Open Bar: Subpoenaed by Congress, but still refusing to testify

[Cramulus]

If they do, and any actual coercion has taken place, I guess he will join Hunter Thompson on the list of "writers I used to read."

Up to you. I still read Lovecraft, Frank Herbert, etc... It's a messy world and you're not gonna find an island with no shit on it.

But let me ask you this, concerning looking at the world:

If you were accused of crimes you didn't commit, would you prefer jurors who believe the victim, or jurors who demand that the prosecution produce actual evidence of your alleged crimes?

Because looking at this conversation, you're going to prison any which way.

I mean, I think I'd want a jury that believes me no matter what side I was on 

In general, I think it's better for a bunch of guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to go to jail.

but I also don't think my opinion about whether or not Warren Ellis is an asshole needs the same rigor as a criminal trial.


Women who were abused in some way have an enormous burden of proof in order to make any consequences land. Merely making the accusation is often humiliating, and a huge risk to career and reputation. During the #MeToo buzz, learning how many of these incidents go without any consequences whatsoever shifted me to a "Trust, then verify" stance." It seems like the opposite, "mistrust until you're convinced" often lets people off the hook. For decades, in Weinstein and Cosby's case!  I'll believe these women until I encounter something that would make me question that. Abusers in positions of power already have a home-field advantage.

[Doktor Howl]

If they do, and any actual coercion has taken place, I guess he will join Hunter Thompson on the list of "writers I used to read."

Up to you. I still read Lovecraft, Frank Herbert, etc... It's a messy world and you're not gonna find an island with no shit on it.

This is true.  But once I find out someone brutalized their spouse, their work just stops mattering.

I mean, I think I'd want a jury that believes me no matter what side I was on 

In general, I think it's better for a bunch of guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to go to jail.

but I also don't think my opinion about whether or not Warren Ellis is an asshole needs the same rigor as a criminal trial.

The way people act in everyday life is how they're going to act on a jury.  Principles don't change because they're sitting in a box.

Women who were abused in some way have an enormous burden of proof in order to make any consequences land. Merely making the accusation is often humiliating, and a huge risk to career and reputation. During the #MeToo buzz, learning how many of these incidents go without any consequences whatsoever shifted me to a "Trust, then verify" stance." It seems like the opposite, "mistrust until you're convinced" often lets people off the hook. For decades, in Weinstein and Cosby's case!  I'll believe these women until I encounter something that would make me question that. Abusers in positions of power already have a home-field advantage.

And it took the alt-right about 30 seconds to weaponize that, and the left falls for it like clockwork.

[Cramulus]

Women who were abused in some way have an enormous burden of proof in order to make any consequences land. Merely making the accusation is often humiliating, and a huge risk to career and reputation. During the #MeToo buzz, learning how many of these incidents go without any consequences whatsoever shifted me to a "Trust, then verify" stance." It seems like the opposite, "mistrust until you're convinced" often lets people off the hook. For decades, in Weinstein and Cosby's case!  I'll believe these women until I encounter something that would make me question that. Abusers in positions of power already have a home-field advantage.

And it took the alt-right about 30 seconds to weaponize that, and the left falls for it like clockwork.

sure, but are you saying these women accusing Ellis are part of the alt-right?

or are you saying that "trust but verify" is cancelled because sometimes people make fake accusations?

[minuspace]

Women who were abused in some way have an enormous burden of proof in order to make any consequences [/size]

It's also problematic just to bring the issue forth, let alone to make it public AND with support. This not statistical inference but from being "in the rooms" which is difficult to transpose onto digital medium for me. Plus I can just barely vote, so.

[Doktor Howl]

Women who were abused in some way have an enormous burden of proof in order to make any consequences land. Merely making the accusation is often humiliating, and a huge risk to career and reputation. During the #MeToo buzz, learning how many of these incidents go without any consequences whatsoever shifted me to a "Trust, then verify" stance." It seems like the opposite, "mistrust until you're convinced" often lets people off the hook. For decades, in Weinstein and Cosby's case!  I'll believe these women until I encounter something that would make me question that. Abusers in positions of power already have a home-field advantage.

And it took the alt-right about 30 seconds to weaponize that, and the left falls for it like clockwork.

sure, but are you saying these women accusing Ellis are part of the alt-right?

or are you saying that "trust but verify" is cancelled because sometimes people make fake accusations?

I addressed this upthread.  It's possible, but not really likely at all.

And I don't subscribe to "trust but verify," I prefer "listen and investigate."  There is a subtle, but very real difference.

[Faust]

If they do, and any actual coercion has taken place, I guess he will join Hunter Thompson on the list of "writers I used to read."

Up to you. I still read Lovecraft, Frank Herbert, etc... It's a messy world and you're not gonna find an island with no shit on it.

The consumption of media by flawed artists is a fickle one. I read burroughs not in spite of the horrible life he led, but because of it. Shot his wife, slept with a 15 year old rent boy, got his alcoholic son back on drink until the liver failure.

But then listening to seal bothers me becUse he peed on a girl

[Cramulus]

The consumption of media by flawed artists is a fickle one. I read burroughs not in spite of the horrible life he led, but because of it. Shot his wife, slept with a 15 year old rent boy, got his alcoholic son back on drink until the liver failure.

But then listening to seal bothers me becUse he peed on a girl

wait --- what?? 

[Faust]

Sorry I am overtired and brain dead, It was R kelly peed on the girl
I was thinking kiss from a rose batman and not i believe i can fly and space jam

[Cain]

I can't listen to Lostprophets after what happened. I tried, but I really can't.

I can handle Lovecraft etc but obviously that's a magnitude of difference even from that. As for R Kelly, I don't understand how he still dares show his face in public, let alone continues to be as successful as he does.

[Faust]

Warren Ellis unreservedly admitted what happened, with the only out he gave himself being he didn't realise he had any position of power.
He doesnt go into specifics, just apologised for everything and deplatformed himself

[Pergamos]

I didn't like R Kelly's music before he got in trouble for peeing on a kid.  I feel like if he were singing about peeing on kids, instead of your usual R&B garbage he might be worth listening to.

[Faust]

Not automatically assuming guilt does not mean NOT taking an accusation seriously.  It just means you examine the available evidence.

Well, I agree. The difference seems to be that I consider the testimony of multiple women to be compelling evidence.

After all, it wouldn't be rational to AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME they're guilty of lying, would it

Two things:

One, do we know these are real people? Are names attached? Has a trustworthy third party vetted them to see that at the bare minimum they're more than Nazi socks? Considering this is a real thing that's really happening, if I have to question the reality of a person's existence I cannot equally give their statements weight. Reality comes first.

Two, do we have anything to say, IF these people exist, that these people are specifically UNtrustworthy? Again, reality comes first: once people are proven to exist I believe them more. (And this is enough people that if they do indeed have independently verifiable existence the sheer numbers are worth more consideration than the possibility of any lies.)

I have not seen evidence of real people yet. I might be in a bubble of no-info, though, and I admit I haven't done the digging myself, kind of in a fucking crisis. If someone has evidence of real people rather than anonymous usernames on the Internet, my default switches from "probably fake" to "probably true".

Because in the end, reality comes first.


I think Howl, Faust and others disagree with me on this, but the fact is that it's my approach, it has a logical basis, and I've never had cause to regret it.

I never doubt the people are real, but I dont trust any new people I encounter for a very long time it's somewhat of a character flaw. I assume the worst possible characteristics and work from there.

In this case there was someone I do trust the opinion of, zeoetica https://twitter.com/zoetica who I've followed since about 2008 (its entirely possible I followed her through Warren Ellis recommendations)

When she said "An argument I keep seeing: this is about "consenting adults". No. None of us consented to being manipulated, or to becoming a disposable part of a remote stable. You can not give consent if you don't have the entire picture."

That solidified it in my mind, but I was still waiting to see if Warren would confirm or deny it, and he hasn't denied it, he has said similar to what I originally said, while a literary success, he was not a commercial success until very recently (the money is in TV not comics), and I believe him when he says he didn't realise what he was doing, it doesn't diminish it, but hopefully that means now that he is conscious of his behavior it can improve.

[altered]

Yeah... I had no familiarity with any of the names I was seeing but Ellis's, and literally not one single person would drop the name of someone they knew independently who was involved in the whole thing. I'm currently worried about survival, so I didn't really have time to go digging. With accusations on anti-fascist figures, my current immediate reaction is "give me one name in this list that you know to be a real person" and then I go from there.

I saw the statement, and I think he couldn't have made a better one. I genuinely think you can attribute "imposter syndrome" to him not realizing the influence he had.

I'm still putting Transmetropolitan away for awhile, and waiting to see how he acts if and when he's no longer in the spotlight. Because that will be what tells the real tale.

[altered]

Also, I just want to say that I now understand WHY everyone despises Pergamos as much as they do. He isn't just low grade shitty here and there the way I thought, he's actually human garbage. Fuck that man with a rake covered in furious ants.

[Doktor Howl]

Warren Ellis unreservedly admitted what happened, with the only out he gave himself being he didn't realise he had any position of power.
He doesnt go into specifics, just apologised for everything and deplatformed himself

Did he admit that he offered to help or threaten to damage a career upon refusal?  Because that's the sticking point for me.