Those who are familiar with Scott Alexander’s stories about Kathy Forth said that he slandered her on the basis of her mental health, without ever having met her.
Scott said: “She had a paranoia for being targeted for rape”
Sorry, where did Scott say that?
It is easy to guess where that paranoia comes from. People whose houses burned down panic at the smell of smoke. If anything at all, this indicates that she has indeed experienced rape.
She could’ve experienced rape many years before becoming involved in EA. Perhaps that created a paranoia that lead to her making false accusations once she became involved in EA.
“Investigations had found it to be false”—The conviction rate for sexual assault is abysmally low.
“The conviction rate for sexual assault is abysmally low” doesn’t help us figure out whether a given person is guilty or innocent. We want the conviction rate for innocent people to be low. (Could you confirm that you’re on board with that, at least?)
Just because an incident couldn’t be proven doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Scott is epistemologically incorrect here.
This sounds like a fully general way to excuse any false accusation.
Suppose I say: “Mandelbrot is a thief.” You say: “Where’s the proof?” I say: “Just because an incident couldn’t be proven doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. You’re epistemologically incorrect here.” How does that make you feel?
In any case… I think the most productive discussion here is about the rules of engagement. What is the right way to discuss the possibility of a false accusation, without being accused of ostracization, harm, slander, dismissiveness, etc.?
If there’s no right way to discuss the possibility of a false accusation, we can’t trust the community to come to accurate conclusions, which leaves us in the dark.
I think if you believe that false accusations are rare, the thing to do is work to create a widely trusted investigative process. If there’s an investigative process which is widely trusted, and it finds that most accusations are true, people will see the pattern.
That’s not what Maya said.
Sorry, where did Scott say that?
She could’ve experienced rape many years before becoming involved in EA. Perhaps that created a paranoia that lead to her making false accusations once she became involved in EA.
“The conviction rate for sexual assault is abysmally low” doesn’t help us figure out whether a given person is guilty or innocent. We want the conviction rate for innocent people to be low. (Could you confirm that you’re on board with that, at least?)
This sounds like a fully general way to excuse any false accusation.
Suppose I say: “Mandelbrot is a thief.” You say: “Where’s the proof?” I say: “Just because an incident couldn’t be proven doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. You’re epistemologically incorrect here.” How does that make you feel?
In any case… I think the most productive discussion here is about the rules of engagement. What is the right way to discuss the possibility of a false accusation, without being accused of ostracization, harm, slander, dismissiveness, etc.?
If there’s no right way to discuss the possibility of a false accusation, we can’t trust the community to come to accurate conclusions, which leaves us in the dark.
I think if you believe that false accusations are rare, the thing to do is work to create a widely trusted investigative process. If there’s an investigative process which is widely trusted, and it finds that most accusations are true, people will see the pattern.