shame threatening to shatter it.

            They project everything that threatens their personal myth. Everything is dumped on guys and children. Every time they’re in trouble, they know it’s the other person’s fault. Just like the girl screaming “Rape!”

            A sociopath is needy. A sociopath is never to blame. You will never get a sociopath to accept culpability unless they’re setting you up for greater fall.

          • Psychotic Atheist


          • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

            Of course not. There is no biological need for lies or violence, imposition or corruption of humane Selfish values. There is no justification for being deceived by illusion intended to induce desire. There is no justification for being stupid enough to rape a girl. There’s no value in imposition.

            One must be aware of sociopaths with variable emotions who don’t care how they felt yesterday when they feel the exact opposite today. Below is an example of some experiments I’m running to produce evidence of women’s variable true feelings.

  • WW

    How did you find the time to write this, what with all the PZ ass licking you have to do.

    You motherfucking A+ crowd and other lying scumbags have no idea what is headed your way.

    Keep it up, scumbags. It’ll only be that much sweeter when the tsunami hits and you gnat farts are relegated to the “where are they now?” bin.

    Or just end your own miserable life and make the world a better place. You’re more a net negative to the world than a dozen southern baptists.

    • rg57

      This is escalating rather a lot…

    • http://oolon.co.uk/ oolon

      What will happen to “WW”‘s world if there is no libel suit or Shermer loses it? Don’t worry it will all be some conspiracy by the feminazis at A+ who control the world from their moonbase, or something equally deranged.

      • Richard Sanderson

        What will happen to you if PZ loses a libel suit, loses his job, loses his house, and loses his reputation? Hold on a minute, the sexist jerk has already lost his reputation. Saying that, he could still pretend to invite women on stage to act like a sexist prick to them in front of an audience. You meanwhile, could go back to watching your child p0rn.

  • Ibis3

    How do we know this even happened, Ian? This ‘Michael Shermer’ person could be a figment of your imagination and this article is merely the result of a conspiracy concocted with Rebecca Watson for the lulz….um, I mean a malicious ploy just to get blog hits.

    • http://liberaloutlook.wordpress.com/ Arpit Chauhan

      LOL. But, the amount of evidence required for a belief s proportional to the extraordinariness of the claim (in the sense of its base rates being low) and the impact on the “moral landscape” if that belief is taken as true.

  • ToadieJay

    If someone accused me of rape I wouldn’t defer to a bunch of legal talk I’d say “WTF! I NEVER RAPED ANYONE! I NEVER EVEN CAME CLOSE TO RAPING ANYONE! I’VE NEVER HARASSED ANYONE! I DENY THESE CHARGES CATEGORICALLY!!! That’s what I’d say. I wouldn’t threaten people who accuse me first. I’d defend myself against the charges first. Me not being a rapist.

    • Crotalus

      To what purpose? “You’re a liar” would be the response.

      Make them prove it in court.

    • Richard Sanderson

      You’re assuming the above “interview” happened. Further, Shermer does deny the charges in the statements provided above. Can’t you read? Of course, this is assuming the “interview” above actually happened!

      • ToadieJay

        Not really. “Completely false charge” is legal double talk. It leaves open the possibility of being guilty of a lesser charge.

        • Richard Sanderson

          I think you’re being…what’s the term? Hyperskeptical!

          I find it HILARIOUS that people are trying to come to conclusions based on a troll-interview. Shows how “skeptical” some of these Baboons are.

          • http://oolon.co.uk/ oolon

            Hehe “Skeptical” Rich lacks reading comprehension and thinks the whole email exchange is faked… Well done, a hyper-skeptical cookie for you!

          • Richard Sanderson

            Go back to defending Greg Laden, the stalker of women and sender of violent threats. Plus, have you seen you picture at The Pit? HEY YOU GUYS! You’re an ugly git.

            PS: Looking forward to seeing PZ get ruined? I’m loving all this.

          • J_Enigma32

            At least baboons show the possibility for reading comprehension, unlike some people…

        • AmbivalentCynic

          “Well, you may not be guilty of THIS crime but you’re surely guilty of something! Are men not sinful beings?”


    • rg57

      “I didn’t rape anyone” is never going to convince anyone. It’s a losing strategy.

      While public relations is certainly a different matter than providing evidence, I nevertheless find it useful to point to a YouTube video explaining how your straightfoward, true, claims of innocence can be used against you in surprising (to me, at least) ways.


    • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

      What you would do is trap yourself in an endless back and forth where you’re forced to deny you’re a rapist over and over and over again.

    • Pitchguest

      Why should you even have to indulge people in denying those charges, when there’s not even a smidgeon of evidence to support them? So they accuse you of being a rapist, you deny them. Fine. What if they later accuse you of something else equally as heinous? They are defaming you in public, would you just keep repeating, “No, I didn’t do it, I deny those charges categorically” without ever going to the proper authorities?

      Besides, his guilt is being prescribed for him by self-appointed jury members. So imagine if you were Shermer and you find it written online that someone told someone else that they were raped by you, and that someone else told a relatively known blogger to publish that you are, in fact, a rapist. And even though you deny the charges categorically, as you say, they just keep repeating it, and they even publish it on other blogs as well. You wouldn’t even consider legal aid at this point, to shut the libel down once and for all?

  • rg57

    I’m confused. Who said Ayn Rand raped Shermer?

  • ahemcough

    Can someone please explain what’s so clever/great about this piece? I really don’t get it and I’m not saying that in the sense that I think it’s dumb. I just really don’t get what it’s supposed to show (so, rather in the sense that *I* am dumb).

    Is the fact that Shermer seems to stumble and nitpicking his statements can show that he’s a bit of a goof? Do you think he just comes across as an asshole for what may seem like threatening/silencing statements that can’t be actually backed up legally? Or just the fact that he’s talking and commenting on the current situation even though he said he didn’t want to?

    What’s so brilliant about it?

    • Jacob Schmidt

      Notice all the comments about Shermer being “confusing”, despite everyone knowing full well what Shermer meant? Rape victims get that a lot.

      • Pitchguest

        No, we haven’t noticed “all the comments” about him being confusing, because there aren’t any. Maybe you’re the one that’s confused, Jacob?

        • Jacob Schmidt

          From the article:

          “To be honest, no, I am not totally clear on your [Shermer's] meaning.”

          “Now I’m just absolutely baffled.”

          Two lines explicitly stating confusion and many paragraphs following those lines detailing facetious reasons for confusion.

          The comments are in the bloody article, and are so heavy handed I imagine Murphy often facepalmed while writing them. How the fuck did you miss that?

          • Pitchguest

            “Notice all the comments about Shermer being “confusing”, despite everyone knowing full well what Shermer meant?”

            I suppose it could have something to do with your poor parsing. Or did Murphy undergo mitosis when I wasn’t looking?

            But then what I do know, English is only my third language.

          • Jacob Schmidt

            Are there people confused about what Shermer was trying to say? If so, I’ll edit that to “most people”; as far as I can tell though, the meaning was bloody obvious. Murphy’s deliberate “confusion” was the joke here.

    • ahemcough

      Sigh, asking an honest question gets you downvotes and no clear responses. Clearly some people thought I had ulterior motives.

      • Jacob Schmidt

        Sorry, I thought I was clear. A common dismissal sexual assault victims receive is the assertion that it was “just a misunderstanding” that happened “because she was confusing” (I don’t know if the same claim is often levied at male victims; it may be that male victims aren’t discussed often enough for me to notice the same pattern with them).

        Murphy plays up the confusion to draw a parallel.

  • Tony Thompson

    Michael Shermer shows once again what a piece of work he is. I find his very name repulsive.

    • Pitchguest

      Because he defends himself against allegations of rape, which we don’t know is even true – only PZ’s and Carrie’s word that what their source says is accurate? And because of this he is a piece of work and deemed “repulsive” in your eyes?

  • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

    An Ayn Rand fan is alleged by anonymous women to have taken advantage of their “socialisation” (which forces them to pretend to like everyone they hate because you can’t seek advantage if you’re honest) and he is subjected to this Toddler harassment by the media?

    This is truly a Toddler world of malice and lies.

  • dawn

    crotalus only playing games, every time i offer the detectives number and name, he dodges that form of proof that shermer was charged for harassment before..games..bevause a phone call is proof…i dont have time to play with you bird man as you dodge a simple convo woth a washington police man to confirm michaels previous arrest

    • Maude

      God told you that one too, dawn? Your bullshit isn’t working, sorry.

  • Crow T Robot

    I didn’t know Shermer was a member of Ayn Rand’s little club of objectivist ubermenchen. Kind of explains a few things about his bloated ego, don’t it?

    • Pitchguest

      Bloated ego does not make you a rapist. Do you have any concrete evidence to support the accusation of Shermer being a rapist, or will you just keep using ad-hominem attacks?

      • J_Enigma32

        That’s not an ad hominem, jackass.

        An ad hominem is this:

        “Frank says we should by a pool.”
        “Yeah, well Frank sells pools, so of course he’d want us to buy one.”

        Saying: “You have a bloated ego” is not an ad hominem. It’s an insult. And a well-deserved one, at that.

        • Pitchguest

          You didn’t see the comment preceding it?

          “I didn’t know Shermer was a member of Ayn Rand’s little club of objectivist ubermenchen.”

          And now the insult:

          “Kind of explains a few things about his bloated ego, don’t it?”

          He’s a “member” of Ayn Rand’s “objectivist ubermenchen”, therefore he’s got a “bloated ego.” Not an ad-hominem? You’d be hardpressed to convince me it’s not.

          But remembering why this conversation even takes place, Michael Shermer has been accused of rape and Ian Murphy made an article mocking his predicament. In fact, the rape accusation was the point of contention by which the “interview” ran its course. But I don’t see a connection between being a fan of Ayn Rand, a bloated ego and being a rapist. Do you? I don’t see the connection between being an asshole, an idiot and being a rapist. Do you?

          Because I’ve seen various comments to imply just that, and those are ad-hominem tactics. Or maybe I’m just being too sensitive. Let me know.

    • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

      Kind of explains a few things about the malicious feminist slander and smear campaign, don’t it? Women need to make up their minds.

      • J_Enigma32

        Men need to make up their mind. Which is it, are you against Bush or are you for him?

        • http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/ jonny

          Why would I be for a sociopath?

          If you’re trying to make the argument that things aren’t black and white, it’s not a good argument. Things are black and white; only humans are compromised. Only humans are inhumane; children reflect their mother’s value system. Women who reduce themselves (100% of women and 1% of men know why) raise children to imagine combat and exploitation is “Selfish”.

          Mutually Assured Destruction and existential misery is not “Selfish”. You are only Selfish if you pursue the best interests of your Self; and you can only do that if you are humane.

          Bush wasn’t wrong about the line in the sand. If you’re not with him, you’re against him. Those who weren’t against him were with him. Everyone who wasn’t against him was evil.

          Needy, demented, tiny, malicious, abused children of stupidly reduced victims of misogyny (children like Dubya, his father and his War-profiteering, Hitler-financing grandfather) destroyed this world of beauty. But men don’t give birth. Cultural values are dictated by whomever gets in first. Women created a world of horror and then complain about it splashing back onto them. There are no men who are misogynist. Only women can be misogynist. Men who appears to be misogynist are merely the deceived sons of misogynist women who lie to men and slut-shame honest girls.

          All the honest girls die. It doesn’t matter how; all that matters is why. Lying women need honest girls to die. Their existence is a threat to women’s maniacally stupid, delusional, Right to enslave boys with violence and men with lies.

    • Richard Sanderson

      To see PZ fanboys shout about egoism is a joyous peacock’s parade of hypocrisy and parody.

  • http://shameonbetterbirth.wordpress.com/ Shameon Betterbirth

    in the book ‘trauma and recovery’ it says a perpetrator’s biggest fear is having the truth told about their actions.

  • http://oolon.co.uk/ oolon

    One thing that does surprise me is that the defenders of male rape victims at the Slymepit (Or at least they appear in every thread about female rape victims to point out male ones exist as well) … Are not making a big deal about this -


    Very much not anonymous and very clear that he was literally raped by Michael Shermer.

    • Pitchguest

      Big deal? We’re waiting for the big reveal. Even PZ’s anonymous source would need to provide unequivocally that Shermer raped her, in terms of date, time, circumstances, etc. Specifics. If all the evidence you needed to prove someone raped them is “they raped me”, there’d be a lot more “rapists” in jail.

      The difference between Dallas and PZ’s anonymous source is just that; anonymity. The difference is that Dallas’ case could be driven before a jury and be judged on its merits; PZ’s case can simply be dismissed for lack of evidence, especially if he refuses to name his source, or provide more specific information to narrow it down. It’s possible he’s already doing this (within closed channels this time, and with a lawyer present), but I doubt it. He’s too much of a blowhard for that.

      • glennd1

        And of course the passage of time dims memories and artifacts like elevator vidcam and other security tapes are purged, bartenders and other guests forget the even whereas they might recall them if it were recent. My guess is that she was talked into presenting this as a case of rape by a radfem. Her language about being coerced into not giving consent is obtuse and a strange construction. Coercion is a specific term under the law and filling a wine glass or buying someone a drink doesn’t get there by a long shot.

  • KickMyJunk

    Anyone else think Shermer bares a passing resemblance to Roose Bolton on Game of Thrones?

  • glennd1

    Wow, you are a total douche. Snarkiness doesn’t substitute for wit and your offhand and pesky tone are absurd given the seriousness of what’s involved here. Clearly Shermer made a mistake having an interchange with you in any way. Sure, you can publish it and may or may not be attached to a defamation/libel case as a result (courts are notoriously imprecise in these cases so if you get slapped, you asked for it), but the question that occurs to me is why are you such a fatuous dick?

    • xdrta

      Sure, he’s going to get sued for libel for publishing Shermer’s own words. What fantasy world do you live in?

      • glennd1

        I guess reading isn’t your strong suit. Did you just skip over my parenthetical comment? If it’s a civil proceeding, the courts and the law are a bit all over the place with defamation,and it’s hard to predict who will be drawn into such asuit – hence the nature of my comment. By simply publishing the accusations, he may create some liability – we’ll see. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong, but truthfully, given the attitude of Murphy, I couldn’t care less what happens to him. His writing is so self-conscious and fatuous that we’d all be better off if he returned to the food service or hospitality industry where I’m sure his pose would be well received.

        • xdrta

          You mean the part where you say you don’t know what you are talking about? I got that. Did you read the article, by the way? You say, “By simply publishing the accusations,” which, of course, he did not do, he simply published Shermer’s own words about the situation, from Shermer’s own emails. Suggesting that this leaves him open to a libel suit shows that thinking is not your strong suit.

    • J_Enigma32

      Someone’s jealous they’re not as funny as this article…

  • matt

    This is the first time in a while that I have seen the commment count on the beast reach into the triple digits on any post since Koch Whores. Caigoy shrugs got less.

    I don’t know if that’s good or bad.

    Nonetheless, it was a solid piece.

  • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

    Rape is a violent physical and mental assault, but it usually is over
    with quickly and the process of recovery can begin. It is much more
    difficult than it need be because society tends to treat the victim as
    part of the trouble, whether it is because the victim was “asking for
    it” or “is a bad person” or “maybe they were just
    unlucky but I don’t want to associate with unlucky people” is behind it
    really doesn’t matter. When people know somebody has been raped, the
    victim is revictimised every day.

    The protections the legal
    system (correctly) provides to those accused of rape unfortunately means
    that taking a rapist to court effectively constitutes another assault
    on the victim, less physically violent but as bad mentally and vastly
    more protracted. And while it is happening, the process of recovery

    Most people are raped by people they know. Often they
    don’t want to bring the force of the law down on the heads of those who
    raped them. Many rape victims feel guilt, in part because of social
    pressures, but particularly after dealing with authorities that treat
    the victim as a contributing factor. Many people are simply unable to
    deal with the second trauma of dealing with the authorities after a
    rape. Even more people are quite incapable of dealing with the system
    for the years that a rape trial can continue; especially when the rapist
    is from a privileged background, because the system is biased in a
    myriad ways against the less affluent – particularly in so far as
    quality of representation is concerned and a competent defence attorney
    can exacerbate the ordeal of a trial into something few humans can
    tolerate – especially after being raped.

    And then there is the
    realization, even as you go through the process, that 60% of defendants
    will walk free, and in 73% of cases you know the rapist and in 50% of
    cases the rapist lives within a mile of the victim and it seems as if
    the threat of a repeat performance is very real and 46% of convicted
    rapists will become recifdivists and that means that even if your rapist
    is convicted you may someday have to face him again and the temptation
    not to put up with this game becomes overwhelming. [Statistics from

    Small wonder that 54% of rapes are never reported and 97% of rapists
    will never spend a day in jail. As a victim in these circumstances, you
    need to live with the added guilt that the rapist, having “got away”
    with the last attack, is probably going to go on and repeat the offence.
    And that will likely be with somebody like yourself. To any socially
    responsible person, the temptation to try to warn these potential future
    victims is very real. But for all the above reasons, you may not want
    to drag yourself through the court system – and because you don’t want
    to be revictimised, you don’t want to be identified.

    So you mention it to your friends, and you discover that the rapist or attempted rapist has raped or attempted to rape others who feel as you do. And suddenly the PZ Myers approach seems to have great merit. People, this is an anonymous warning that may or may not have merit, but it is coming from multiple sources so think carefully about how much you expose yourself to this alleged serial attacker.

    It might be horribly unfair, but making it harder for somebody to steal a quicky at a conference isn’t nearly as costly as somebody having to recover from a rape or near rape.

    Even if some non-victims, potential rapists and weak thinkers think it is really, really wrong to do this.

    Thank-you PZ

  • Archives

  • Warning: require_once(all_images/config.php) [function.require-once]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /nfs/c09/h03/mnt/134940/domains/buffalobeast.com/html/wp-content/themes/Beast/footer.php on line 28

    Fatal error: require_once() [function.require]: Failed opening required 'all_images/config.php' (include_path='.:/usr/local/php-5.3.29/share/pear') in /nfs/c09/h03/mnt/134940/domains/buffalobeast.com/html/wp-content/themes/Beast/footer.php on line 28