A flowchart for how to deal with sexual assault allegations

I made this. I hope it helps with when to talk about it, and when to shut up. (Text below the fold)

howtodealwithsexualassaultallegations

Title:

Someone of position and power has been accused of sexual assault. How should we atheists and skeptics deal with it?

Decision point A:

Wait… first, is the alleged attacker an atheist / skeptic, or religious?

Branch 1:

He’s one of us, unfortunately

Result:

The bitch is OBVIOUSLY making it all up!

There’s no way our dear leader would do anything like that! Do whatever you can to discredit her!

(But pretend like what you really want is evidence, like enough to put him in jail at bare minimum, before allowing anyone to discuss this possibility, because that seems totes rational, and less emotional and knee-jerk.)

Branch 2:

It was a Catholic priest!

Result:

THEY SHOULD STRIP HIM OF ALL RANK AND POWER!

Make him pay right now, to hell with your due process!

This is clearly the fault of religion, and let’s never let those religious jerks forget it!

(*phew*, you had me worried for a second there.)

Center background, small, faded:
Decision point B:

HEY! I’m a FEMINIST skeptic! What about “trust but verify”?

Result:

QUIET, no talking out of turn, you social justice warrior, female and/or mangina!

{advertisement}
A flowchart for how to deal with sexual assault allegations

20 thoughts on “A flowchart for how to deal with sexual assault allegations

  1. 3

    Sad but true.
    Must be some kind of tribal thing: criticising those other folks is fine, but show up the dirt under your own rug, and you’re a “Nestbeschmutzer” – literally “one who fouls their own nest”, pretty much the biggest crime in the book. Therefore you need to be howled down / thrown out of the community.
    The funny thing (OK, the weird thing) is that these guys think of themselves as being rational.

  2. 4

    The funny thing (OK, the weird thing) is that these guys think of themselves as being rational.

    I keep saying this. They define themselves as rational so they think their natural thought process and correct reasoning are the same thing. When someone disagrees with them, they just keep repeatedly describing their thought process, each time with more words, because they actually think you’re not following it. I’m fairly convinced at this point that most of these people don’t actually understand that correct reasoning is a conscious process with rules that aren’t arbitrary.

  3. 5

    Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    They define themselves as rational so they think their natural thought process and correct reasoning are the same thing.

    The same goes for “logical” versus “emotional”. Their opinions are by their definition logical, and any dissent is by their definition emotional. I’ve even seen them use the phrases “evidence based” and “anecdotal” the same way.

    They do a similar thing with logical fallacies, shouting their names as if they’re magical incantations, capable of automatically refuting an argument. (Most notably saying “ad hominem”, when what they actually mean is “hurt my pwecious fee fees”.)

    I’m fairly convinced at this point that most of these people don’t actually understand that correct reasoning is a conscious process with rules that aren’t arbitrary.

    I call them cargo cult skeptics. They try to emulate some of the things that skeptics do, while utterly failing to grasp the underlying concept. They think that skepticism is a state of enlightenment that they’ve achieved, rather than a method to be employed.

  4. 16

    Pretty well sums it up.

    @NotTheMikeYouAreLookingFor, #8:

    Don’t forget the friendlyatheist approach of “this isn’t happening, this isn’t happening, this isn’t happening”

    I haven’t been following Mehta’s blog lately… did he have a post on this subject that my (admittedly weak) Google-Fu couldn’t bring up?

  5. 17

    You said it, so it must be true. That’s how it works here, right? We all just nod our heads and give our ‘sad, but true’ and ‘hit the nail on the head’ sentiments.

    Interesting fact: I didn’t actually notice the ‘sad, but true’ comment above before writing this post. Sad, but true.

  6. 18

    The important thing is obviously not the accuracy of the above flowchart as pertains the situation we actually face in this community, but rather that you’ve found a way to feel superior to all involved, Stephen. Congratulations. I am very happy for you and your sense of accomplishment. *slow clap*

Comments are closed.